Formal and Informal Logic

I would like to jump in here with a comment that I think is relevant to the OP. It seems to me that the morality discussion is getting a bit off track.To me there really is no such thing as informal logic. Logic is logic. There are rules that are formally spelled out but even if one could not say what those rules are they can still make a logical argument and use correct logic. If I say, "that is not logical" it means that I think one of the "rules" has not been followed. I may not know what rule has been broken, I just know it doesn't seem logical.For example, I might say:
"If we plan to have a picnic, it will rain tomorrow."Everyone knows that is a silly statement - it may or may not rain, but it will have nothing to do with whether we plan a picnic. There is a logic term for what is wrong with it. (I think it is false correlation). But one does not need formal logic training to know there is something wrong. By the way, I don't call this "common sense" - to me common sense is the same as "conventional wisdom," which is quite often wrong. I don't think it has anything to do with logic at all. But I know some may disagree. Edited by deerbreh, : Add subtitle.

Well I can't speak for Robin but let me try again.What I was trying to say is that one doesn't have to "know" the rules of logic in a formal academic sense to present a logical argument. Note I do NOT equate "common sense" with good logic. Now, having said that, if someone disagrees that you have come to a logical conclusion, then you need to try again as I am doing now to explain how your thinking does result in that conclusion. Maybe you will be successful, maybe with the help of the other persion (if they are correct) you will indeed see the contradiction. That is how debate is supposed to work. If two people can't agree then maybe it would be time to consult a reference of logical fallacies to help determine where the problem lies. But I see some people trying to apply rules of logic here in this forum and they really don't know what the technical meanings are. They will say "strawman" and it really wasn't a strawman - a well defined logical term. I think we would be better off trying to debate in such a way as to get people to see the contradictions but not try to be so formal about it unless someone is really being obtuse about a clear logical fallacy - then maybe we should appeal to the technical term and define it as simply as possible with an example so that they can see the logical fallacy in their argument.

Off topic so I am doing a PNTEdited by deerbreh, : off topic

Well you said you wanted a response and maybe I am dense but I fail to see how your statement conflicts with mine. When I said "try again" I wasn't precluding discussion of the premises or explaining some of the finer points of logic to a logic-challenged person.

Well I am at a loss. I took great pains to be specific in saying that I do not accept the notion that "common sense" is logic. I don't know how I can put it any more clearly. I thought I could present some nuanced thoughts without being misunderstood if I added that disclaimer but apparently not so I'll let it go now.