> "The shear size of some of these provinces make the logistical challenge of food delivery almost impossibile."
This is a weak assertion without proof. You can either agree with it, dismiss it or you can question the basis for it. Real logic is entirely useless here (for many reasons), but guessing the basis is logically flawed is perfectly reasonable for humans having a conversation.
Using pedantry to shut down differing opinions isn't useful.
Why invoke logic at all if the argument isn't logic? I don't think it's pedantry to point out that the form of your first sentence is a lot more useful than "feels like a logical fallacy" as an argument (or the "sounds like a logical fallacy" that they've since edited their comment to say).
Near universal food delivery isn't part of the existing logistical system, so it's certainly not surprising that it would be difficult to start doing near universal food delivery. I guess I wasn't super focused on the size part of it.
This is a weak assertion without proof. You can either agree with it, dismiss it or you can question the basis for it. Real logic is entirely useless here (for many reasons), but guessing the basis is logically flawed is perfectly reasonable for humans having a conversation.
Using pedantry to shut down differing opinions isn't useful.