Ken and Cleo are having a discussion:

Cleo: "I think that there is no objective right or wrong. Morality is just a cultural imposition upon the free spirits that we all are."
Ken: "I disagree. It is clear that there are certain things that harm people and certain things that benefit people. A strong case be made from these basic truths in support of a robust moral theory."
Cleo: "I think that you are wrong."
Ken: 'Well, at least let me present my arguments."
Cleo: "I will not accept them."
Ken: 'Why not?"
Cleo: "I also reject logic. It is another trap to keep us from the true expression of our inner beings."
Ken: "Well, I have good reasons to accept logic. I believe that logic is useful and actually a key to freedom. After all, without logic a person is an easy dupe. So, I accept logic as a being useful and worthwhile."
Cleo: "Well that might be true for you, but it certainly isn't true for me. After all, that would entrap my inner spirit and prevent it from flying freely like a metaphysical butterfly."
Ken: "Whatever."Personal AttackRelativist FallacyTwo Wrongs Make a RightAppeal to BeliefPersonal Attack: This is a wrong answer. Cleo is not launching any attack on Ken in order to "refute" his claim.Relativist Fallacy: This is the right answer. Cleo is rejecting Ken's claim simply by asserting that it is true for Ken and not true for Cleo, which is hardly a good reason to accept this.Two Wrongs Make a Right: This is a wrong answer. Cleo is making no attempt to justify any wrong doing by appealing to the fact that another person would do the same thing.Appeal to Belief: This is a wrong answer. Cleo makes no assertion to the effect that most people reject logic so it should be rejected.Is Cleo appealing to what most people believe in order to justify his rejection of logic?2