(September 8, 2016 at 10:21 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:See the defination above sport.Drich Wrote:How is the article "dumb" specifically? Or are you just defaulting to another logical fallacy? Argumentum ad lapidemI'm glad you're studying logical fallacies, Drich; but you still have a little ways to go before your understanding of them is likely to be sufficient to try to use them for analyzing other people's statements. For example, the whole concept of fallacious reasoning doesn't apply to statements that aren't arguments.
(sweeping dismissal without cause)
Am I detecting a pattern of behavior?
Riddle me this sport, if you have to use fallacious reasoning to maintain your position.. what does it generally say about what you believe?
If SerenelyBlue had argued that the article isn't correct because 'it's dumb', the fallacy would have been committed. Judging the article to be dumb is just presenting an opinion. You can't call 'fallacy!' on the reaction 'That's absurd!'. It has to be part of an argument. SerenelyBlue would have made the fallacy if the conversation went like this:
SerenelyBlue: That is a dumb article.
Drich: Why do you think it's dumb?
SerenelyBlue: Because it's obviously dumb!
You are confusing the defination of an informal fallacy (which is contingent on an argument) verse a logical fallacy which is a failed/illogical thought or thinking process.
The informal fallacy is the verbal execution of failure of logical understanding or comprehension.
The OP Failed in his base logic chain. He provided a position/thoughts concerning the topic, then sought to verify with a peer consensus. This is not how logic works. This would be a failure of logic, and a deferment to peer review. Which is fallacious reasoning
So no thanks tom hanks sell you crap to someone else.
