Found this in the wild
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (42)
sorted by:
Let’s go back to what I said earlier. It’s a logical fallacy couched in emotional language. You get what this means correct? None of these statements make a rational argument, they are instead used to flip the chessboard.
I get it, but I'd like to see which logical fallacy. Most of these don't fit in any.
"You're a right-wing whacko" is an ad hominem - whether or not he is, has no relevance to the argument.
But "stop being so negative" isn't. Sometimes people are being very negative.
And some are actually a defense of generalizations. Like when it says that a woman is Bad for saying "I'm not like that". Apparently, because feminists make generalizations about men, we should do the same about women.
Once again, the logical fallacy is the flipping of the chessboard, these are all conversation shifting/ ending tactics couched in emotional language. If someone is called negative for being honest does it stop their statement from being accurate?
No fallacy by that name exists. I guess a red herring. But that's more of a distracting, irrelevant matter than what you mean here.
Not at all. Though sometimes people's honest opinions are rather negative. Mine included.
All of these would qualify under ad hominem, or poisoning the well just by response alone.
And what does that have to do with the veracity of the statement?