Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6710623" data-attributes="member: 16814">Just to step in here...A charitable reading of his comment would be that he doesn't want to go down the path of increasingly minute point making about who's fallacy is bigger.  Actually... I didn't say anything when you first made the fallacy argument because I was hoping it would just go away, but you misused both the Tone Argument fallacy and the Appeal to Emotion fallacy.  You misused the Tone Argument fallacy because, for it to be an actual informal fallacy, the comment on tone needs to be used as a stand in for arguments against.   In other words, you substitute a comment on tone instead of addressing the argument.  What actually happened was the bedrock commented that he thought your combative tone wasn't helpful, and then went on to directly address your points.  In that context, his comment on your tone wasn't a fallacious argument because it wasn't being used in place of an argument -- it was being used to comment on how he felt about your tone. The appeal to emotion fallacy (specifically appeal to fear) might still be valid if the arguer uses it to dispute the validity of the theory.  Instead, I see them discussing it's actual use.  You made the argument that the comments on usage applied to the idea, but that wasn't actually presented.  They may still do that, or I may not recall an instance where they did, but I think the jury is still out on this one.In closing, this is actually a formal fallacy -- the fallacy of composition.  That states that you cannot impute the traits of the individual points in a group to the entire group.  In this case, many weak points may indeed lead to a strong argument, and unless and until you address that, you can't categorically state that a ton of weak arguments sums to a weak argument without committing the fallacy.All of this is to show that perhaps bedrockgames was wise to not want to litigate fallacies.  I'm quite sure that you'd disagree with my points here on your fallacies or misuse of them (although I stand by them with my long practice of using them in debates), but that just leads down the rabbit hole.  I'll freely agree that I'm entirely wrong about all of this, and just a victim of internet vapors, if you'll not start a fallacy war and just address the arguments (which I don't think are weak).</blockquote>

Verification