Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9134816" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Indeed. Sometimes, even if a proposed fallacy is simply a re-packaging of a well-known logical fallacy, it is okay to give it a new label. E.g. the "motte-and-bailey" fallacy is technically just a particular form of the fallacy of equivocation. But it is useful to call out this specific form of equivocation, because it reflects a common erroneous argumentation method, one that is often subtle and hard to see unless your attention is called to it.Oberoni, I'm not sure precisely what category of informal fallacy it falls under. Possibly another equivocation fallacy, using different senses of the word "problem" (in the first sense, "flaw", and in the second sense, "impediment"--"There can be no flaws in the ruleset because anything that could potentially be an impediment can be addressed with Rule 0"). Stormwind is clearly a false dichotomy (either you're roleplaying or you're optimizing, you cannot ever do both and necessarily to draw closer to one is to move further away from the other), but it's useful to be specific about why the dichotomy is false, rather than simply declaring that it is false.</blockquote>