Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 10, 2018 9:48:10 GMT
Grunts accuse their opponents of "fallacies" because it is a simple and seemingly powerful alternative to actually engaging in the argument and building a case. There may indeed be times when arguing that something is not good because it seems unnatural will not be effective in convincing reasonable people of anything. However there can also be times, as with ad hominem, ad populum, ad potentiam and many other types of arguments, that such an argument works very logically. You are obviously not capable of knowing the difference, which is why I recommend you don't ever try.
I see that you have largely given up addressing my point-by-point answers, and now you simply make disparaging comments about me, still thinking it will do in lieu of disputation. It won't. But I can see why you might wish to avoid engaging with things.
There are various types of arguments; ad hominem, ad populum, ad potentiam and others that amateurs on the internet call "fallacies." However they are not always fallacies. The ad hominem "fallacy" only occurs when the personal flaws of the speaker cannot indicate flaws in some argument sufficiently distinct from the speaker. The ad populum argument is not a fallacy in elections. There are times when the ad potentiam argument must take control of a situation, however that isn't working for you
Despite the special pleading implied and non-sequiturs shown in the above paragraph, I will continue to flag up common fallacies whenever you use them. But thank you again.