/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17228410]

>whataboutism

[Anonymous No.17228418]

>>17228410
>ad hominem

[Anonymous No.17228421]

>>17228410
>false equivalency

[garden No.17228437]

Whenever I talk about how men need to stop raping women, people always go on like "hurr durr what about that woman you raped last month". Like seriously chud that's not what we're fucking talking about right now.

[Anonymous No.17228441]

>>17228410
>Source?

[Anonymous No.17228456]

Does /lit/ actually hate people correcting logical fallacies or is this ironic? It seems like it is associated materialist-consumer types on this site which is strange.

[Anonymous No.17228466]

>>17228437
>namefag

[Anonymous No.17228479]

>>17228456
Logical fallacies have their place, if it's as a correction it's fine, but they're often used as a crutch to completely ignore the rest of an argument.

It also tends to out you as a college liberal (not always the case).

[Anonymous No.17228503]

>>17228456
Logical fallacies are normative, they aren't descriptive of logic

[Anonymous No.17228516]

>>17228410

[Anonymous No.17228517]

>>17228503
This. They're used to discredit an argument, it doesn't mean the argument holds no water is immediately illogical.

[Anonymous No.17228528]

>slippery slope
>No true scotsman

[garden No.17228535]

>>17228466
Buy my books

[Anonymous No.17228560]

>>17228456
Black or white fallacy isn't supported in classical logic like fol

[Anonymous No.17228584]

>>17228456
>It seems like it is associated materialist-consumer types
It's associated with the reddit type whose main objective in writing anything is to demonstrate how smart they are. This type is also associated with consumerism but that's incidental.

[Anonymous No.17228603]

>principle of sufficient reason

[Anonymous No.17228621]

>>17228410
>post hoc ergo propter hoc

[Anonymous No.17228657]

>>17228479
>>17228503
>>17228517
>>17228560
>>17228584
Thanks. I see what you mean and I agree with you.