Logical Fallacy Thread

Originally posted by FMF
Every post MUST contain a glaring logical fallacy whilst debating the thread's premise.

No one has told me this post contains any logical fallacies - therefore I have not presented a logical fallacy..But you said every post MUST contain a logical fallacy, and at the very least this contradicts the fact that I have committed no fallacies.

Moreover, we conclude from this your statement (paraphrased) that it is necessarily true that every post must contain a logical fallacy so long as that post lies in contention with the thread's premise is false 😏

Originally posted by Agerg
No one has told me this post contains any logical fallacies - therefore I have not presented a logical fallacy..But you said every post MUST contain a logical fallacy, and at the very least this contradicts the fact that I have committed no fallacies.

Moreover, we conclude from this your statement (paraphrased) that it is necessarily true that every post mu ...[text shortened]... a logical fallacy so long as that post lies in contention with the thread's premise is false 😏

The set of all sets not including themselves?

Originally posted by Agerg
No one has told me this post contains any logical fallacies - therefore I have not presented a logical fallacy..But you said every post MUST contain a logical fallacy, and at the very least this contradicts the fact that I have committed no fallacies.

Moreover, we conclude from this your statement (paraphrased) that it is necessarily true that every post mu ...[text shortened]... a logical fallacy so long as that post lies in contention with the thread's premise is false 😏

Well, you would say that wouldn't you. Regardless of whether you have credibility or not, the fact that a question mark hangs over it will continue to undermine your credibility when it comes to logical fallacies.

Originally posted by FMF
Well, you would say that wouldn't you. Regardless of whether you have credibility or not, the fact that a question mark hangs over it will continue to undermine your credibility when it comes to logical fallacies.

Ah yes but I don't care what Mark decides to hang over my credibility, be they questions or anything else - he's wrong, and I know he's wrong because I have committed no logical fallacies. Indeed I have a cast iron proof:

Suppose I commit no logical fallacies, then I must always be right, which implies nothing I say has logical fallacies (thus proving the original supposition), but I said something earlier and hence it cannot have contained any logical fallacies 😏

Originally posted by Agerg
Ah yes but I don't care what Mark decides to hang over my credibility, be they questions or anything else - he's wrong, and I know he's wrong because I have committed no logical fallacies. Indeed I have a cast iron proof:

Suppose I commit no logical fallacies, then I must always be right, which implies nothing I say has logical fallacies (thus proving the o ...[text shortened]... n), but I said something earlier and hence it cannot have contained any logical fallacies 😏

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Originally posted by FMF
You're comparing apples to oranges.

Ahh Yes, but they are both fruit, and thus must both be the same as each other.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ahh Yes, but they are both fruit, and thus must both be the same as each other.

Your insistence that different fruits ought to converge is a red herring.

Originally posted by FMF
You're comparing apples to oranges.

You should observe that my post contained no mention of apples, oranges, or indeed any fruits at all. As such I have made no such comparisons you assert I did. Therefore your argument is false.
Therefore I have committed no fallacies 😏

Originally posted by FMF
You're comparing apples to oranges.

You cannot compare apples and organges because they are not the same. However, we can compare apples to apples because they are exactly the same.

Originally posted by FMF
Your insistence that different fruits ought to converge is a red herring.

Topologically herrings are the same as apples and oranges and thus also converge proving my original point.

Originally posted by Agerg
You should observe that my post contained no mention of apples, oranges, or indeed any fruits at all. As such I have made no such comparisons you assert I did. Therefore your argument is false.
Therefore I have committed no fallacies 😏

Your conclusion that you have committed no fallacies can't be right and thus your post must have contained reference to apples and/or oranges.

At one point you'll be comparing fruit, the next step is eradicating all Christians. Clearly we don't want to go down that route.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
At one point you'll be comparing fruit, the next step is eradicating all Christians. Clearly we don't want to go down that route.

The post above is a red herring, It clearly contains no logical fallacies, and thus can't exist.

Red herrings are a different kettle of fish - and one that has no business calling the pot orange.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Your conclusion that you have committed no fallacies can't be right and thus your post must have contained reference to apples and/or oranges.

That's the kind of thing Hitler would have said - ergo your entire argument (as well as your next one) is wrong. 😏