Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20190721003717/@comment-32182236-20190723195659

...Well, it's time for the second part of this "Part 3"-Where I go over the rest of the primary fallacies! (Which is really all of them except for very complex ones that require knowledge of how the burden of proof works. Well, that have a name, of course. Remember, if it doesn't have its own name, and it's a formal fallacy, you call it a non sequitur.)

Just like affirming the consequent is a fallacy, so is denying the antecedent.


 * Premise 1:If Frisk is a monster, they have a SOUL.
 * Premise 2:Frisk is not a monster
 * Conclusion:Frisk has no SOUL.

"If A, then B" does not imply "if not A, then not B". Only the contrapositive "if not B, then not A" is implied.

There is also the four-term fallacy. This is when a syllogism uses four terms when it should have three. The most common form of this is equivocation, where a word gets its meaning swapped out in the middle of the argument.


 * Premise 1:A monster is a person of unnatural wickedness or cruelty
 * Premise 2:Toriel is a monster
 * Conclusion:Toriel is wicked and/or cruel.

Premise 1 is valid, because that is indeed one of the definitions of a monster. But the "monster" from Premise 2 is not the same kind of monster as the "monster" of Premise 1-There is a different meaning this time.

The next fallacy we'll go over is affirming a disjunct.


 * Premise 1:Either people say that monster SOULs are made of love, hope, and compassion, or the Librarby is unreliable
 * Premise 2:The Librarby is unreliable
 * Conclusion:Nobody says that monster SOULs are made of love, hope, and compassion

The fallacy is assuming that "A or B" implies that A implies not-B. They can both be true. It's very similar to denying a conjuct-The assumption that "not both A and B" implies that "not-A" implies B. In a way, both fallacies are assuming that "A or B" and "not both A and B" imply each other. They don't.

Next up is appeal to emotion.

...This fallacy takes many forms. appeal to intution (The fallacy of saying that since it's intuitive, it's true!), appeal to normality (It's normal, so it's not a problem!), appeal to consequences (believing that the consequences of believing in something is an indication of whether or not it is true), appeal to gravity (The claim isn't being made seriously, so it's false), argumentum ad fastidium (It's gross, therefore it's wrong), appeal to hate (it makes you mad, so it's wrong)..

But essentially, the fallacy of appeal to emotion is using emotions as an argument.

Remember, how something feels is not the same as to how it is. Only logic will help us find the truth.