
As many of you may be aware, I sometimes like to argue for argument's sake. Not because I enjoy winning or losing, but because I find it instructional to see how far I can go without committing a logical fallacy. If you don't know what a fallacy is, here is the definition from my Logic book (Hurley, 2003):
A fallacy is a defect in an argument that consists in something other than merely false premises [wrong information]. . . A formal fallacy is one that may be identified by merely examining the form or structure of an argument . . . Informal fallacies are those that can be detected only by examining the content of the argument.
I bring this up only because I find that, most of the time, people on both sides of arguments I see are using fallacious arguments. Since Renee Zapf's article is the exciting thing of the moment, I thought I would make a point to show some of the fallacies that are used both in the article and in the comments against her point of view.
Recent comments
7 weeks 5 days ago
7 weeks 5 days ago
9 weeks 2 days ago
9 weeks 2 days ago
9 weeks 2 days ago
9 weeks 2 days ago
9 weeks 2 days ago
9 weeks 2 days ago
9 weeks 2 days ago
9 weeks 2 days ago