@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon;111695 wrote:Funny though, because I said that I agree with the fact that some arguments are fallacious and some are not. Interesting (or is it?) how that very first statement works its way into all of this? or somehow gets ignored in the greater scheme of things. My issue had more to do with the finer points of a formal fallacy (and a broader interpretation) than the elementary conception of a fallacy, as well as the basic differentiations between formal and informal fallacies. Sadly, I was hoping for a more abstract discussion about the potentially valid elements of a formal fallacy and how they work into the whole scheme... which interestingly enough, I even label as a fallacy (both formal and informal), so I wonder why there is this motivation to ascribe the fact that I thought it was not. I don't mind that that fact was missed or even that it was misinterpreted. Perhaps I'll chalk it up as a failed segway. Oh well.:depressed:
I wish you had been more specific about what you wanted to talk about. What you wrote was not particularly clear. If you would like to be more specific now, I would be happy to engage in a discussion about fallacious arguments. What are "valid elements of a formal fallacy"? Indeed, what would a "valid element" be? What I originally wrote was that although, necessarily, all fallacies are fallacies, it is not true that all
ad hominem arguments are fallacious. That, of course, does not mean that
ad hominem fallacies have "valid elements" (whatever those might be).
