/lit/ - Literature

>>17069400

>>16374286
>That's a logical fallacy
Valid if it indeed is one.
>Got a source for that?
Invalid. Argument from incredulity 99% of the time.
>Ad hominem
If used in response to an insult, yes soi and midwit. A true ad hominem is peak rhetoric and is used by most people when they start losing the argument. They can't refute the idea at face value so they attack the person behind it.
>I don't see a citation
Invalid and midwit. See second response.
>appeal to nature
Valid when natural good is said just because. However, when explicitly admitting a natural model for the argument and ascertaining it, it is midwit to invoke this fallacy.
>Straw man
One of reddit's favorite techniques. Here is a straw man example 'this is just anti-science at the same level of anti vaxxers and climate deniers'. Straw man arguments are dishonest rhetoric.
>not an argument
4chan speak
>begging the question
Invoked incorrectly by most.
>facts don't care about your feelings
Example of rhetoric. The arguments presupposed around a data source are assumed to be dogmatically true when in reality they are hypotheses that don't align to reality. According to Ben, its impossible to be poor single white man with a high school diploma.
>do you have any studies to prove your claim
Invalid, see second answer again.


In summary, the soi is guilty of all the aforementioned fallacies and instead only is apt to use
>muh source
Just as bad is their argument cop out
>muh burden of proof.

Funny how all the greats never took a "creative writing" class. This is something that appeals to midwits and charlatans. The fact that Sanderson teaches one is pottery. The blind leading the blind.

>>16246379
shut up, faggot