>>41603543
Hey, professional psychologist, here are your fallacies:
1. Ad Hominem
> “discredited quack from the 80s”
This attacks the person associated with the concept (“discredited quack”) rather than addressing the idea or evidence behind it.
Fallacy: Dismissing a claim based on who made it, not on whether it’s true.
2. Genetic Fallacy
> “It’s just the… ramblings of a discredited quack from the 80s.”
This dismisses the concept solely because of its origin — who proposed it and when — instead of evaluating the argument itself.
Fallacy: Judging an idea as invalid because of its source rather than its merit
3. Appeal to Tradition / Appeal to Popularity
> “Nobody even references or thinks about it anywhere other than this website.”
This implies that something isn’t real or valid just because it’s not widely accepted or currently fashionable.
Fallacy: Assuming truth depends on popularity or consensus.
4. False Dichotomy
> “If you feel like something that hasn’t been considered valid for 50 years defines you then you have a serious problem.”
This sets up two options:
either the theory is valid, or
you have “a serious problem.”
It ignores more nuanced possibilities (e.g., someone can identify with an idea without mental illness).
Fallacy: Presenting only two extreme options when others exist.
5. Appeal to Emotion (Pathos)
> “schizo ramblings,” “serious problem,” “fucking insane.”
These phrases use emotionally charged insults to provoke disgust or ridicule rather than to reason logically.
Fallacy: Substituting emotional manipulation for argumentation.
---
6. Straw Man
> “Celebrating agp.. fucking insane.”
This misrepresents people who discuss or identify with AGP as “celebrating insanity,” which is not what most advocates or researchers actually do.
Fallacy: Attacking a distorted version of an opposing view instead of addressing the real one.
