Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • The first part "presupposes" nothing because this is just a rhetorical outburst akin to "If you are buying this I have a bridge to sell you". Both are phrased as an inference but neither is one, they are just dismissals with a flowery exclamation point.
    – Conifold
    Commented Sep 21, 2018 at 19:36
  • @Conifold, just non sequiturs?
    – rus9384
    Commented Sep 21, 2018 at 19:36
  • Even a non-sequitur has to be an inference. If you want to force it into some kind of fallacy try No True Scotsman (would disagree with me on this).
    – Conifold
    Commented Sep 21, 2018 at 19:48
  • @Conifold, I thought it has a form of inference, just the word then is omitted after the comma. But No True Scotsman seems to imply that Scotsman in this case is the one who is adult or logical enough to have a conversation with.
    – rus9384
    Commented Sep 21, 2018 at 20:04
  • Inferring something about someone only because of disagreement is not necessarily fallacious. If someone disagreed with you that the sun revolves around the earth you would certainly be justified in inferring that they are not rational.
    – E...
    Commented Sep 21, 2018 at 20:21