some guy wrote:Her argument is of the form ofJack wrote: Just as I'm bored here is the wiki extract for the fallacy Sally Strange made. She tried to make the terms A and B complete and of the same class but of course provided no evidence to support it, just assertions easily dismissed:
Syllogistic fallacies
See also: Syllogistic fallacy
People often make mistakes when reasoning syllogistically.[10]
For instance, from the premises some A are B, some B are C, people tend to come to a definitive conclusion that therefore some A are C.[11][12] However, this does not follow according to the rules of classical logic. For instance, while some cats (A) are black things (B), and some black things (B) are televisions (C), it does not follow from the parameters that some cats (A) are televisions (C). This is because first, the mood of the syllogism invoked is illicit (III), and second, the supposition of the middle term is variable between that of the middle term in the major premise, and that of the middle term in the minor premise (not all "some" cats are by necessity of logic the same "some black things").
Determining the validity of a syllogism involves determining the distribution of each term in each statement, meaning whether all members of that term are accounted for.
1. "Some A are B" (Sexists are a subset of Society-at-large[A])
2. "Some A are C" (Skeptics[C] are a subset of Society-at-large[A])
3. "Therefore some C are B" (Some skeptics are sexists)
(A similar argument in that form: "Some animals are cats, some animals are dogs, therefore some dogs are cats.")
Yes and she attempted to avoid that (probably unconsciously) by generalising a concept to a whole population. This is a tactic we see all the time with the FtB crowd (as in ALL men are potential rapists or EVERYONE who does not self describe as feminist are misogynists or do not consider women as people)
It's one reason I know they are not rationalists as they would spot their errors and correct them to make better arguments.
