What's the fallacy where someone says something, then when you counter it they say "oh i obviously meant something else and it should be obvious for anyone who isn't a moron"?
lol OP got rekt
No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing").[2]
>>7229078
I mean it's kind of an ad hominem?
sophism if you're richer than them, demagoguery if you're poorer
it's not a fallacy
if your opponent keeps proposing new arguments while insisting they're just explanations of the first one, and calling you stupid for not understanding the first time, all in order to appear consistent, that's just called being a dick
>>7229078
Abusive fallacy, generally speaking. Scotsman too probably.
>>7229078
The 4chan fallacy
Ad Hominem is when the character of the other person is insulted to detract from the substance of the argument at hand.
So this.
>>7229078
Not a fallacy. A fallacy is a not-logical but persuasive argument. The counter argument you give is not logical nor persuasive, doesn't even address the argument.
>>7229078
Either you can't read, they can't write, or they're lying. None of those are fallacies unless they try to use that miscommunication to discredit you.
>"oh i obviously meant something else"
That is NOT a fallacy, that is someone covering their ass for making a statement (or just as likely: you misunderstanding them to have made a statement) that they now (at least) admit is incorrect.
Example:
OP is not a faggot. Wait, no - he is, and it should be obvious to anyone who isn't a moron.
isn't that moving the goal-post?
>>7230158
Not if OP is idiot, who cant understand what is being said to him.
>>7230158
no, moving the goal post is when you say something like:
>"There's no evidence for global warming"
>yes there is, (gives citations, etc)
>"Well, global warming isn't caused by humans"
>yes it is, (gives citations, etc)
>"Well there's no scientific consensus"
>yes there is, etc
>"Well it's not really going to to do anything bad"
etc etc etc. Goalpost moving is offering an argument, losing the argument on the original terms, then changing the argument.
An immediate "no, that's not what I meant" is not that in the slightest, OP just miscommunicated and the error was corrected
