Nothing in the linked composition fallacy comment you responded to used words all or always. You kept assuming a universal generalization where it wasn’t indicated.
I was using “all” for brevity’s sake - as an illustrative example it was imprecise, but that is the goal of illustrative examples - the reasoning was sound, the wording was intentionally imprecise to prevent the reasoning getting lost in pages of verbiage. If that caused confusion I apologize, that was not my intent, but it seemed to be understood by most of the audience and by the person I was engaging with directly.
While your explanation of it’s mechanics is correct, the situation in the comic isn’t what the division fallacy describes. If a group, as in the comic, consists entirely of people who say X and that group expresses Y, at least one member of that group must (by an almost tautological application of the Pigeonhole Principle) say both X & Y. This is the claim damnedFurry was making, that nobody who says X also says Y (an argument which they later very respectfully dropped after they were shown evidence that their initial premise was fundamentally wrong).
Due to the fallacies, the comic’s generalization doesn’t validly follow from the premises in the comment.
Correct - the premises in the comment misrepresent those in the comic. They are giving a good example of a fallacy, but that fallacy is simply not present in the comic.
No valid or strong evidence has been provided for the comic’s generalization
Evidence it does not even need to provide if it’s, as for so many women, descriptive and not (as furry was attempting to claim) assertive.
On the other hand, wishful thinking, stereotyping, being superstitious, rationalizing, and having a poor sense of proportion also are sources of potential error and are included in the list below, though they would not be included in the lists of some researchers.
This argument is deductively valid, but it’s unsound because it rests on a false, stereotypical premise.
The source you provide does a very good job of explaining that it’s not a fallacy, it is an example of unsound reasoning.
An argument from fallacy concludes the fallacy’s conclusion is false. That didn’t happen here.
So then are you saying the conclusions of the comic (as drawn by damnfurry) are true? Because I would still disagree - the conclusions the comic makes are not the ones furry claims it’s making.
I was using “all” for brevity’s sake - as an illustrative example it was imprecise, but that is the goal of illustrative examples - the reasoning was sound, the wording was intentionally imprecise to prevent the reasoning getting lost in pages of verbiage. If that caused confusion I apologize, that was not my intent, but it seemed to be understood by most of the audience and by the person I was engaging with directly.
While your explanation of it’s mechanics is correct, the situation in the comic isn’t what the division fallacy describes. If a group, as in the comic, consists entirely of people who say X and that group expresses Y, at least one member of that group must (by an almost tautological application of the Pigeonhole Principle) say both X & Y. This is the claim damnedFurry was making, that nobody who says X also says Y (an argument which they later very respectfully dropped after they were shown evidence that their initial premise was fundamentally wrong).
Correct - the premises in the comment misrepresent those in the comic. They are giving a good example of a fallacy, but that fallacy is simply not present in the comic.
Evidence it does not even need to provide if it’s, as for so many women, descriptive and not (as furry was attempting to claim) assertive.
The source you provide does a very good job of explaining that it’s not a fallacy, it is an example of unsound reasoning.
So then are you saying the conclusions of the comic (as drawn by damnfurry) are true? Because I would still disagree - the conclusions the comic makes are not the ones furry claims it’s making.