• NewNewAccount@lemmy.worldEnglish
        71·
        23 hours ago

        Of course not. It is your interpretation that having a nickname implies cult membership that is the logical fallacy.

        The argument is:

        • If CULT, then NICKNAME
        • i.e. If X, then Y

        Your interpretation seems to be:

        • If NICKNAME, then CULT
        • i.e. If Y, then X

        Which is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
          25·
          21 hours ago

          It is your interpretation that having a nickname implies cult membership

          That’s OP’s claim. My interpretation is that he gave Simon the nickname out of affection not domination

          • NewNewAccount@lemmy.worldEnglish
            61·
            21 hours ago

            That’s OP’s claim.

            No it’s not.

            OP’s claim is that cults give nicknames. Not that all entities that give nicknames are cults.

            But your second statement makes me realize that you likely have an inherent bias that is preventing you from seeing the logic involved.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              35 minutes ago

              OP’s claim is that cults give nicknames.

              Post-Hoc Ergo Proper Hoc Fallacy. “Cults give nicknames, therefore if you give someone a nickname you’re a cult” doesn’t logically follow.

              you likely have an inherent bias

              Casual Fallacy. The existence of individual bias does nothing to affirm or reject a claim

              If we were weighting on bias, your extreme reaction to a casual anecdote would disqualify your observations immediately.