The reason (and here is where the proceeding dovetails with this post) is that, from a meta-argumentative perspective, the pointing out of others’ fallacies often places them on the rhetorical defensive. And, at the very least, it provides a weak seam at which to apply pressure against the argument’s thrust.

So while it may be true that fallacies in and of themselves don’t necessarily derail an argument (in fact, they are often the very thing that “wins” the argument, when they escape unnoticed), it is likewise true, I think, that being able to recognize them and point them out is a powerful rhetorical tool.

As is pointing out that pointing out fallacies does not necessarily invalidate the larger argument that the fallacies are deployed in support of — which is what you do here.

In detail, I was grilling half a lamb and my wife and daughter were shopping for seedling flowers for our yard. Change your inference?

Martin Luther expressed roughly the same opinion for logic that Socrates expressed for rhetoric: Whorishness/pander. Rhetoric (speech) and logic (words) are practically synonyms in their original meaning. How about we call both word-games and think things not words?

That doesn’t necessarily mean the consquent isn’t true, but that’s not significant when we note a fallacy, because noting a fallacy is inherently about the form of the argument.