Category talk:Fallacious arguments

Erm folks, as far as I know arguments can either be valid or invalid. False and true are for sentences of which arguments are constructed - otherwise this shit would have been a giant waste of time. If I had Ninja rights I would clean this up. --★uːʤɱ federalist 06:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The category should be titled "Fallacious arguments." Ty or Blue could do the recategorization quickly with their bots. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

NxBot is on it. -- Nx / talk 06:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a bot. Тy^talk 11:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It should be called "Logical fallacies" because, you know, that's what normal people call these here things. I don't like logical fallacies being listed with rhetorical devices that, while they may be "fallacious" in the colloquial sense, are never called "fallacies" by normal people (Crocoduck, Chewbacca Defense, Demonization, JAQing off, for example). I don't see this category actually even making any sense except essentially as duplicative of Category:Bullshit, which is a pretty crummy name to use in mainspace for things we merely disagree with. 20:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The rhetorical devices in question are arguments, after a fashion, and they are fallacious. I think the issue is that we are mixing more abstract informal fallacies like the ad hominem with more concrete and specific arguments like the Chewbacca Defense. We could shift the more abstract ones out into another category, Category:Informal fallacies probably. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)