What's on the clownramper's menu this week?Looks like the same...

What's on the clownramper's menu this week?

Looks like the same old scaley 'mass balance' red herring is fish of the day again. Nothing very sophisticated and all irrelevant. Same boring menu regurgitated again and again (see proof by assertion)....

Relevance fallacies[edit]

• Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.^[62]
• Invincible ignorance (argument by pigheadedness) – where a person simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given.^[63]
• Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.^[64]
• Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense) – "I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."^[65]
• Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam or argumentum ad infinitum) – repeating an argument until nobody cares to discuss it any more and referencing that lack of objection as evidence of support for the truth of the conclusion;^[66][67] sometimes confused with proof by assertion.
• Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – assuming that a claim is true based on the absence of textual or spoken evidence from an authoritative source, or vice versa.^[68]
• Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.^[69]

Red herring fallacies[edit]

A red herring fallacy, one of the main subtypes of fallacies of relevance, is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. This includes any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.^[70][71]

Red herring – introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic (e.g.: saying "If you want to complain about the dishes I leave in the sink, what about the dirty clothes you leave in the bathroom?").^[72] In jury trial, it is known as a Chewbacca defense. In political strategy, it is called a dead cat strategy.

• Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum, argumentum ad nauseam).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies