Butch,
At #53, I asked you, 'Please go back through your responses to me that I've labelled as red herring fallacies and see what you do'. You didn't do what I asked, so you gave me another red herring fallacy since you went on with your argumentation that did not deal with the 'red herrings' you have committed in your reasoning with me.
Go back to #47 where I wrote, 'Since you didn't reply to the details of what I wrote, your response is a red herring fallacy.' I told you exactly what a red herring fallacy was. When you don't address the issues that I write about and you're off and running with your own topic, you have committed a red herring. I showed you what you had done.
Now you have the audacity to say you don't commit logical fallacies. The fact is that you clearly DO!
Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a Macintosh tutorial named Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0, provides this
Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
When you avoid dealing with my topic and give your own spin on another topic, you commit a red herring fallacy. Yes, you DO use logical fallacies. In fact, in this last post, you are building a
straw man argument, which is a false understanding of how you claim you don't use fallacies.
Oz