This is an "affirming the consequent" logical fallacy. My sentence says nothing about the virtue or vice of cities.
I'm responding to "Some people don't like the rural states". Almost no one dislikes rural states for their natural beauty. They dislike them for the people.
Whether that dislike is morally wrong, or whether they should also dislike urban areas is irrelevant to my claim. All I was observing is that the people are why some other people don't like rural areas.
I think making a blanket statement might be incorrect. I've heard a lot of people who dislike rural areas for their lack of people. That is to say, lack of amenities, entertainment, cultural events, etc that can only be had in a dense area with surplus people.
I'm not sure which reason is the majority, or if there even is a majority.
I'm responding to "Some people don't like the rural states". Almost no one dislikes rural states for their natural beauty. They dislike them for the people.
Whether that dislike is morally wrong, or whether they should also dislike urban areas is irrelevant to my claim. All I was observing is that the people are why some other people don't like rural areas.