[jibal]

I only gave the definition from cerebralfaith ... I didn't read their example, which I agree is bogus. My mistake for including that reference without reading the rest.

> I’m by default disposition suspicious of fallacies that are not logical fallacies.

You mean formal fallacies. Informal fallacies like ad hoc are still logical fallacies.

> divine that the argumenter is intending to be dishonest

The intent is obvious when someone keeps inventing some new argument when their previous one is shown to be erroneous--they are attached to the conclusion, not guided by truthseeking. But divining intent isn't a necessity ... the process is not logically valid.

[keybored]

Reasoning is the slave of the passions. That’s the way it is and the only way it can work.

Something needs to motivate someone to argue for or against something. Yes, this is I guess called motivated reasoning. And when their argument X is disproven—do they fold? Not if sufficiently motivated; then they move on to argument Y.

This is not fallacious. It is merely, quite often, done in a rude manner since most people do not seem to add any acknowledgement about being wrong about argument X. They simply move to argument Y without any ceremony.

Good form would be: Okay, I see now that argument X is wrong. However, I would next like to present argument Y...