[Arguggi]

Am I the only one troubled by the last example?

And then suppose you encounter a woman who tells you that because of the insults she has received from guys in the skeptic community, she has decided that the skeptic movement is fundamentally sexist.

Receiving insults from men that identify as skeptics does not mean that the skeptic movement is fundamentally sexist.

Telling her she just committed a fallacy doesn't seem so wrong to me.

[msg]

She may have just committed a fallacy in truth.

That doesn't mean telling her so is the right choice.

If you don't address her experience, you're missing the point.

You can "believe" all kinds of things without feeling them and living them out.

In her case, skeptics may believe they are not fundamentally sexist. But her observation would then be that this belief is only skin deep. It should trouble the skeptic that an observer finds their community sexist, and trigger a crisis in the belief.

[vacri]

In that example, the author makes his own fallacy. Apparently the speaker's experiences are the only valid ones, and the responder has no right to share his experience - which some of his "I hope it should be clear that none of these are appropriate responses" are doing.

Some of his examples are condescending, which is the basis of what he's trying to get at, others are only condescending if you wilfully choose to take them that way. The problem isn't in pointing out the fallacy, it's with the tone of the commentary. The simple fact that you name a fallacy while exposing it does not mean you're a lazy debater.

[Arguggi]

I agree that only answering "You just committed a fallacy, goodbye" would not be the right choice, but at least mentioning it and then try to explain why I think it's relevant doesn't seem so wrong.

[Avshalom]

Did ya miss the whole thing about figurative language?