That’s called the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. focussing on proof that you’re right at using a false equivalent. In this case appearance = personality.
You’re counting the ones you’ve so called ‘gotten right’ because people who are negative are drawn to the negative and count only the negatives to support their theories.
The ones you claim to have gotten right seem wrong btw. An assassin isn’t the same as an alcoholic. One is an intentional line of work. The other is a disease. That is inception level of more than one false equivalence there.
I think you should re-read your own comment and look for fallacies there, TBH.
Which is a false equivalent for Hollywood stereotypes and which isn’t here is about me guessing what the author meant. Guessing because they are not sufficiently specific. If you have a better source, like reading minds or contacting God, let me know.
“Seem wrong” - OK.
An assassin can be an alcoholic. Nobody made a 1-to-1 association.
This comment isn’t hostile, but you didn’t find any fallacies.
And here you are attempting to read minds yourself. You literally listed assassin for an alcoholic and made that line all on your own. So yeah, it is fallacy. That is Exactly false attribute fallacy.
Sigh. How does saying that a certain assassin has turned alcoholic make a one-to-one association between assassin and alcoholic?
Also technically “assassin” is a bastardization of “hashshasheen” or something meaning “hashish smokers”, which was a slur for members of Nizari-Ismaili sect, which is funny in the context of your claim.
That’s called the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. focussing on proof that you’re right at using a false equivalent. In this case appearance = personality.
You’re counting the ones you’ve so called ‘gotten right’ because people who are negative are drawn to the negative and count only the negatives to support their theories. The ones you claim to have gotten right seem wrong btw. An assassin isn’t the same as an alcoholic. One is an intentional line of work. The other is a disease. That is inception level of more than one false equivalence there.
I think you should re-read your own comment and look for fallacies there, TBH.
Which is a false equivalent for Hollywood stereotypes and which isn’t here is about me guessing what the author meant. Guessing because they are not sufficiently specific. If you have a better source, like reading minds or contacting God, let me know.
“Seem wrong” - OK.
An assassin can be an alcoholic. Nobody made a 1-to-1 association.
This comment isn’t hostile, but you didn’t find any fallacies.
And here you are attempting to read minds yourself. You literally listed assassin for an alcoholic and made that line all on your own. So yeah, it is fallacy. That is Exactly false attribute fallacy.
English is not my first language. That said, I think you’ve read “assassin turned alcoholic” wrong for a few times by now.
Just reading your own mistake back to you.
Sigh. How does saying that a certain assassin has turned alcoholic make a one-to-one association between assassin and alcoholic?
Also technically “assassin” is a bastardization of “hashshasheen” or something meaning “hashish smokers”, which was a slur for members of Nizari-Ismaili sect, which is funny in the context of your claim.