„you are [insert bad person here]”
„why would you think that?”
„he speaks chinese. you speak chinese. he happens to be an asshole. you speak Chinese just like him, so therefore you are probably an asshole like him.”
In addition to the others this is also an association fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
For example, a fallacious arguer may claim that “bears are animals, and bears are dangerous; therefore your dog, which is also an animal, must be dangerous.”
Dogs are dangerous though, that’s the thing. Cuteness overload is a real and serious condition! It’s the silent killer.
False equivalence, I’d say.
If A is the set containing c and d, and B is the set containing d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal.
A categorical syllogism consists of three parts:
Major Premise
Minor premise
Conclusion/Consequent
Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical proposition contains two categorical terms.[13] In Aristotle, each of the premises is in the form “All S are P,” “Some S are P”, “No S are P” or “Some S are not P”, where “S” is the subject-term and “P” is the predicate-term:
“All S are P,” and “No S are P” are termed universal propositions;
“Some S are P” and “Some S are not P” are termed particular propositions.
More modern logicians allow some variation. Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion: in a major premise, this is the major term (i.e., the predicate of the conclusion); in a minor premise, this is the minor term (i.e., the subject of the conclusion). For example:
Major premise: All humans are mortal.
Minor premise: All Greeks are humans.
Conclusion/Consequent: All Greeks are mortal.
Each of the three distinct terms represents a category. From the example above, humans, mortal, and Greeks: mortal is the major term, and Greeks the minor term. The premises also have one term in common with each other, which is known as the middle term; in this example, humans. Both of the premises are universal, as is the conclusion.
Major premise: All mortals die.
Minor premise: All men are mortals.
Conclusion/Consequent: All men die.
Here, the major term is die, the minor term is men, and the middle term is mortals. Again, both premises are universal, hence so is the conclusion.
Sounds like racist asshole logic. It’s not worth trying to communicate with them.
I’m a white guy that’s essentially fluent in Spanish and live where a lot of people speak Spanish. Not once in 10 years have I heard someone talking shit and trust that I’d be an easy target.
I really hate when people get shitty because they don’t understand what others in the vicinity are saying. People should get a life.
saw something similar with someone on lemmy actually, that since they spoke a foreign language, they were some other user creating an alt and therefore a bad person.
False syllogism (you speak Chinese, so you’re an asshole) or maybe premature generalization (some Chinese speakers are assholes, therefore all Chinese speakers are assholes).
I’ve never seen two commas before a statement and I’m confused from the get go
it’s polish quotation marks, i accidentally had the foreign keyboard.
not just polish. at least german too. not uncommon
Oh, gotcha! Thank you for the clarification
of course!
Even within a single language, you can have several different options like these
“curly double quotes” look like 66 and 99, so they are asymmetric. The font you use may change the appearance radically.
“vertical double quotes” are identical.
‘curly single quotes’ are asymmetric.
‘vertical single quotes’ are identical.
