Mostly Informal fallacies, but I liked that book too!

I’m a bit new to self-studying logic (and rhetoric) but I think you should learn about “Formal fallacies” and “Informal fallacies”. Formal fallacies are those that arguments that are systematically false, like all A is B, some C is A, some C is not B, therefore all C is A. But in real arguments you have to convert those organic arguments into these terms (which could be the hardest part), and then you find out if it is a fallacy… I remember there was a way to find out if arguments are valid based on adding stars, I’ll probably send it later… But be warned, an argument can be “valid”, but still have the wrong premises! You can say, All cats are on fire, therefore some things on fire are cats… and the argument would still be valid, but rest on false premises… Informal fallacies, I think, are somewhat out of the scope of formal logic, but they are still considered faulty arguments, like Strawman…

Why does this always happen to me too? Is this some sort of psychological phenomenon?

Chill man. Even my activity is dropping now, but that’s just me thinking that Lemmy will be self-sufficient while I read my books. It’s true that Lemmy is not as addicting as reddit, but that’s for the best. I’ve actually gotten into new hobbies whose communities I might eventually join here.

Unfortunately that would mean that real communities wouldn’t be created since that would be used up by someone creating spam communities. Though, maybe limiting the amount of communities that could be made by one account in a certain amount of time? What about verification by email (to send a coherent reason) to the admins to create a community.