The first and most apparent fallacy is the loaded question. "What lesson do you learn?" is intended to suggest that the person learns nothing when in fact, this is not born out by the example at all. The person that the woman is talking to might learn something, who knows? Nothing is told about why it would be credible that nothing can be learned if a woman - or a man, wo could say the same thing just as well - says this to you.

It's not an example it's a relationship meme, it's something so common we all understand the reference even if we've never heard our partner say it.

Defeat does not always teach you something it's perfectly possible to make zero mistakes and still lose due to cold dice for example, if you end up rolling nothing but blanks and focus it does not matter how well you've flown your still or not dealing much damage, and are not preventing incoming hits.

The assumption that losing always imparts a lesson is also a fallacy.

And when you think about it, the suggestion is that if you're not told about your mistakes in X-Wing, you cannot learn from those mistakes. But there is no argument given as to why this should be true. I suspect it is false, because I can see that someone could recognize his own mistake and learn from that.

Could is not will.

You are surly not claiming there is never an occasion when someone remains oblivious to an event, because i've know several in my life who miss the obvious time and again and probably so do you.

So that's the typical fallacy: it is used to drive a point home in place of actual arguments. These are not retorical tricks, which are meant to support an argument.

Probably because i was stating a quick opinion and not in fact presenting an argument nor advancing a claim.

"If a woman doesn't tell you why she is mad, you will not learn anything.

If you don't remind your opponent of cards, you're not telling him that he made a mistake.

Therefore, by not being reminded, the opponent will not learn anything."

Now that's a misrepresentation, i asked what do you learn i did not say you will not learn anything.

Finally, there is the straw man. This one is present too, but more hidden than the others and not as related as the previous two. But it really is very simple, as I pointed out before. This is the straw man: "If a person isn't told [he is] making a mistake..." This position is not actually defended in this thread, or please point out if I am mistaken. The point is clearly that people are not given clues that could help them, but it is up for grabs if someone wants to say something to the effect of "you know, if you had remembered Lone Wolf you could have won." Letting the other player know at some point is not the issue, it's about helping the opponent during a game when that help is still relevant.

To be a strawman i must take a specific persons argument, then i must misrepresent it and then argue against that presentment and then declare i've there for defeated the misrepresented argument that is a strawman fallacy.

I have not fulfilled those requirements.

Has 'strawman' become just a convenient term for an argument you disagree with?

Post number 63 in this thread by WW, someone who's infamous for calling people trolls then turning around and trolling people he does not like.

It's interesting your going so in depth on a throw away comment i made but completely let this slide.

A strawman argument is made when someone completely misrepresents what someone else said and uses that misrepresentation as the object for critique. For example, I'd use a strawman against you if I had replied with something like "I have not accused everyone of strawmanning all the time!" or something to that effect.

Post 67 by you lingula, by your very own definition i have not made a strawman fallacy, the "someone" being misinterpreted is missing and you've now decided there does not need to be a specific person on the receiving end.

And that's where the 'fallacy fallacy' comes in - you don't actually counter the conclusion by pointing out that some argument is fallacious. The conclusion could still be true.

Post 68.

Here's the thing, and part of this is baggage from us having this debate so many times in the past. Most times, some who are 'pro-reminder' have come right out and said that you're a WAAC poor sport jack-*** if you don't remind people, in either competitive or casual games.

Post 79 by vander

Not once ever in two years have i seen anyone "pro-reminder" call someone WaaC for the behaviour described yet you have not gone after this far more vitriolic statement that paints casuals as the intolerant faction.

You are responding to an argument, though. You're responding to the general sentiment that it's not a player's responsibility to communicate their opponent's mistakes to them during a match. By comparing that argument to a communication breakdown between a man and a woman, and then inferring that because the latter is wrong that you shouldn't do the former, you've created a straw man fallacy.

Not by any definition I've looked up i haven't.

So i ask again who specifically have i strawmanned by misrepresenting their argument, where did i claim i had won said argument through misrepresentation?

Unless there's an actual victim it's not a strawman, you can say it's a poor argument but i'll reiterate it's just an opinion.

This is now the third time i've asked for the specific poster i have done this against, please show me the victim or just admit your trying to undermine my side through painting me as unreasonable.

Then you might want to consider looking up some new definitions. I'd love to help you understand your argumentative pitfalls better, but alas, that responsibility ultimately lies in your own hands, and I'm not inclined to explain it to you for a third time.

So your just using this as a convenient term for an argument you don't agree with gotcha.

Probably because i was stating a quick opinion and not in fact presenting an argument nor advancing a claim.

Those are quite often the very same thing, especially if stated factually.

To be a strawman i must take a specific persons argument, then i must misrepresent it and then argue against that presentment and then declare i've there for defeated the misrepresented argument that is a strawman fallacy.

I have not fulfilled those requirements.

Uh, no. This isn't a debate class, and your comment, opinion, assertion, argument, whatever you want to call it, does not exist in a vacuum. Maybe you don't understand what a straw man is, or maybe you just don't understand the words coming out of your own mouth, but that failure is yours and yours alone.

Probably because i was stating a quick opinion and not in fact presenting an argument nor advancing a claim.

Those are quite often the very same thing, especially if stated factually.

To be a strawman i must take a specific persons argument, then i must misrepresent it and then argue against that presentment and then declare i've there for defeated the misrepresented argument that is a strawman fallacy.

I have not fulfilled those requirements.

Uh, no. This isn't a debate class, and your comment, opinion, assertion, argument, whatever you want to call it, does not exist in a vacuum. Maybe you don't understand what a straw man is, or maybe you just don't understand the words coming out of your own mouth, but that failure is yours and yours alone.

I gave multiple chance's to prove your claim instead you obfuscated and equivocated and even now when faced with your own words you refuse to admit your spurious claim.

As usual your the pot calling the kettle black and i'm done.