I always wonder why people believe that taking the contrarian stance is demonstrating value, worth and astuteness to others. I assure you, there’s no misunderstanding coming from my end on the subject of logical fallacies. In fact, this is literally the opening paragraph to the article: “You know what I hate most about logical fallacies? At the root of what they are, they represent an attempt to silence opposition through disqualification. They’re an attempt to defeat others without substantively engaging their opposition on the issues related to points of disagreement.”

That’s literally how you led into discussion. With contrarianism — a feeble attempt to disqualify my proffering and position.

When people rush to assert authority instead of making sure they understand things properly, or asking questions to make sure they understand things correctly, they end up committing logical fallacies. Their entire argument BECOMES wrong, because, in their efforts to silence and subdue others, they lose sight of the subjects that are being discussed — similar to what you’ve done in your comment. Simply put, if you’re off topic, then it’s abundantly clear that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Furthermore, it’s not a fallacy fallacy until a person tries to use a solitary instance of a logical fallacy to discount an entire position on an issue or subject — i.e., “You committed a logical fallacy which means everything I believe is right, and everything you believe is wrong!”

What makes a fallacy fallacy wrong is that, like all logical fallacies, it attempts to shift the focus away from the subject being discussed, and to instead steer attention towards the reputation of the debaters. It’d be akin to a fighter getting beaten senseless in a boxing ring, but trying to convince themselves and others that they won the fight because their opposition hit them below the belt once.