I envision..

Reply to your brilliantly crafted Post #66666, in which you described the coming Apocalypse - has been analyzed.

Response suffers from one or more of:


* Accent
* Ad hoc
* Affirmation of the consequent
* Amphiboly
* Anecdotal evidence
* Argumentum ad antiquitatem
* Argumentum ad baculum / Appeal to force
* Argumentum ad crumenam
* Argumentum ad hominem
* Argumentum ad ignorantiam
* Argumentum ad lazarum
* Argumentum ad logicam
* Argumentum ad misericordiam
* Argumentum ad nauseam
* Argumentum ad novitatem
* Argumentum ad numerum
* Argumentum ad populum
* Argumentum ad verecundiam
* Audiatur et altera pars
* Bifurcation
* Circulus in demonstrando
* Complex question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of presupposition
* Fallacies of composition
* Converse accident / Hasty generalization
* Converting a conditional
* Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
* Denial of the antecedent
* The fallacy of accident / Sweeping generalization / Dicto simpliciter
* Fallacy of division
* Equivocation / Fallacy of four terms
* The extended analogy
* Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion
* The Natural Law fallacy / Appeal to Nature
* The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy
* Non causa pro causa
* Non sequitur
* Petitio principii / Begging the question
* Plurium interrogationum / Many questions
* Post hoc ergo propter hoc
* Red herring
* Reification / Hypostatization
* Shifting the burden of proof
* The slippery slope argument
* Straw man
* Tu quoque
* Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle / "A is based on B" fallacies / "...is a type of..." fallacies


For comparison with Library of Congress database of suggested ripostes, select style and click [devastate] [mollify] [tearfully concede] [waffle]

C'mon, let's get with the PROGRAM!