>>24005829create a faulty premise pretending that the rule is the creation of other people:
>a shorter and more pronounceable ingredient list equates to it being a health fooduse the obviously faulty conclusion to prove that the premise was faulty:
>therefore marshmallow fluff is a health foodthis looks to me like an inverted 'Begging the Question', where the false premise assumes the falsehood of the conclusion
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_questionit's fallacious and circular reasoning
you made up weak rules, and then demonstrated to us how easily you could break them...
well done? clever you?
not sure what you imagine you proved
and by phrasing it with "BEHOLD..." do you mean to compare yourself to Diogenes? because he was disproving a definition someone ELSE made, whereas you're disproving one YOU'VE made
it really makes the punchline not quite as pithy
