There's a particular kind of argument, often used in politics:
------------------------
A is VERY BAD.
B is an A.
Therefore, B is VERY BAD.
We all agree that genocide is bad. Especially those of us who are (or know) people who
lest relatives in the [[Holocaust]].
G is very bad.
Israeli policy (settlements in the West Bank, etc.) is "genocide".
S is G.
Therefore, S is very bad.
--------------------------
We can pull the same trick with Vandalism.
V is very bad.
That edit is vandalism.
E is V.
Therefore, E is very bad.
It's what my logic textbook calls a "valid but unsound" argument. It's
valid, because the conclusion really does follow from the premises. It's unsound,
because not all of the premises are true.
It only takes one untrue premise to demolish the soundness of an otherwise
"valid" argument.
I would like to request to all my fellow (and lady!) contributors that we not use the
bludgeon of this kind of fallacious argument against one another.
Ed Poor