Logical fallacies much?

[Perspective]

Logical fallacies derive their value from consensus of emotions hence make the faultiness of fallacies illogical.

No. That is exactly what logic prevents - appeal to emotion or emotional reasoning.

But as mentioned, some of life is more emotion based - ie loving an other, being creative. So there may be times when logic needs to take a back seat.

[Perspective]

One can logically predict potential outcomes of an action,
without the requirement to decide / determine whether that outcome is good/bad.
Logic is a predictive tool, and one we can use to eliminate false possibilities (i.e. things that may seem possible, but logically determined to be impossible).

By doing this, we reduce possibilities, and get a closer sense of what reality is - the cards we have.

Engaging in logical fallacies, risks undermining logic & it's utility, by giving false results -
thereby giving undue weight to false possibility, or not enough weight to genuine possibility.
As logical fallacies have been demonstrated to risk producing false results - i.e. they aren't reliable arguments / ways to understand reality...

Good explanation.

[Age]

there is little one can logically claim about not using them

One can logically predict potential outcomes of an action,
without the requirement to decide / determine whether that outcome is good/bad.
Logic is a predictive tool, and one we can use to eliminate false possibilities (i.e. things that may seem possible, but logically determined to be impossible).

By doing this, we reduce possibilities, and get a closer sense of what reality is - the cards we have.

Engaging in logical fallacies, risks undermining logic & it's utility, by giving false results -
thereby giving undue weight to false possibility, or not enough weight to genuine possibility.
As logical fallacies have been demonstrated to risk producing false results - i.e. they aren't reliable arguments / ways to understand reality.

You're continually conflating one's value judgement of logic with the potential utility of logic.

If one sets a goal, then the utility of logic will be self evident, and logical fallacies risk of detriment so too may become evident.

-

I'd also direct you back to Age's (possibly rhetorical) question:

The new definition would point back to the word it is defining in a circle.

you express 'this' as though there is some thing wrong or bad, here, correct?

I'd go further, and says the circularity is useful feature - one of it's fundamental purposes.
Not an error at all or cause for any concern.

Great. I would say just about the same, with the proviso that 'circulatory' in relation to defining one word 'with itself', or in 'relation to itself', is not very useful at all. However, when all words are combined together and this forms a 'perfectly' circular definition back on to Itself, where all becomes crystal clear and irrefutably so, as in the actual Truth of all things, then 'this circularity' is the fundamental purpose of reasoning, in order to find meaning, and thus, as you say, is not an error at all nor cause for any concern at all, also. ,

[Age]

Thanks for the posts.

It would be great to discuss the list presented in the OP. There’s been mainly focusing on individual trees in another forest.

What is 'it', exactly, that would be great to discuss?

you have presented a list, but what about 'that list' would you like to discuss, exactly?

Whether the list makes sense - since I compiled it myself.

The list you compiled, is of already accepted and agreed upon 'logical fallacies', correct?

If yes, then all of them would make sense. For if they did not, then they would be of some sort of 'logical fallacy', themselves.

[Eodnhoj7]

Logical fallacies derive their value from consensus of emotions hence make the faultiness of fallacies illogical.

No. That is exactly what logic prevents - appeal to emotion or emotional reasoning.

But as mentioned, some of life is more emotion based - ie loving an other, being creative. So there may be times when logic needs to take a back seat.

And yet contradiction is viewed as a negative, with no logical reason, just pure assertion.

[Eodnhoj7]

Is there an rationality as to why logical fallacies are a bad thing without relying on emotion?

Logical fallacies are as much assertions as logic itself.

Actually that’s a good question. It implies, why bother learning about logical fallacies?

In practical ways - logic is clear thinking.
Lack of logic is unclear thinking.
Unclear thinking is what often produces problems like feeling overly upset, believing another deserves punishment based on your feelings, etc.

Logical fallacies are like cognitive distortions (distorted thinking). It is the root of a lot of bad decisions & negative consequences. Eg., Media is often extremely biased - especially when portraying eg., US presidential debate. Understanding each time a person engages in logical fallacies makes you more informed as to their capability (or lack), intentions & can help you make a more educated opinion & vote with more awareness. More relevantly, understanding eg., appeal to emotion & emotional reasoning can even save your life as happened when media tried to medically coerce the masses into taking experimental gene therapy shots (coronavirus shots). My dad died from a booster. Many others were hurt. Many received saline/placebo so they were not hurt. Russian roulette if you knew enough to think for yourself rather than believe so much bs/logical fallacies.

Cognitive distortions rely upon an emotional element.

[Eodnhoj7]

there is little one can logically claim about not using them

One can logically predict potential outcomes of an action,
without the requirement to decide / determine whether that outcome is good/bad.
Logic is a predictive tool, and one we can use to eliminate false possibilities (i.e. things that may seem possible, but logically determined to be impossible).

By doing this, we reduce possibilities, and get a closer sense of what reality is - the cards we have.

Engaging in logical fallacies, risks undermining logic & it's utility, by giving false results -
thereby giving undue weight to false possibility, or not enough weight to genuine possibility.
As logical fallacies have been demonstrated to risk producing false results - i.e. they aren't reliable arguments / ways to understand reality.

You're continually conflating one's value judgement of logic with the potential utility of logic.

If one sets a goal, then the utility of logic will be self evident, and logical fallacies risk of detriment so too may become evident.

-

I'd also direct you back to Age's (possibly rhetorical) question:

The new definition would point back to the word it is defining in a circle.

you express 'this' as though there is some thing wrong or bad, here, correct?

I'd go further, and says the circularity is useful feature - one of it's fundamental purposes.
Not an error at all or cause for any concern.

Probability is merely chance. Logic under these terms, is chance. There is an element of randomness to it.

[Perspective]

The list you compiled, is of already accepted and agreed upon 'logical fallacies', correct?

If yes, then all of them would make sense. For if they did not, then they would be of some sort of 'logical fallacy', themselves.

I grouped some together and didn’t include MANY that seemed redundant or less commonly relevant … so again, I was asking for feedback which I have yet to get 4 pages in. It is suggested that 200 different logical fallacies exist. I listed 10.

Part of OP:
“ Main 10 logical fallacies (those similar I combined)
1. Ad hominem - “poisoning the well,” a type of red herring
2. Strawman - creating easy argument to then refute
3. Black or White, Either-Or thinking, False dilemma
4. Hasty generalization - slippery slope/domino theory, non-sequitur, false cause, post hoc
5. Red herring - distraction
6. Begging the question - loaded question
7. Special pleading/exceptions, fallacy of equivocation, stacking the deck, moving the goalposts
8. Fallacy of circular reasoning
9. Appeal to emotion, ad misericordiam
10. Appeal to authority/tradition - similar: appeal to the people “argumentum adpopulum, bandwagon, spotlight fallacy

Would you add, subtract or otherwise change any of the above?”… if you had to stick with the 10 most significant logical fallacies?

[Age]

The list you compiled, is of already accepted and agreed upon 'logical fallacies', correct?

If yes, then all of them would make sense. For if they did not, then they would be of some sort of 'logical fallacy', themselves.

I grouped some together and didn’t include MANY that seemed redundant or less commonly relevant … so again, I was asking for feedback which I have yet to get 4 pages in. It is suggested that 200 different logical fallacies exist. I listed 10.

Part of OP:
“ Main 10 logical fallacies (those similar I combined)
1. Ad hominem - “poisoning the well,” a type of red herring
2. Strawman - creating easy argument to then refute
3. Black or White, Either-Or thinking, False dilemma
4. Hasty generalization - slippery slope/domino theory, non-sequitur, false cause, post hoc
5. Red herring - distraction
6. Begging the question - loaded question
7. Special pleading/exceptions, fallacy of equivocation, stacking the deck, moving the goalposts
8. Fallacy of circular reasoning
9. Appeal to emotion, ad misericordiam
10. Appeal to authority/tradition - similar: appeal to the people “argumentum adpopulum, bandwagon, spotlight fallacy

Would you add, subtract or otherwise change any of the above?”… if you had to stick with the 10 most significant logical fallacies?

If I was to do any thing, here, it would be to explain that your own personal 'definitions', here, are not necessarily how others may see and view those logical fallacies at all.

[MikeNovack]

Those are examples of bad argument in Rhetoric.

Logical fallacies something else, and applying not only to statements as spoken but also if expressed in formal logic (symbolic logic). A statement or set of statements that are self referential are always subject to that possibility, and the source of many of the classic paradoxes.