A logical fallacy doesn't depend on format of an argument.
I want a refund for my time spent, trying to get you to understand simple logic applications. It was a fallacious argument/statement. A very common example of one.
Nothing clever about it, except in your own mind which apparently doesn't have room for researching fallacies.
It's not an argument.
Lol.
No, it was a quip, not an arguement. Take your condescension, put it to the side. And take a logic class.
Ah, again, logic gets you, the fact that it is so widely circulated and still used all these decades later demonstrates that it does indeed have an enduring cleverness.
You don't even seem to understand what constitutes an argument. Enjoy the rest of your day.
And you don't seem to understand that your part in this exchange is a great demonstration why his quip hits home.
You really believe Ghandi was joking?
You don’t know what a quip is.
You gave a definition without checking to see how it’s defined in other dictionaries. One of the synonyms cited, in my source, relates it to the word “joke”. Since you already stated GhandI was not joking you lost your own argument. He made a statement seated in the hasty generalization fallacy. I’ll accept your concession when you can be open to blowing it.
Weinberg was an idiot expressing an opinion. In many scenarios it’s the rejection of religion that drives good people to do evil things. Most sin is a singularity.
Ghandi wasn't joking. But it was a quip, and funny.
It’s difficult and pointless to argue with someone who is too proud to admit when they clearly don’t understand the difference between a quip and argument. Ghandi made a statement which can be logically evaluated. It’s been so, and I showed conclusively that it was a fallacious argument consistenting of a hasty generalization. You can have the last word. You’ve wasted enough of my time.
Oh come on.