Just thought "divide and conquer" was missing from terms often used to describe logical fallacies. It differs from usual logical fallacies in that it is used to control a herd narrative, not just in conversation between two people.
Well so are numerous other concepts "missing" from logical fallacies but a logical fallacy must have an error of logic while it attempts to make an argument. No argument = no errors to be made, so what's the argument?
Indeed but exactly what is the error though, what proposition is made or simply suggested that pegs such a gambit/tactic/operation as fallacious, because to me it seems like a complete 180 of a fallacy: a truth - breaking apart opposition in order to conquer it in parts instead of whole, which arguably is a sound way of thinking should it be about conquering adversaries or adversity.
More please.
Just thought "divide and conquer" was missing from terms often used to describe logical fallacies. It differs from usual logical fallacies in that it is used to control a herd narrative, not just in conversation between two people.
Well so are numerous other concepts "missing" from logical fallacies but a logical fallacy must have an error of logic while it attempts to make an argument. No argument = no errors to be made, so what's the argument?
This, just for the art of reason,
Indeed but exactly what is the error though, what proposition is made or simply suggested that pegs such a gambit/tactic/operation as fallacious, because to me it seems like a complete 180 of a fallacy: a truth - breaking apart opposition in order to conquer it in parts instead of whole, which arguably is a sound way of thinking should it be about conquering adversaries or adversity.