Obviously neither you nor Bricker know the difference between Informal and Formal Fallacies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacyAn informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises may fail to adequately support its proposed conclusion.[1] The problem with an informal fallacy often stems from reasoning that renders the conclusion unpersuasive. In contrast to a formal fallacy of deduction, the error is not a flaw in logic.
Let me restate that last: In contrast to a formal fallacy of deduction, the error is not a flaw in logic
Bricker quoted Appeal to consequences
*Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for “argument to the consequences”), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy,
*
Again, let me restate that last:
Appeal to consequences…is… a type of informal fallacy,
Thus* Appeal to consequences* is not a flaw in logic.
Both you and Bricker clearly don’t know the difference.
In philosophy, a formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning which is rendered invalid due to a flaw in its logical structure which can neatly be expressed in standard system of logic, for example propositional logic.[1] An argument that is formally fallacious is always considered to be wrong. A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy, which may have a valid logical form and yet be unsound because one or more premises are false.
You logic is unsound, as well is your knowledge of Logic. It’s absolutely astonishing that even you don’t know this. It certainly puts a permanent pall over any argument you try to make from now on, as you’ve just openly shown that you don’t know how logic works.
