Now you’re admitting failure to understand definitions.
A denial isn’t a problem or part of the trap: denials can be stated without Kafka trap.
The trap is the assumed conditional statement denial implies the denied assertion as the definition explicitly states:
A Kafka trap is a fallacy where if someone denies being x it is taken as evidence that the person is x since someone who is x would deny being x.
This is a fallacy because it’s a form of circular reasoning: a person who is not x would truthfully deny being x.
Hence, the fallacy implies if a person is not x, then they are x.
This is logically equivalent to assuming the person is x.
Notice an actual denial isn’t necessary to draw that presupposition as a conclusion: only the conditional statement that defines a Kafka trap was necessary.
What a way to out yourselves as assholes by acting like this comic is personally attacking you
They are claiming the people who criticize the fallacies in the comic are ‘outing themselves as assholes’ as ‘personally attacked’.
They assume it’s undeniable someone criticizes the comic only due to being the type of person the comic criticizes: even if someone denies their criticism is only due to that reason, it is.
There’s no possible way the comic has an actual flaw to criticize.
This is a Kafka trap with the condition x as someone who criticizes the comic only due to being the type of person the comic criticizes.
The trap supposes the condition is always true.
It implies anyone who criticizes the comic must be the type of person the comic criticizes.
By ad hominem fallacy, they proceed to discredit any critic’s claims that the comic could have an actual flaw to criticize.
In symbolic logic
A: the critic criticizes the comic
B: the critic is the type of person the comic criticizes
Cx: the critic claims x
A
¬(A → B) → C¬(A → B)
C¬(A → B) → A → B: Kafka trap premise
¬(A → B) → A → B: 2, 3 hypothetical syllogism
A → B: 4 logical equivalence (¬a→a⟚a)
B: 1, 5 modus ponens
Whether or not you accept the argument conforms to a Kafka trap, the fact remains they unjustifiably assume faulty premise A → B, conclude B, & proceed to dismiss critics’ objections via apparent ad hominem.
The frequent defense of & blindness to fallacies is an interesting phenomenon that isn’t that mysterious to explain: some people are stubborn, shitty reasoners.
Now to address irrelevancies (you includes commenter):
Their behavior while defending themselves
Assumption: you’re supposing they’re defending themselves.
The critics are simply criticizing the comic.
You know absolutely nothing about the critics but their arguments.
That they have self-identified as feeling they themselves were being criticized, or that they feel the behavior in the comic is worth defending.
Assumptions: you’re assuming all that.
Criticizing a dumb comic doesn’t mean defending depicted behavior, either.
Criticizing them for feeling that they were the one being accused
means assuming they were feeling that way.
At no point do you consider the critics could just be criticizing an actual fault with the comic.
You’re pulling wild presuppositions (critics must be defending themselves or identifying with the character or defending bad behavior or feel accused) out of nowhere & claiming they’re true no matter what.
It’s an insult to your own intelligence.
Now you’re admitting failure to understand definitions. A denial isn’t a problem or part of the trap: denials can be stated without Kafka trap. The trap is the assumed conditional statement denial implies the denied assertion as the definition explicitly states:
This is a fallacy because it’s a form of circular reasoning: a person who is not x would truthfully deny being x. Hence, the fallacy implies if a person is not x, then they are x. This is logically equivalent to assuming the person is x.
Notice an actual denial isn’t necessary to draw that presupposition as a conclusion: only the conditional statement that defines a Kafka trap was necessary.
They are claiming the people who criticize the fallacies in the comic are ‘outing themselves as assholes’ as ‘personally attacked’. They assume it’s undeniable someone criticizes the comic only due to being the type of person the comic criticizes: even if someone denies their criticism is only due to that reason, it is. There’s no possible way the comic has an actual flaw to criticize.
This is a Kafka trap with the condition x as someone who criticizes the comic only due to being the type of person the comic criticizes. The trap supposes the condition is always true. It implies anyone who criticizes the comic must be the type of person the comic criticizes.
By ad hominem fallacy, they proceed to discredit any critic’s claims that the comic could have an actual flaw to criticize.
In symbolic logic
Whether or not you accept the argument conforms to a Kafka trap, the fact remains they unjustifiably assume faulty premise A → B, conclude B, & proceed to dismiss critics’ objections via apparent ad hominem.
The frequent defense of & blindness to fallacies is an interesting phenomenon that isn’t that mysterious to explain: some people are stubborn, shitty reasoners.
Now to address irrelevancies (you includes commenter):
Assumption: you’re supposing they’re defending themselves. The critics are simply criticizing the comic. You know absolutely nothing about the critics but their arguments.
Assumptions: you’re assuming all that. Criticizing a dumb comic doesn’t mean defending depicted behavior, either.
means assuming they were feeling that way. At no point do you consider the critics could just be criticizing an actual fault with the comic.
You’re pulling wild presuppositions (critics must be defending themselves or identifying with the character or defending bad behavior or feel accused) out of nowhere & claiming they’re true no matter what. It’s an insult to your own intelligence.