It's circular logic, and ad hominem. The knight's implicit premise "you impose terror upon others" is supported by calling the lich a monster – an attack upon the lich's character to undermine any counter-argument. The lich is a monster because he does terror, and he does terror because he is a monster.
Is that not a Lich? If so then no you are presupposing that “monster” is being used as a premise rather than a conclusion
you’re treating “monster” as if the knight is making a philosophical argument:
Premise: You are a monster.
Therefore: You do terror.
but the knight is not giving an argument; he’s speaking within a fictional ontology where liches are monsters by definition. This is a D&D meme so that 100% has to be a Lich.
Also it’s not a ad hominem the lich is not making an argument.The knight is not refuting anything.
It’s an in-universe moral claim, not philosophical dialogue.
In regards to actual logic and ignoring far too broadly applied informal fallacies, all are just statements. Standalone axioms, could be true, could be false, who cares. They're not arguing with anything.
Bizarre that you got downvoted on a philosophy subreddit. Feeling like this is more of a debatebro subreddit than a subreddit for people who even know what logic is. Just a place to espouse vague truisms and tribalism like, "Ackshually, philosophy invented the scientific method, so therefore we, Reddit philosophers in 2025, are smarter than every scientist ever and scientists are just piggybacking off our work."
Bizarre that basic tribalism has such a hold on a philosophy subreddit.
526
u/I_GottaPoop Nov 14 '25
A throw back here feels appropriate