Logical Fallacies: Substitution or Loss of the Thesis

One of the most common logical fallacies or manipulations I encounter is the substitution of the thesis. This happens when, instead of addressing the original point being made, someone shifts the focus to a second point—similar on the surface but unrelated in substance. This misleads people and distorts the meaning. When done intentionally, it’s a substitution of the thesis; when unintentional, it’s a loss of the thesis.

Here’s an example. Once, I was banned from a community for saying that the moderation rules could be improved because they had inconsistencies and issues. The community owner interpreted this as me criticizing or disliking the community itself. Their response was something like, «I hope you find a community you like.» But where’s the connection between pointing out flaws in the rules and disliking the community? There isn’t one—it's a made-up conclusion.

If you’re unhappy about people littering near your building, does that mean you hate your home, city, or country? Of course not. That’s a classic substitution of the thesis. You often hear this in interviews with clueless journalists. For instance, if a guest says, «We need to ensure children’s safety on the roads,» the response might be, «So, you’re saying kids should stay home and never go outside?» That’s typical inflammatory nonsense.

Logical fallacies are hard to spot because humans are imperfect. Many factors can lead to such errors: intentional manipulation, emotions, cognitive bias, the complexity of the issue, biases, lack of information, and more. That’s why it’s crucial to think before speaking—otherwise, you risk saying something equally absurd.