Awhile back I posted a version of this in a thread and many seemed to find it helpful. I post it here as a reference guide for betrayed spouses trying to penetrate the thick haze of fuzzy thinking and gaslighting waywards so often perpetrate on them.
Along with DARVO, blameshifting, and rewriting history, waywards will often deploy a series of common logical fallacies.
There are two ways to invalidate arguments: empirically (a lie, a misstatement of fact) and logically (someone uses flawed reasoning).
Using a logical fallacy invalidates a statement immediately. If betrayed spouses learn how to spot these, they can cut through a lot of the gaslighting blather and blarney they typically are assaulted with.
Deploying logic in these situations can help spot the word games, mind games, triangulation tactics and crazymaking gambit games that WS's so often like to play.
If you feel frozen in time by some gobsmacking statement your WS has made, it's likely because it is a logical fallacy.
Take a moment, breathe, examine it and then call them out on it.
They will grow frustrated, but will shy away from that tactic henceforth. You can bring these kinds of games to a grinding halt by calling them out: "That's a straw man argument," "you're being intellectually dishonest" "that's an ad hominem attack on me and it's illegitimate on its face" etc.
I started doing this calmly with my WW. She got angry, which is to be expected when someone realizes what they thought was a "rational" way of thinking is crumbling in front of them. But she also stopped that particular tactic, moved on to another one until I called that out, and so on. Eventually she stopped most of the games.
Common fallacies WS's use:
1. Ad hominem attacks (example: "Thumos you're so blunt in speaking of my adultery. You're a man. It's obvious you must hate women.")
2. False dichotomies (an either/or proposition that ignores a third, fourth possibility and so on). Example: "You're getting divorced. Either you don’t understand how to properly handle reconciliation ... or you must not be a very forgiving person."
3. Circular reasoning (Simply repeating an argument instead of actually proving it) Example: "You have such a high bar for reconciliation, so you must be against it."
4. Naturalistic fallacy ("adultery is acceptable because humans aren't naturally monogamous" - this is a dubious scientific claim in any case and increasingly it may be empirically false as well)
5. Appeal to people - ad populum - ("So many people commit adultery, so what's the big deal?")
6. Strawman argument ("So I guess I'm a whore to you now?") -- positing an extreme statement or argument you never made so they can easily knock down this "straw man"
7. Red herring fallacy (throwing out a "red herring" to throw hounds off the scent). WS will do this repeatedly, throwing out an argument or statement which seems relevant but which isn't.
8. Tu Quoque Fallacy ('you too'). Examples: "you were promiscuous as a young woman, how dare you judge me" or "I've seen you looking at other women, so how dare you judge me" - these are also examples of false equivalency.
9. Appeal to authority ("our marriage counselor says we don't communicate well" or "Esther Perel says affairs are journeys of discovery and empowerment")
10. Appeal to pity or appeal to emotion ("I had a bad childhood" or "I'm a sex addict" or "I was in the fog when I said all those terrible things, so obviously I didn't mean them." or "yes, I've slept with multiple men but I really want our marriage and I love you so much. Don't abandon me.")
11. The genetic fallacy (trying to debunk an argument based on its origins rather than dealing with the substance of the argument itself). Example: "Your friend cheated, so he can't possibly give you good advice about our situation"
12. The middle ground. "You think extra-marital sex is wrong. Let's agree to disagree."
13. Motte and bailey fallacy - This is harder to spot. It's when an adulterer "conflates two positions which share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial (the "bailey")... then advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position." Example: "Monogamy is a social construct. Polyamory is normal and healthy."
The motte is "monogamy is a human construct imposed on humans," while the bailey is that polyamory is perfectly normal.
"Look, I'm not saying I want to be polyamorous, just that monogamy is a social construct. Surely you can agree with that."
And then once you agree to that, they begin working on advancing the more extreme proposition because you allowed them to take and stand on new ground.
13. "I'm entitled to my opinion." You can usually tell when someone has lost the argument when they retreat to this stance. (Example: "My opinion is I'm not rugsweeping. I'm entitled to think that.")
14. Relativist fallacy - "That's your truth, not my truth." or "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me." Obviously it is self refuting to argue a single statement can be both true and false at the same time. It's either true or it isn't.
15. Sunk costs fallacy - Many BS's believe that they've invested so much in this marriage, they have to keep trying, even if it's obviously a fruitless effort. I myself may have fallen into this trap, but it's in a version of concern about the impact a divorce will have on my son.
Hope this is helpful. There are obviously innumerable logical fallacies, and others here can feel to add to my list. I just find these are the most commonly deployed in an infidelity situation.
