Rhetoric

Ok, I'll tell you what's wrong with the conversation(s) in "What's wrong with this conversation?"
I did receive a couple of responses to my previous post, but no answers. Some anonymous lady, I presume, ranted on about the blessings of feminism. Not a word about communism, though. My initial reaction was, fuck this troll, I'm deleting the post. Then I thought about it and realized that, even though my post already contained some of the fallacies found in the responses, this was genuine, whereas mine was a laboratory example.

Here are some classic fallacies worth considering for this conversation:

Ignoratio elenchi
No true Scotsman
Misleading vividness
Overwhelming exception
False dilemma
Cherry picking
Argumentum ad hominem
Appeal to flattery
Association fallacy
Argumentum ad consequentiam

Below I have analyzed the statements of A and B.

A: I don't like feminism. They want to force a special tax on people with penises and they make a fuss about how society wants them to shave their armpits.

The conversation is initiated by A who states that he doesn't like feminism/communism. He then justifies this view by saying that "they" do so and so. He doesn't say that the -ism in question (henceforth "feminism") entails any definitive views, although this is implied. Neither does he say that he dislikes "feminists". This could be due to the fact that he doesn't want to say that he dislikes his conversation partner. What we have here is two different statements - one about A's feelings towards feminism as a doctrine as perceived by him, the other about what A thinks feminists are like. If the ensuing conversation were to be meaningful it would concentrate around the question of what feminism actually is and, if this were the case, A would quite possibly have to re-evaluate his views or at least reformulate them.

B: No, we don't.

So far, so good. B admits to being a feminist and refutes A's statement about what feminists are like.

A: Well, Gudrun Schyman does.

A tries defending his view by giving an example of a famous person of rather extreme views who calls herself a feminist.

B: Not all feminists do.

Good. It does not follow that, if one feminist holds certain views, all feminists do.

A: So, what kind of feminist are you then?

A agrees with the above and asks for a description of the kind of feminist B claims to be.

B: I want equality for everybody.

This is where B starts going wrong. The proposition is almost meaningless as it holds very little information. It is actually comparable to A's initial statement.

A: Who doesn't want that?

A notes the lack of meaning in B's argument and implicitly asks for a better one.

B: Some men don't.

Instead of providing a better argument and giving relevant information as to what kind of feminist she is, B chooses to interpret A's question literally.

A: Ok, some men are assholes, so are some women, but what does feminism have to do with it?

A again notes the lack of information from B and asks for it more explicitly. Note the use of "more" in front of "explicitly". Human conversation seldom follows a strict logical form.

B: I want equal opportunities for men and women.

Again, B repeats herself.

A: You already said that, and so do I. Where does the feminism come in, though?

The conversation is going nowhere. Both A and B notice it but take different approaches. A stubbornly repeats the question.

B: Now you sound like a real chauvinist pig, you know that?

B insults A.

A: Ok, I'm popping down to the pub for a while.

A wants to end the conversation.

B: Yeah, you go drink yourself silly, why don't you!

B implicitly insults A, possibly knowing A has a drinking problem. Ironically, B instructs A to do just the thing he said he would, only accentuated.