Therefore, we will define a logical fallacy as a concept within argumentation that commonly leads to an error in reasoning due to the deceptive nature of its presentation. Logical fallacies can comprise fallacious arguments that contain one or more non-factual errors in their form or deceptive arguments that often lead to fallacious reasoning in their evaluation.
Comment: I feel as if there is a crucial point of contention here.
You made a point in one of your responses about formality of the statement. This leads me to believe you are solely basing your response on the example given rather than the premise of the question.
If we rephrased the question to a formal argument, maybe we could have better clarification. This argument in which would presume party (b) could not have any combination of, and/or either independently: knowledge of, the ability to comprehend, or the option to opinionate on a topic that party (a) had either experienced first hand, or believes can only be understood first hand. Is that scenario still within a logical framework and thus not fallacious as you previously mentioned?
If that is too generalized, maybe this example could better capture the over all essence of the believed issue with the argument.
- party (a) a highly functioning autistic person believes that party (b) should not and could not speak about understanding how the autism spectrum works regardless of their educational background or research studied. Because they have not experienced it first hand.
I really dislike using an example here because it narrows the answer, and this issue is seen in so many instances that a more generalized conception of the argument seems to be more telling of the issue at hand.
Curious to see if anything will change or if all is still as you say, highly dependent on each scenario and generally not fallacious.
Would appreciate any public response you could give.
And thank you for your time. Both previously and if you Happen to make it to this.