50501

False equivalency

Definition doesn't fit.

fallacy fallacy.

Here neither: merely pointing out your argument is invalid (which it is), is not an argument that your conclusion is false, which I simply didn't bother to claim.

Would bothering to claim & argue it's false (reusing your words) "waste my time" & "sully" my attention with an invalid argument? Reusing your language even more

You know the comment is invalid and you don’t delete it, that is tacit endorsement of fallacies. You seem unbothered by that.

I do ignore the message if it is irrational. I won’t weigh your ideas further than necessary if I know the reasoning is poor. I’m not going to waste my time or sully my brain by valuing and evaluating something posing as good reasoning that isn't.

You want me on your team? Don’t disrespect my attention with your poorly reasoned demands. Convey your message like we understand logic instead of abusing our attention with a pretense of a well-thought argument. I don’t ask you to be a perfect human — I ask that you and your messages respect logic if you want me to listen. Flawed reasoning isn’t used to gain allies; it’s used to mislead & exploit the unwitting.

While I don't completely agree with that argument, either (especially the first paragraph), insisting on reasoning/substance seems way more compelling than that original argument (rejecting a message over superficial considerations). You absolutely can, but reasons that it's right or logical are lacking or conflicted.

Rejecting a message is worthy of consideration over style is something an irrational person does. It's a classic fallacy.

False equivalency and fallacy fallacy.

The fallacy fallacy is thinking that just naming fallacies discredits an argument. Literally what you just did in your post.