Spazztichero HELP what's the fallacy where someone is wrong about something and you decide that means they can never be right about anything ever again?

Faulty generalization?

Or more specific than that?

It kind of falls between two of the fallacies I know. Faulty or Hasty Generalization, or the Fallacy of Composition (it kinda goes by many names) definitely fits. It's a fallacy associated with the Example inference, wherein one assumes that one example is automatically true of the whole category.

But it could also be a bit of Ad Hominem depending on how it's used, where one attacks the person instead of the argument. It's a little less attached to that one, but I could see it being a situation of "You wrong because you are a person who is wrong." But that's kind of a stretch maybe I dunno

The generalization fallacy fits best

I think ad hominem only popped in my head because I was considering if someone is deemed wrong due to their taste in something. "You're wrong because your taste is bad (because I deemed you wrong in liking something)"

ᴇᴠɪᴇ Spazztichero thank you n.n

the context is: my brother hates the mechanic mom has been going to for years and years, claims he's incompetent

now, granted, this is the same guy who told us the Corolla was safe to drive approximately 15 minutes before the front axle broke under us

but

I mean he is using legitimate example reasoning to be fair. That's a pretty big example to draw from. But at the same time, it is certainly fallacious to assume that he is wrong in all things because he was wrong in one.

right I mean

he's had this bug up his butt about the guy for YEARS and this is the first time he's actually fucked up

and the car was in rough shape because we had a pandemic and no garage

so it was all rusted and what have you

and my brother contends

that the other car, which has remained undriven for a good six months longer in exactly the same conditions, must be perfectly good because mechanic guy says it's probably rusted to hell too

Ah, so suspecting ad hominem was a good instinct. He puts down the mechanic's claims because he does not like the man. And he seized upon one legitimate example to generalize to a whole category to support his general dislike.

Fallacy of Composition motivated by Ad Hominem

Fallacies sometimes do love to travel in packs

what an interesting hill to die on, Guin's brother.

and I do mean die because a rusted out and uninspected car is a death trap

Especially on hills!

Spazztichero : jdhgfdd chef kiss

ᴇᴠɪᴇ RIGHT? like he goes on and on about how the guy ENDANGERED OUR LIVES

and then immediately turns around and is like "nah the other car's fine though, I know because of reasons"

that is when one gets a second opinion if the first is not personally held trustworthy~

every time I bring up this fact, he suddenly has a headache and needs to lie down

"okay, if you don't trust Chris, who DO you want to take the car to?" "..."

We must also consider expert versus lay testimony. The mechanic is an expert. Your brother is a layperson.

ᴇᴠɪᴇ High five tag team metaphor!