upvote
non sequitur, faulty generalization, inductive fallacy come to mind, but I think it's useful studying how to not be an walking fallacy, in general
reply
You already linked the page, no need to start listing the content. Jokes aside, I’d be happy to discuss if you could muster anything specific that fits. Maybe ask an LLM for help?
reply
you took a quote of a snarky comment, assumed it a correct reproduction, and then suggested it's the result of imitating adults along with a (sad) state of affairs caused by adults (parents in this context), further implying that snarky comments are the general rule in the house.

now concretely: Your conclusion doesn't follow the evidence (non sequitur).

You made a generalization (inductive inference) based on a single datapoint (here's where my pointed faulty generalization or inductive fallacy are the come in) for the general problem. I suggest Popper if you want a deeper treatment of the problem of induction (The logic of scientific discovery is a good start).

Besides generalizing for free, you cooked up evidence that didn't exist - mainly that the child was imitating adults (again, non sequitur).

As a side note, I think it's in poor taste to make remarks about someone's children in what's a technical and informal context. That may have not been the intention but, it's what it looked like.

reply