are logical fallacies, in fact, aesthetic truths?

I was wondering about the longevity of logical fallacies, eg:

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/
http://society.gourt.com/Philosophy/Philosophy-of-Logic/Informal-Logic.html
http://guruconsulting.org/logic-fallacies/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19338520
http://www.metafilter.com/114379/The-problem-with-slippery-slope-arguments-is-that-once-you-start-using-them-you-quickly-move-on-to-other-fallacies
http://fallacyfiles.org/

Can it be that the fact + usage are precisely because they are aesthetic, of the senses, exercise senses – perhaps not all fallacies do that, but some.. – and from that they remain alive..?
Perhaps a logical treatment of fallacies is fallacious in its premise? ie lets show X is a fallacy because we are logical?
If we are logical at times, and aesthetic at other – all with degrees of emphasis rather than absolutes – then surely the logical way of treating fallacies is from illogical view of aestheics? For example, X fallacy if indeed a fallacy because employed in an attempt to establish a true/false of some precived possible reality.
However, if it is perceived as an aesthetic being that likes, for example, to connect the unconnectable and ignore their nonlinkage, that is what makes that strand live.. Then the question is of Being.. How are you being, sensing, living, with this kind of biase – and how are we going to live together. Rather than saying to that strand – fuck off am going to kill you!!
Rather than power, we are coming out of respect and how that respect can be mutual..

It could be that (my?) logic is actually underpinned by a fallacy.. For example, that logic, despite its conversational sharebility, is in itself fauly to the extent that life we share is not logical in its being.. Offcourse, here comes maths to dispel that assertion.. However, it seems to me that being able to represent bits of life in ordered manner, does not in itself imply logic, or the order of logic. Hence for example, logic seems to get tied in with rhetoric, how we might persuade a person, rather than how we can find the way to do stuff that is best for us. ie, if a person employs a fallacious logic, using logical argument, can dispel their position.. However, they could still be “right”, just not incisive enough, or not intelligent or knowledgeable enough, to communicate their position/thoughts well enough..

The other suspicious element here is the attachment to “truth” and “values”.. Am not always convinced that truth has a value at all times and circumstances, and that values are truly required to be main focus at all times..
They seem to be shifting sands, perhaps more personal elements at most times.. Also, they seems to be interpretative elements, which could indeed be very interesting in interpretation, and in other transing activities possibly, however, they should not be made to define.. eg lets check X, good and bad. Lets check X true or false.. Is it checking X or a limited, binary interpretation of X?
What if?
How if?
Lets if?
Lets check X as an IF X?
If I was the X sequence, the X rhythm, the X aesthetics – how would life be like? Will I be able to hear stuff? Move? Smell? Touch? Eat? Multiply? Emerge? Have sex? Cry? Desire? Lick? Check the time? Link up?
Lets IF X.. (Though we rarely get X.. Its more likely to Be x + y.. Lets if x + y..?)
——————

more links of probable relevance?

logic & fallacies:
http://www.goertzel.org/papers/PositiveTranscension.htm
http://jaysanalysis.com/tag/meta-logic/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalogic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Carnap
http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.tucows.com/search.html?tree_id=1&search_type=soft&search_terms=fallacy&search_scope=web&
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/phil/logic3/ch6/falsealt.htm
http://macinmind.com/?area=app&app=fallacy&pg=info
http://notbrainsurgery.livejournal.com/12209.html
http://alternativeto.net/software/logic-pro/?license=opensource