Neither "human logic doesn't always apply in X" nor "human logic never applies in X" is a deduction. Yet logical fallacies can lead into a claim of those types. Here are some deductions I could make with such assumptions:

- "human logic doesn't always apply in X" and "we are discussing about X", thus "what was just proven is not certain to hold".

- "human logic never applies in X" and "we are discussing about X", thus "what was just proven is not certain to hold".

- "human logic never applies in X" and "we are discussing about X", thus "what was just proven does not hold".

- "human logic doesn't always apply in X" and "we are discussing about Y" and "even Y is in the scope of X", thus "what was just proven is not certain to hold".

- "human logic doesn't always apply in X" and "we are discussing about Y" and "anything can be in the scope of X" and "B was proven" and "I prefer if B is not true", thus "Y is in the scope of X" (Special Pleading)

Onto a slightly different topic, something I have been pondering on:

- "Logic holds for all claims" and "logic does not hold for paradoxical claims", thus "paradoxical claims aren't claims".

- "There are no contradictions in mathematical logic" and "self-referential claims can lead to contradictions", thus "self-referential claims aren't in the scope of mathematical logic".

I wish to one day know if Curry's Paradox could be used to actually fool people's subconscious:

- "use of logic can not cause contradictions" and "logic can be applied here" and "B or <a contradiction in the interpretation of this statement>", thus "B".