You have committed the logical fallacy of 'to quoque', responding to criticism with criticism. The scrutiny (or lack thereof) for other individuals is of course irrelevant to the question.
I am unaware of any situation outside of pure mathematics where logic is the sole arbiter. I am curious to hear about such situations, though.
Edit to add: not sure if I am alone in this, but I also disagree with the author's characterization that the purpose of thinking about fallacies is to understand how people come to wrong conclusions. I think it has much more to do with the structure of an argument. It's not "you have come to this wrong conclusion by treating this fallacy as a good argument". It's more like "you believe this for whatever personal reasons you might have. You are trying to convince me to believe it as well, but you are failing to do so because your argument is not valid". I.e. it is more about the rhetoric than it is about coming to wrong beliefs in the first place.