>just because an argument's a logical fallacy, that doesn't make it incorrect. //
An argument that uses fallacious reasoning is an incorrect argument, but pointing out a fallacy doesn't negate a conclusion (that would be the fallacy fallacy).
So, we can't tell if the conclusion is wrong when someone uses a fallacy.
My link did – but I'm making a stronger claim. (A tangential claim, mind.) Just because an argument pattern-matches to a named logical fallacy, that doesn't make it incorrect.
Take the conjunction fallacy. Ultimately, it comes down to the representativeness heuristic. However, the representativeness heuristic matches how we use language: to use Wikipedia's example, "Linda is a bank teller active in the feminist movement" is more correct than "Linda is a bank teller" if Linda is active in the feminist movement, but not a bank teller.
The mistake in such a situation is interpreting it as though the speaker is using classical logic, when they're actually using a fuzzy logic more akin to Bayesian inference. People focus too much on logical fallacies, and not enough on how the average human actually uses language. Precise language is useful, but that doesn't make "heuristic language" wrong, or fallacious.
An argument that's a logical fallacy can still be heuristically correct.
An argument that uses fallacious reasoning is an incorrect argument, but pointing out a fallacy doesn't negate a conclusion (that would be the fallacy fallacy).
So, we can't tell if the conclusion is wrong when someone uses a fallacy.
I'm guessing your link laid it out clearly.