< mstevens> Imagine two people arguing. One is in favour of X, and hates Y, the other likes Y, and hates X
< mstevens> both X and Y are members of class a
< mstevens> There’s a good chance that the X-supporter will argue “all things in a are perfectly fine!” in an attempt to support X
< mstevens> Then, the Y-support will say “aah, you must also like Y”, and the X-support will basically splutter and try to deny this obvious conclusion
...
< Tenoke01> mstevens, an example which doesn’t create a lot of tension will be marijuana smokers who say that it is fine to smoke because it is a plant and is natural but when asked on their opinion of tobacco for example will say that tobacco is bad even though it is also a plant
(mstevens is me, I asked Tenoke01 for permission to quote)
I think it is named “inventing a fictitious person who holds contradictory beliefs, in order to cast aspersions on one of those beliefs” and is a form of strawman fallacy.
argumentative antipattern ramblings from irc -
< mstevens> Imagine two people arguing. One is in favour of X, and hates Y, the other likes Y, and hates X
< mstevens> both X and Y are members of class a
< mstevens> There’s a good chance that the X-supporter will argue “all things in a are perfectly fine!” in an attempt to support X
< mstevens> Then, the Y-support will say “aah, you must also like Y”, and the X-support will basically splutter and try to deny this obvious conclusion
...
< Tenoke01> mstevens, an example which doesn’t create a lot of tension will be marijuana smokers who say that it is fine to smoke because it is a plant and is natural but when asked on their opinion of tobacco for example will say that tobacco is bad even though it is also a plant
(mstevens is me, I asked Tenoke01 for permission to quote)
Maybe we should have a name for this?
I think it is named “inventing a fictitious person who holds contradictory beliefs, in order to cast aspersions on one of those beliefs” and is a form of strawman fallacy.