# Is there a name for this logical fallacy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 20, 2004, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166 "2004-09-20T18:42:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Scarf-Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bc79bd/32.png) [@Scarf-Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarf-Ace)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166/1 "2004-09-20T18:42:00Z")
When someone extracts a principle from your argument, and applies it to a completely different matter to prove you wrong. Of course this would be fine if you were arguing about principle, but I am talking about arguing for a specific thing. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166/2 "2004-09-20T18:48:06Z")
> [@Scarf-Ace](#): > > When someone extracts a principle from your argument, and applies it to a completely different matter to prove you wrong. > > Of course this would be fine if you were arguing about principle, but I am talking about arguing for a specific thing. Give us an example: Are talking about a faulty analogy? ---
**Author:** ![bughunter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aeb1de/32.png) [@bughunter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bughunter)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166/3 "2004-09-20T18:57:54Z")
Yes. My wife employs this fallacy all the time. It’s called _gynosposus irrationalis_. (Sorry… from [the list on this page](http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm), it appears that [Irrelevant Conclusion](http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/irrelev.htm) is the closest.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166/4 "2004-09-20T19:01:34Z")
Could be simply [Bad Analogy](http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#analogy). ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166/5 "2004-09-20T19:24:51Z")
It would help if we had a more concrete example. ---
**Author:** ![Scarf-Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bc79bd/32.png) [@Scarf-Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarf-Ace)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166/6 "2004-09-20T20:48:11Z")
Say someone is arguing that people should be able to modify their bodies if they are unhappy with them, in the context of sex. Their opponent responds that someone belonging to a racial minority may be unhappy due to prejudice, so using the same reasoning, they should be able to change their colour if they want. Wouldn’t you agree that the response is completely false? Its a shifting of the context when the reasoning is very much about a specific thing. I was just wondering if it had an official sounding name. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166/7 "2004-09-20T20:52:14Z")
The example you’ve given is not a fallacious argument. ---
**Author:** ![Scarf-Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bc79bd/32.png) [@Scarf-Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarf-Ace)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166/8 "2004-09-20T21:07:19Z")
Ultrafilter: > [@](#): > > The example you’ve given is not a fallacious argument. I disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Harriet\_the\_Spry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Harriet\_the\_Spry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harriet_the_Spry)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166/9 "2004-09-20T21:13:38Z")
Sounds like a fair tactic to make you explain the difference between the 2 situations. A is true because ??? B is false because??? A is true because “People should have the right to modify their own bodies.” B is false because “People shouldn’t have the right to modify their own bodies when …?” ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166/10 "2004-09-20T21:16:18Z")
> [@Scarf-Ace](#): > > I disagree. Obviously, or you wouldn’t have posted about the fallacy. You’re saying that, if people are unhappy with their bodies for one reason, they should be allowed to change. Then someone suggests that by the same reasoning, if people are unhappy with their bodies for another reason, they should be allowed to change. The argument is the same and the conclusion is the same, but the premises differ. So the new reasoning can only be incorrect if the premises differ in some essential way so that the argument applies to one and not the other. What’s the difference between race and sex as is relevant here? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166/11 "2004-09-20T21:17:35Z")
> [@Scarf-Ace](#): > > Say someone is arguing that people should be able to modify their bodies if they are unhappy with them, in the context of sex. > > Their opponent responds that someone belonging to a racial minority may be unhappy due to prejudice, so using the same reasoning, they should be able to change their colour if they want. > > Wouldn’t you agree that the response is completely false? > > Its a shifting of the context when the reasoning is very much about a specific thing. I was just wondering if it had an official sounding name. Well, you could choose from _non sequitur_ or error of fact. Race-change operations are simply not available. But your examples are still confusing. For example, if race-change operations were available, why would they by “bad”? ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166/12 "2004-09-20T21:19:24Z")
You’re free to agree or disagree; It’s either false/bad/weak analogy or no fallacy. Which one it is is “for the judge to decide”, so to speak. Some logical arguments, such as categorical or symbolic, can be characterized as valid or invalid, but reasoning by analogy does better when spoken of in terms of strong and weak. Computers have done pretty well for us in a multitude of logical operations, but reasoning by analogy still seems to be pretty much a human operation. ---
**Author:** ![Roches](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bc8723/32.png) [@Roches](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roches)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166/13 "2004-09-20T21:34:48Z")
_Non sequitur_ is a broader category to which this sort of fallacious argument would belong. Also, the counter-argument is not realistic because race-change operations are not available, race is determined by an entirely different genetic property than sex, and people who desire to change their gender do not want to do so to escape discrimination (indeed, they are likely to be discriminated against far more if they have changed their gender). A similar argument would be to say that overweight people should not be permitted to exercise or change their diets, because it is wrong to change one’s body. ‘Bad analogy’ is an appropriate name for this sort of fallacy also, but I think the OP was looking for a Latin term. =) ---
**Author:** ![Mathochist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c89c15/32.png) [@Mathochist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mathochist)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166/14 "2004-09-20T21:49:47Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Well, you could choose from _non sequitur_ or error of fact. Race-change operations are simply not available. > > But your examples are still confusing. For example, if race-change operations were available, why would they by “bad”? Non sequitur is more directly irrelevant. As for the unavailability of race changes, I think we all know of at least one extreme case where skin tone and facial structure have changed enough that while someone may not resemble another race than that they were born into perfectly, they don’t much look like their birth race either. ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166/15 "2004-09-20T22:04:50Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Race-change operations are simply not available. > > if race-change operations were available, why would they by “bad”? Cite Michael Jackson. Attempts to change his appearance to look less “black” were successful… to a point. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166/16 "2004-09-20T22:31:57Z")
> [@Scarf-Ace](#): > > When someone extracts a principle from your argument, and applies it to a completely different matter to prove you wrong. > > Of course this would be fine if you were arguing about principle, but I am talking about arguing for a specific thing. What you describe is not necessarily a logical fallacy, or even a rhetorical vice. Please give an actual example. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166/17 "2004-09-20T23:18:29Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Race-change operations are simply not available. We might not call them “race-change operations,” but they’re very common. Nose-jobs, hair-straightening/curling, alteration of skin-tone, and particularly removal or creation of epicanthic folds are all standard offerings which are used to make someone appear to be of another “race.” ---
**Author:** ![Scarf-Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bc79bd/32.png) [@Scarf-Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarf-Ace)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166/18 "2004-09-21T14:33:29Z")
Harriet-The-spry: > [@](#): > > Sounds like a fair tactic to make you explain the difference between the 2 situations. A is true because ??? B is false because??? > > A is true because “People should have the right to modify their own bodies.” B is false because “People shouldn’t have the right to modify their own bodies when …?” Right - this is tricky because its essentially an ethical argument so i’ll try and clarify a bit. I’m saying A is possibly true because it may represent a valid choice which is based on how someone feels internally. I’m saying B is never true because if the choice was available, it would be taken because of prejudice - there is no inherent reason for someone to be unhappy with their colour. The assumption is that valid choices are those taken only with regard to increasing the happiness of the individual. If someone did change their colour to escape prejudice, you can bet that they would not be happier as a result. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166/19 "2004-09-21T16:24:53Z")
> [@Scarf-Ace](#): > > When someone extracts a principle from your argument, and applies it to a completely different matter to prove you wrong. Sounds like a strawman to me. ---
**Author:** ![Scarf-Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bc79bd/32.png) [@Scarf-Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarf-Ace)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-name-for-this-logical-fallacy/265166/20 "2004-09-21T18:17:56Z")
Yeah - its definitely a Strawman variant come to think of it!