I see this type of argument made sometimes, and I’m curious if it has a name.
In a public debate, say one group of people are all generally in favor of a certain outcome. However, among that group, there are disagreements about the methods to achieve that outcome, with some of those methods being in conflict. A bad faith debater points out these disagreements in such a way as to claim that there is no way to satisfy the opposing side.
An example I partially remember from something I heard years ago (a Rush Limbaugh bit, IIRC): Bob the Bad Faith Debater says, “I read that the XYZ Fund opposes wind power because the windmills kill birds. So now environmentalists don’t like wind. Another study says solar power affects local wildlife. So, solar is no good. And of course, nuclear is totally off the table! Nothing is green enough for these people!”
The bad faith part, of course, is that Bob is taking the views of a subset of the group and imputing them to others in the group as a way to make the group as a whole seem unreasonable or self-contradictory. In the example above, the environmentalists who oppose wind power may support solar, and vice versa. The bad faith argument assumes that a view held by some people who favor outcome X is held by everyone who favors outcome X.
It’s not quite nutpicking, since the views selected by the bad faith debater may have merit on their own. There may well be legitimate objections to wind or solar or whatever. But the bad faith debater picks out these reasonable, but competing, views to argue that the whole group who favors outcome X has impossible demands.
A variation on the selection form, or “weak man” argument, that combines with an ad hominem and fallacy of composition is nut picking, a neologism coined by Kevin Drum. A combination of “nut” (i.e., insane person) and “cherry picking”, nut picking refers to intentionally seeking out extremely fringe, non-representative statements or individuals from members of an opposing group and parading these as evidence of that entire group’s incompetence or irrationality.
The OP seems like a form of the package-deal fallacy - asserting (in bad faith in this case) one thing (being an environmentalist) is part of a whole package (opposing wind power, opposing solar) rather than separate things. It’s a form of hasty generalization and stereotyping.
The idea that the only acceptable solution is the one that pleases everybody can also be seen as a form of the Nirvana fallacy.
Alternatively, it’s a form of the association fallacy. As given in that link, the form is:
[ul]
[li]Premise: A is a B[/li][li]Premise: A is also a C[/li][li]Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs[/li][/ul]
In the given example:
[ul]
[li]Somebody is an environmentalist[/li][li]Somebody is also against wind power[/li][li]Therefore, environmentalists are against wind power[/li][/ul]
Thanks! The association fallacy seems to be it. In my example, Bob is using multiple association fallacies to paint the other side as impossible to work with. If there’s not a name for that tactic, I propose the Limbaugh Lope (inspired by the Gish Gallop).
That’s not necessarily bad faith. Unless the opposite group of concurring debaters all believe the ends justify the means, the statement “there is no way to satisfy the opposing side” could very well be true.
In traditional logic the conclusion is vague and can be construed as a non-sequitur. If it is implied or argued that all environmentalists dislike wind, that constitutes a fallacy of the illicit major:
[ul][li]All members of the XYZ Fund oppose wind power.[/li][li]All members of the XYZ Fund are environmentalists.[/li][li]Therefore, all environmentalists oppose wind power.[/ul][/li]The correct conclusion, assuming members of the XYZ Fund are environmentalists, is that some environmentalists don’t like wind:
[ul][li]All members of the XYZ Fund oppose wind power.[/li][li]All members of the XYZ Fund are environmentalists.[/li][li]Therefore, some environmentalists oppose wind power.[/ul][/li]The same applies to the solar argument, the correct conclusion of which is that some environmentalists don’t like solar. This probably applies to nuclear power, too.
The inductive argument that all environmentalists don’t support any form of power is fallacious as Half Man Half Wit pointed out. But there is another interpretation, which is that there is no form of power supported by all environmentalists; and this statement is very likely true.
I agree, it depends the exact point the ‘bad faith’ debater is making. If her claim is that environmentalists are irrational that’s not proven at all by pointing out people who call themselves such disagree even in important ways. Sticking with but hoping not to derail into debating the example, people could give rational arguments why a) ‘we’ must turn around and greatly accelerate nuclear power plant construction to have a baseload form of low carbon power, without having to make the leap to a grid that runs mostly on renewable sources, which is a lot different than renewables chipping in 20% or something at the margin, v b) others rationally arguing that nuclear is too expensive and too politically constrained in the real world (NIMBY etc) to be a big part of the solution, and in fact the leap to a near 100% renewables grid is not as far out of reach as it might appear. One side is likely mistaken (or both might be if the idea is a very low carbon grid happening in less than decades from now) but neither is necessarily irrational.
However as you say, disagreeing on what ‘we’ should do, or even the basic method by which ‘we’ should make that decision* is a very real obstacle and there aren’t really just two simple sides to it (“‘we’ must do something”, vs “nah, it’s OK, global warming is mainly hype”). Or IOW maybe for this issue let’s we should ask what the logical fallacy is where you focus on a simple binary (for/against ‘doing something’ and all the people for ‘doing something’ are considered ‘on my side’) for an issue where everyone agreeing on the simple binary would not really be major progress. An issue where the devil is inherently in the details, and especially as to the non-binary matter of degree question how much ordinary people are willing to have their standard of living reduced by your ‘solution’. If we’re debating what to force people to do, it must have some real downside for them or we wouldn’t have to force them to do it.
*legislators agree X, Y, or Z is the answer in a certain proportion and tailor very specific subsidies, credits and mandates to make that happen, in coordination of separately and uncoordinated by proponents and vested interest in X, Y, Z etc; or just impose the simplest intervention like a carbon tax and market decides beyond that what mix of things works best.