Hypothetical argument:
-Religion X does Y , it is horrible how do you defend that?
-Well religion Z does some Y as well and even some X.
Is there a name for these kind of tactics and does it have any bearing.
To make it explicit I’m referring to the debate and brouhaha surrounding the Muhammad cartoons in a Danish newspaper.
in the muslim world this stuff is taken a lot more serious than by most other denominations.Argument could sound like this.
-Some of the muslim world went bananas over this, maybe they are (right now) just more violent in the way they settle differences of opinion (a.k.a freedom of speech)
The logical part, when there is one, is the implication that if X does Y, then we need to eliminate X and that will eliminate or reduce Y. If Z is doing Y as well, then X is not a necessary condition to produce Y.
(Some) Muslims are terrorists. So are (some) Christians, (some) Jews, (some) atheists, and (some) other groups as well. IYSWIM.
A variant is the argument of disproportional attention. Group X does some bad thing. If Group Z does something ten times worse, why concern yourself with X when you could do more good working against Z?
There’s also the perfect solution fallacy: “The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that… a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented.” For instance, to continue this terrorism example, that if we fight muslim terrorists we’re flawed because there are other kinds of terrorists, too. This one is particularly dastardly because in terms of expressing solutions to social problems, one often encounters this kind of discussion: “Well, if you want to eliminate X by doing Y, you should also want to do Z because of the same reason,” the implication being that because we have not flawlessly implemented some strategy, we’re being inconsistent, hypocritical, etc.
I always think of it as- look at the mess in your own backyard first, before going over to demand the neighbor’s clean their back yard. If the neighbor has a mess that is causing trouble for you, by all means deal with it, but do not be shocked when they point out your mess. Maybe they have a bigger mess, but your mess is still yours to deal with, since it is in your own back yard. Maybe clean up your mess first, then go talk to the neighbors.
People are not trying to draw an equivalency by making this type of statement.
They are responding to the homogenization of Muslims by people who are not thinking things through or who are thinking through prejudice (usually the same thing). It creeps into our writing and arguing all the time. Your last sentence says “The Muslim World”. This homogenizes a massively variable group of people and cannot possibly be an accurate term.
People, like myself, who find the homogenization of more than a billion people into “The Muslim World” an abomination of thought feel it necessary to point out this kind of zealotry in the Christian World. It’s not to draw an equivalency and end productive discussion. It’s meant to say there are religion-independent factors which make such zealotry more likely.
So I do not think of it as a logical fallacy at all. I think of it as an attempt to be more accurate.
It is not a tu quoque fallacy because pointing out that Christians are sometimes vile does not mean the speaker’s questioning of some Muslims’ actions is being considered hypocritical.
In fact, I think I can safely say that no argument has ever been made on this board to legitimize violent, aggressive responses to the Dutch cartoons.
Actually this seems pretty clearly to be a red herring. The practces of Religion Z are not relateed ot the original question/assertion.
Unless of course the second person is trying to defend Practice Y by showing that it is a common proactice and thus “not horrible”. This, of course, would be teh fallacy Appeal to Common Practice
I think I figured it out. It’s a strawman. Nobody makes the claim made in the OP, nobody attempts to defend the actions of the Muslims who violently protested the cartoons. It’s just a misrepresentation of what people are actually arguing.
This example, like most of these questions on this board, leaves out the critical third line. You’re leaving us to conjure up the conclusion. Without knowing what it precisely is, it can be any kind of fallacy.
-Religion X does Y , it is horrible how do you defend that?
-Well religion Z does some Y as well and even some X.
-Therefore…what?!
Therefore religion Z is just as bad as religion X? Tu Quoque.
Therefore the moon is made of cheese? Non sequitor.
Therefore nothing can be done? Fallacy of Perfect Solution.
Therefore let’s not even talk about X? Red Herring.
Tell us the conclusion and we’ll tell you the error.
The problem is that if you’re going to use the actions of a few to make blanket statements about a whole group, then the same logic should apply to your own group as well.
Argument: Group A has some members who behave in manner X. Therefore group A can be described as Z.
Counter-argument: Group B also has some members who behave in manner X. Can they not also be described as Z?
The point of the counter argument is to illustrate the flaw in the initial argument. It may be that group A can be described as Z. But using the actions of a few is not enough evidence upon which to rest that conclusion.
In plainer terms, you can’t get away with qualifying your arguments by saying, “of course I’m not talking about all Muslims, just some,” and then go on to draw conclusions that apply to the whole group.