Is there a name for the logical fallacy one often sees in debates that goes something like this: “You are for A, therefore you must believe B, C,D (or you must also be one of those people that often believe B,C,D who also believe A).”
Get my drift?
Is there a name for the logical fallacy one often sees in debates that goes something like this: “You are for A, therefore you must believe B, C,D (or you must also be one of those people that often believe B,C,D who also believe A).”
Get my drift?
I don’t know the answer to your question but more than likely it resides here:
http://www.geocities.com/phineasbg/kirklogic.html
I’m afraid I can’t answer your question, but here are some good sites for exploring logical fallacies:
Fallacies
Formal Logic and Logical Fallacies
The Atheism Web Logic & Fallacies
The logical Fallacies Index
The Logical Fallacies
There are a number of fallacies that fit this description, but the most general would be a non sequitur, meaning “it does not follow”. The only place where B always follows A is in the Roman alphabet.
It could also be an ad hoc fallacy, which is an attempt to give an after-the-fact explanation that may not be supported by evidence.
The name of this fallacy is stereotyping. Basically, you’re stereotyping whenever you assume that what’s true for a proportion of the group is true for every member of the group.
I’m not 100% sure that your second example is fallacious. If those who believe A often also believe B, C, and D, then if you meet someone who believes A, there’s a good chance that they also believe B, C, and D. Just don’t assume that they must unless they tell you.