What is this type of argument called?

Factual Questions
1

I’ll explain the argument using in example:

In Buddhism, some will say, “We all suffer, and are thus connected. To cause another person grief would be to harm oneself in a “vicious cycle” sort of way.”

The person speaking is using the word “connected” loosely, and then later in the sentence is referring back to it as if it means we are literally connected in a way, that if we hurt someone else we must be hurting ourselves.

I think I once heard that there is a name for this type of argument, but I can’t recall what it is and I couldn’t find anything using Google.

2

I told you once.

3

What?

4

Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!

5

This response is really disgusting. Shame on you. The word is “malodorous.”

6

What the hell are you guys talking about?

7

You want to complain? I’ve been on my feet all day…

Cegstar, it’s as if we are but dandelions in a field. Since we’ve established that we have the same anatomy as dandelions, …

Is that the sort of thing you’re talking about?

8

You came to insulted, right?

9

No it’s not.

10

This isn’t an example of that argument, since ‘connected’ is used in the same sense each time (admittedly in a decidedly mystical way); it’s formally called equivocation: using one word in two different ways (not noun vs. verb, but different meanings within the same part of speech.

11

To answer the OP with as few Monty Python references as possible, I believe this is False Analogy.

12

This isn’t an argument. It’s just contradiction.

13

And it’s “toffee-nosed”, not “coffee-nosed”.

14

Look, an argument is a connected series of statements designed to support a proposition.

15

No, I came here for an argument.

16

No it isn’t.

17

Equivocation

18

I’m a Buddhist. I really don’t think anybody who would use “we all suffer, and are thus connected” as a basis for the argument of equanimity could really be considered to have a firm grasp on Buddhism.

But then… I REALLY don’t understand the question. I’m kind of lost here. Maybe if you supplied more background?

19

Thanks. I think equivocation is what I was thinking of, but I’m not sure it would accurately describe my example since “connected” isn’t actually used twice in the argument; it’s just used loosely and then meant later to be taken more literally.

20

My reading of the intended argument is:

Each of us has causal connections with others.
So what you do generally has effects on others,
and what others do often has effects on you.
Say you act to harm someone.
Then you are endorsing the principle “it is okay to harm someone.”
Say others also endorsed this principle.
Then their actions are likely to harm you.
So you clearly don’t want others endorsing this principle.
But that just means you don’t endorse the principle yourself.
And that means that, on the basis of self-interest, because others’ actions have effects on you, you endorse the principle “Do not harm” whether you claim to or not.
And this in turn means you can not harm someone without turning against your own principles.

I know, I know, that’s reading a lot into it, but a lot needs to be read into such a brief and ambiguous pair of sentences.

-FrL-