>> I'm trying to think of the term used to describe a particular fallacy -
>>
>> 'If you do it for X (greater) you have to do it for Y (lesser)'
>
> Technically this would be called a non sequitur (Latin for "does not 
> follow"); it refers to any argument of "if A, then B" for which the 
> relationship between A and B does not itself necessitate that A implies B.
>
> The implied middle term in this case is "all situations must be treated 
> equally."  Since this middle term is the real bone of contention, it 
> should not be accepted without conclusive support.

It reminds me of "The law of unintended consequences"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_unintended_consequences

The argument can be legitimate, if X is a large set and exemplar y
is representative of a set Y, then the argument is that set Y is a
subset of set X. If set Y is specifically excluded from set X, then
there are issues of the criteria on which Y is excluded from X.
If the criteria is arbitrary there can be a perception of unfairness.

Post a reply to this message