I'm trying to think of the term used to describe a paticular fallacy -

'If you do it for X (greater) you have to do it for Y (lesser)'

a better example would be "Please tell me you aren't suggesting that we  
put planning applications to public votes? Only major applications or  
would Auntie Nellies kitchen extension also need a referendum?"

For some reason I've got 'in extremis' stuck in my head and not wanting to  
leave. I can't spot it in Wikipedia nor does it seem I can phrase the  
correct request for Google.

And so I turn to the font of all knowledge in the hopes of removing this  
nagging annoyance from my mind.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> I'm trying to think of the term used to describe a paticular fallacy -

> 'If you do it for X (greater) you have to do it for Y (lesser)'

  Sounds like a slippery slope to me.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:13:03 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> I'm trying to think of the term used to describe a paticular fallacy -
>
>> 'If you do it for X (greater) you have to do it for Y (lesser)'
>
>   Sounds like a slippery slope to me.

Hmm I associate that more with the answer to 'Where's the harm in just  
taking one?' IOW one is likely to lead to another, but doesn't *have* to.  
You may technically be correct, it just sounds wrong in this context.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

news: op.t5ud7znsc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> I'm trying to think of the term used to describe a paticular fallacy -
>
> 'If you do it for X (greater) you have to do it for Y (lesser)'
>

Sounds a little like Reductio ad absurdum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum


-- 
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:08:36 -0000, Gilles Tran  
<gil### [at] agroparistechfr> did spake, saying:

>

> de
> news: op.t5ud7znsc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
>> I'm trying to think of the term used to describe a paticular fallacy -
>>
>> 'If you do it for X (greater) you have to do it for Y (lesser)'
>>
>
> Sounds a little like Reductio ad absurdum
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

That sounds more like it, thanks.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> 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.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

>> 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

And lo on Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:26:55 -0000, John VanSickle  
<evi### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> 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.

A nonsense quitter, that's the puppy thank you.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message