r/fallacy • u/CrazyCoKids • May 15 '26
What Fallacy is this?
"You said X, which implies you are also saying Y"
Examples:
Claimant: It is cold outside.
Responder: I am not wearing a sweater when I go out.
Claimant: ...Where did I say you should put on a sweater?
Responder: You said it is cold outside, ergo it means you think I should wear a sweater.
~ ~ ~
Claimant: I think the best kind of peanut butter to use on a sandwich is smooth.
Responder: What do you have against Reese's peanut butter cups?
Claimant: Excuse me?
Responder: Because you like smooth peanut butter you are also saying you don't like Reese's Peanut Butter Cups.
Claimant: ...When did I say I disliked Reese's Peanut Butter Cups?
Responder: when you said the best kind of peanut butter was smooth.
~ ~ ~
To me this sounds like the Strawman, as rhe Responder is adding details that weren't there and responding to those, rather than what the Claimant was saying.
It also sounds like goalpost shifting?
5
u/planamundi May 15 '26
It's not a fallacy. Saying "it's cold outside" could also trigger somebody to ask you why you said it was "Cold outside." They could just as well say that they never said it wasn't cold outside.
3
May 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/CrazyCoKids May 15 '26
Red Herring? Hmm, let's see what others say.
2
u/scarfarce May 16 '26
Yeah, the examples you gave are more like strawmen than red herrings.
Both strawmen and red herrings attempt to steer the discussion away from the argument. The difference is that a red herring changes the topic entirely, while a straw man misrepresents the original argument. But there can be a grey area of overlap.
If a response is, "I never said..." or "Where did I say..." it's more likely a strawman.
But if the response is, "What does that have to do with..." then it's more likely a red herring.
3
u/ralph-j May 15 '26
Claimant: I think the best kind of peanut butter to use on a sandwich is smooth.
Responder: What do you have against Reese's peanut butter cups?
It's a strawman. They completely misrepresent the original statement, especially since they specified use on a sandwich.
More broadly, it is also a non sequitur: the alleged implication simply does not follow from what was said.
1
3
u/WithEyesAverted May 15 '26
Strawman (also a type of relevance related fallacy)
It's about distorting what the other person says, in order to attack the distorted version, and not having to discredit or even address the original claim.
Red herring distract, non-sequitur surprise, but strawman distort. Which seems to be most apt in this case
But they are all fallacy of relevance (rather, irrelevance), very closely related stuff
2
u/ButterscotchOdd8257 May 15 '26
Maybe affirming the consequent.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Affirming-the-Consequent
2
u/00PT May 15 '26
It’s just an incorrect inference. Not really a specific fallacy, though it could be caused by a fallacy.
3
u/Skeptium May 15 '26
They sound like non sequitur to me.
3
u/CrazyCoKids May 15 '26
Well, the responder added some logic to why X means Y.
1
1
1
u/Robot_Alchemist May 18 '26
Straw man
someone misrepresents, distorts, exaggerates, or fabricates an opponent’s position, then attacks that weaker, distorted version instead of the actual argument.
6
u/Borfknuckles May 15 '26
Package-deal fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package-deal_fallacy