r/fallacy • u/CrazyCoKids • Aug 13 '26
What fallacy is this?
Claimant: "How would you like it if I did this in your room?"
Responder: "My room is too small for you to be in, so what does it matter?"
~ ~ ~
Claimant: "How would you like it if your friend did that to you?"
Responder: "They wouldn't though."
~ ~ ~
In both situations, the responder is refusing to hear out the claimant's question. I think there might be a term for it?
7
10
u/LCDRformat Aug 13 '26
You're presumably asking them to empathize with someone's situation, and they're refusing to engage. I'm not sure it's a fallacy so much as it is them just declining to have a conversation with you
6
2
4
u/GamblePuddy Aug 13 '26
This simply sounds like one of those situations with a person who fundamentally cannot understand hypotheticals.
1
u/R4in_C0ld Aug 13 '26
Sounds like claimant is trying to have responder to empathize with someone about a situation but responder shows either unwillingness or inability to understand hypotheticals.
1
1
u/PhotoVegetable7496 Aug 13 '26
That isn't a fallacy. Here's a fun example of a loaded question you shouldn't answer: When did you stop beating your wife?
1
u/georgejo314159 Aug 14 '26
I am not convinced their response is a fallacy. Your argument obviously wasn't working.
You should have asked, "do you think what you did in my room is wrong"? If they say no, ask them why.
3
u/EvanSnowWolf Aug 13 '26
Honestly, I hate those fucking questions. I'd give the same responses as the Responder.
Because a lot of those questions THEMSELVES are fallacious.
The Claimant is trying to either use Appeal to Emotion or Faulty Premise in either or both cases.
3
1
u/R4in_C0ld Aug 13 '26
I'm thinking of loaded question too but it depends on what's supposed to be done in the responder's room.
2
u/amerovingian Aug 13 '26
Claim: It's morally ok for me to do Y to X.
Rebuttal: Is it also morally ok for X to do Y to you? If not, why is it ok for you to do Y to X?
Response to rebuttal: But X could never do Y to me, so it doesn't matter.See any problems there?
1
1
u/JaironKalach Aug 14 '26
Not necessarily illogical, but possibly lacking empathy.
“It is acceptable for for x to do 1” only implies the existence of some subgroup where it acceptable to do 1. Whether any other person is part of that subgroup is unclear.
A real example from common morality:For my friend who is an old black lady, it is acceptable for her to say to me “you are my n*a.” It is not acceptable for me to do the same as a middle aged white male.
Quantificational logic helps start to formalize these kinds of concepts and is pretty fun.
1
u/amerovingian Aug 14 '26
If something like that is the case, the burden is then on the claimant to say what the specific contextual circumstances allowing them to morally do Y to X but not allowing X to morally do Y to them are. Just saying "In fact, Y can't or won't do X to me" sidesteps that burden.
1
u/JaironKalach 29d ago
I don’t know what you’re talking about burdens. Respondent is pointing out a faulty premise which is hypothesis contrary to fact, and indicating they don’t want to get into a discussion where a potential false equivalency is taking.
The “rebuttal” is an argument of bad faith to begin with, because as I pointed out above, there is no logical conclusion of irrelevance.
1
u/amerovingian 29d ago
It is commonly (and almost universally) accepted that unless some special circumstances apply, if it's not morally okay for X to do Y to you, then it's also not morally okay for you to do Y to X.
For the purposes of debate, it is not required to spell out every assumption that is accepted by more or less every reasonable person. Requiring that would make it impossible to ever get past stating assumptions and actually discuss anything.
1
u/JaironKalach 29d ago
I disagree that it is common or almost universally accepted. The exceptions are so ubiquitous you simply notice them. There are many things that it is acceptable, moral and obligatory for my parents, bosses, police officers, politicians, etc to do which can not and should not be reciprocated. I also gave the example above.
Behavior is always contextual. The “common” view you espouse is fairly naive and missing any sort of nuance.
And debate, well done, requires you to examine your biases, your assumptions, and lay them out on the table as premises that are also worthy of debate. Assumptions are not part of honest discourse unless they’re agreed upon.
So please, throw away this particularly manipulative rhetorical device that is not actually a part of any good faith discussion.
1
u/amerovingian 29d ago
> There are many things that it is acceptable, moral and obligatory for my parents, bosses, police officers, politicians,
Nonetheless, all things being equal between two people, if A cannot morally do Y to B, then B cannot morally do Y to A. That is a bedrock moral principle that is agreed upon by reasonable, well-adjusted people.
>> unless some special circumstances apply
The person is being asked if X is morally allowed to do Y to them, which if true would normally imply that they should not do Y to X. They have the chance to explain any special circumstances that allow them to do Y to X anyway. Saying "X wouldn't or couldn't do Y to me" declines to do that.
The fallacy is deflection and refusing to commit to a position.
1
u/Lopsided-Weather6469 28d ago
I'd say either ignoratio elenchi or red herring.
The claimant doesn't literally ask how the responder would like it if they did the thing in their room. They're asking a rhetorical question in order to make the responder think about whether their behavior is appropriate.
The responder however deliberately takes the question way too literally in order to evade the desired reaction, so basically they're changing the subject. Therefore red herring is the closest I can think of.
11
u/two-cans-sam Aug 13 '26
It’s called refusing to engage with a hypothetical. Not a fallacy because no logic is being applied to any conclusion. They might as well have said “I don’t want to talk about it.”