Making assumptions about views on other issues
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
It seems to be becoming quite common that when someone objects to something to assume that they're fine with similar things, such as when Brexit supporters have complained about so-called 'unelected bureaucrats' in the EU and some people have assumed that they have no problem with having an unelected monarch and second Parliamentary chamber. Leaving aside the fact that MEPs actually are elected, it's quite plausible that someone making the 'unelected bureaucrats' objection may well object to the monarchy and House of Lords as well, so what fallacy would that be?
Answers
1I've noticed this too. Let's try to parse the logical form:
P1) Person has X view on topic A
Implicit P) Topic A is related to topic B in a way
Implicit P) Having X view on topic A means you have Y view on topic B
C) Person has Y view on topic B
You then argue against Y view on topic B, even though the person never specified they supported that. So if someone is unhappy with unelected eurocrats, you assume they're ok with an unelected monarch and unelected members of the House of Lords. That is a strawman fallacy.
There's also the package-deal fallacy at play here: Brexiters are often conservative, pro-monarchy and pro-tradition. So, we assume that if someone supports Brexit, they're a conservative, and so support other things that are considered 'conservative'.
This way of thinking is the result of pigeonholing people into boxes. They state a political view, and we assume their other views based on a 'character' that these views would fit into. This leads to a lot of misunderstandings and misrepresentations in debate, and also teaches us to ignore nuance. People don't always agree with everything their group says, and that's good. We should try to accept and recognise that.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course