'No hypotheticals' move

Sometimes a person will refuse to consider hypothetical statements. The underlying logic is that because they are hypotheticals, they do not apply to real life (and are therefore irrelevant). This would probably count as a B-list fallacy (if Dr Bo is still doing that...lmao) but I wanted to put it to the community to see if it becomes more reasonable depending on the context.

Janus: What makes you think it's okay to litter in this neighbourhood, huh? We're a tightly-knit community and pride ourselves on keeping things clean.

Kelly: It's not a big deal, seriously. And your neighbourhood isn't even that great anyway.

Janus: How would you feel if I came to your house and littered in it? Would that be okay with you?

Kelly: Well, that's a hypothetical; it's not like you'd actually ever do it.

Here, Janus confronts a litterbug in his 'hood and she tells him he's overreacting. When he asks her to consider how she'd feel if the litterbugs came to her house, she refuses to consider the scenario. It feels like she could be making a false dilemma (either Janus would litter her house and the scenario is relevant, or he wouldn't and it's irrelevant), but there could also be no fallacies - and just a refusal to reason.

But is this always fallacious?

Said: Your cartoons are extremely offensive to my religious sensibilities.

Brenda: Yeah, okay. There's something called free speech, maybe go and learn about it?

Said: How would you feel if you were Muslim? How would you like to have your religion belittled?

Brenda: I'm not a Muslim, so I honestly can't answer this question.

Here, Said takes exception to some drawings of his prophet. Brenda tells him to learn what free speech is, and Said challenges her to imagine life as a Muslim. Brenda doesn't answer because she doesn't follow Islam, so 'wouldn't know'. This could be reasonable if knowledge of perceptions related to something depend on identity, but it could also be evasive if she's avoiding questioning her attitude to other religions.

What do you think?

This falls into the "failure to engage" category. Hypotheticals are essentially thought experiments presented to help others see a different perspective. The refusal to entertain a hypothetical isn't a failure of reason; it is typically a calculated response when one realizes honestly entertaining the hypothetical will weaken their position and strengthen their opponent's position.

As usual, there is a fine line between a fallacy and a rhetorical device or debate technique. This is similar to avoiding the issue . A failure in reasoning might be if the person who presented the hypothetical accepts the avoidance as legitimate.

Seems more like a communication issue than a fallacy.

In the first example, the point of the person making the hypothetical is that the neighbourhood is like a communal living space and that people who use it have a responsibility to clean up after themselves so it can remain in good condition for other people living there. The person responding is speaking as if they don't understand the relation between the example and the actual situation. A roommate example may have been clearer but sometimes people are too literal minded rather than being deliberately obtuse.

Another potential issue in that example is that it's pretty confrontational in a way that may be accompanied by aggressive tone and body language, which would set the other person on edge and make them less willing to engage with what's being said even if they'd normally be willing to do so. It's difficult to maintain a good faith discussion in a situation like that since the first person is likely angry about the littering while the second is likely feeling somewhat threatened and distrustful.

In the second, the hypothetical is too vague, so a more detailed example placing them in a comparable position with their religion would've been more effective. It also didn't clearly address the problem with claiming that the offensive cartoon was ok because of free speech, which likely would've hindered further discussion.

Hypotheticals are best used as tools to assist in explaining something rather than the explanation itself. If they're too vague or their relevance to the discussion isn't clear to the person you're talking to, they aren't really helping with that. Hypotheticals can be used fallaciously and even when they aren't, lack of clarity can make it seem that way. A way to mitigate that would be to use the hypothetical example after having clearly stated the point you're trying make with it or to clarify that in cases like the above examples.