Is there a logical fallacy like this? If so what it is called?

Question

Is it a logical fallacy to retort with an inflammatory non-sequiter that is only tangentially related to the topic.

Like for example if I say "Democrats are bad because they spend alot of money" and someone retorts with "Well Republicans spend alot of money too!"

Like isn't that deflecting or changing the topic or something? "Republicans" in my example were not part of the original discussion yet somehow people think pointing out the flaws of one idea/group/person somehow deflects badness of the idea/group/person under discussion.

Does that make sense? Is that a logical fallacy or just a tangent or what?

Answer 1

I think it's called a "Red Herring".

Addendum:
"A Red Herring is an irrelevant topic or premise brought into a discussion to divert attention from the topic at hand. Usually, the irrelevancy is subtle, so that it appears relevant to those not paying close attention. Of course, the Red Herring will not really win a debate, unless you are a stork, or a fisherman ;)" (tektonics.org)

Answer 2

I wouldn't call it a logical fallacy. But - as in most actual conversations which aren't logic exercises - there are a TON of implied arguments.

To continue your example, the full counterargument might be something of the nature of:

- Republicans spend a lot of money.
o Therefore, if spending money is bad, republicans are bad.
- Only republicans and democrats have a bearing on our problem.
- Of any two groups under consideration, one must be better than the other.
- There is no point in considering degree of badness.
o Therefore, if both republicans and democrats are both bad in the same way, it says nothing about which is better than the other one.

I suppose that the closest it comes to an actual logical problem would be by calling it a non-sequitur... but that presumes that you have both worked out in advance exactly what are the bounds of your discussion (as another answerer observed - "We aren't talking about republicans so that has nothing to do with this.")

Usually this kind of argumentation wins because it would take you days to actually refute the hundreds of things that are implied, rather than through any kind of actual correctness.

Answer 3

As far as formal logic goes, this specifically is a "Tu Quoque" ("you too") fallacy. It's a fallacy because, to use your example here, the second premise does not logically render the first premise as being false.

Some people here classified it as a "red herring", but I think it's closer to an ad Hominem (which you could say Tu Quoque is a form of I suppose), as it's not really a change in topic. In your example, I'd say a red herring would be something more like "Well what about the fact that Democrats were responsible for women's suffrage, under Woodrow Wilson?"

Answer 4

I think it makes sense and might not be a logical fallacy.

If you consider "spending a lot of money" bad. Then everything that spends a lot of money would be bad.

The fallacy in this may instead be in the fact that you are saying some group/person is bad because they spend a lot of money. It's kind of vague. Maybe a vague generalization or false cause fallacy? Because someone could spend a lot of money and still be good--like philanthropists. And people might spend a lot of money to do things that help others (good things) or spend it in bad things (things that harm others).

I guess you have to define good / bad more clearly too.

Answer 5

Both statements are pretty broad, and so are likely to be held up as untrue or just put under the old microscope of thought for a while...

As for logical fallacies...there must be hundreds running around in the world today! I mean they sound logical, but they sure aren't, especially after I put down some stupid answer to a quesiton here that was either a fallacy itself or too logical for me, and I was the one who put in the fallacy, thinking it was logic. Is that clear? (oh sure lol)

My bad on the logical fallacies in many cases written here! But I guess that will have to be okay!
'nuff said...

Answer 6

It would depend on the context. If the argument (and I mean this in the logical sense, not just name calling) was about government spending, this would not necessarily be a fallacy. In your example, it is at best a tangential response, but given your premise, it is not an unreasonable response.

Answer 7

interesting. I'm no freaking logic major, but implicitly you are indicating that there are "good" people who don't "spend alot of money" -- unless you are assuming that everyone is a bad person.

I think your statement assumes, at least in the USA, that the "other" major party is "good."

Technically a non sequiter. Realistically neither and certainly not tangential.

Answer 8

Its definitely a red herring. It might be relevant if the person who said it was trying to make you criticize republicans as well, but it is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the democrats are bad.

Answer 9

It is merely irrelevant, not fallacious.

The proper reply should probably be something like: "Ok, so Republicans are bad too. I'll tear them up next week."

Answer 10

I call it a defense mechanism. They try to make themselves look good by attempting to make someone else look bad.