I need help identifying the name of a particular rhetorical fallacy.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

I've heard thrown out over the years on numerous topics and numerous occasions, but I haven't had any luck as to what it's actually called.

Basically, the proposition of the fallacy is this:

"If you don't like X, then don't buy/do/watch X."

And the fact of the matter is, in certain instances it makes perfectly legitimate sense. When it comes to matters of personal preference or opinions about ordinary, mundane things, the whole "Live and let live" attitude is quite reasonable.

So for example,

1. Don't like tattoos? Then don't get a tattoo.

2. Don't like ABBA? Then don't listen to ABBA. (And as I personally can't stand ABBA, I will more than gladly follow that line of advice. )

However, where this idea falls apart is when the subject matter goes beyond ordinary, everyday things and moves onto more complicated matters that involve certain ethical and moral judgments that will inevitably be a subject of heavy debate.

So for example, people can debate whether ordinary civilians should be allowed to own high powered semi-automatic assault rifles like AR-15s, and there will always be some who throw out, "You don't like AR-15s? Then don't buy an AR-15."

Or if we're talking about the harm caused by people who harbor white nationalist sentiments, and you'll hear, "You don't like neo-Nazis? Then don't listen to neo-Nazis."

It almost seems like a variety of a red herring, because you're being distracted from the underlying dilemma at hand. You personally not personally owning an AR-15 is complete irrelevant to the damage they might cause to other people's personal safety. And even after considering free speech implications, the fact that you personally don't seek out to listen to neo-Nazis isn't going to change what they are saying and what that might lead to.

It's basically a libertarian mindset run to an absurd conclusion--the basic notion that your opinion on anything--no matter how controversial or even dangerous--can be brushed aside if you yourself can just take it upon yourself to refrain from that certain behavior.

It's an extremely lazy argument but one I hear a lot. I was just hoping someone familiar with fallacies might be able to identify what it is actually called.

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. to me, it is a consequence of libertarian thinking

kind of a corollary to "don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you what to do"

Which of course falls apart quickly

that's the best I can do, but your point is well taken.

[LanternWaste]

2. The False Dillema

Also known as the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.

A dimwit builds an argument upon the assumption that there are only two choices or possible outcomes when actually there are several.

[Raven123]

4. Agree

[GusBob]

6. I was gonna say, ask Lantern Waste

He knows all these terms

[unblock]

3. I think this is (mostly) the fallacy of amphiboly

It plays on the ambiguity of "you don't like x".

The argument presumed the meaning is that you don't like x as a personal choice, as a consumer. Given that assumption, the conclusion to simply not partake makes sense.

However, in the cases in question, what you don't like about x (certain weapons, e.g.) is that *other* people can get them too easily and without adequate checks, etc. in such cases, simply not partaking does nothing to address your concern.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

5. Good point.

An analogous, trivialized situation is if someone questions whether or not a certain television show is a good show.

To which a person who might happen to be a fan of that show will retort, "Well, if you don't like it, don't watch it!"

Which--while that certainly may be advice that one can either take or reject--doesn't answer the question as to the underlying merits of the show.

[Brainstormy]

7. I don't think it's properly a "fallacy"

there's no claim or attempt to refute a claim.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

8. Well, if the claim is that a certain thing or action shouldn't be socially acceptable behavior...

...and the response is to tell the person that all they need to do is to personally not partake of that action or thing and as a result one would no longer have a problem with that thing or action, then I do believe it is an attempt to refute or rebut.

[lapucelle]

9. I don't think that this actually represents a flaw in reasoning.

This is a device used in debating the issue of individual rights versus the common good.

"You don't like AR-15s? Then don't buy an AR-15" is a very facile framing, so I simply would not accept the premise that it's about my "liking" something.

"That's analogous to saying, 'If you don't like drunk driving, then don't drive drunk'. This is not about whether or not I 'like' AR-15s. It's about balancing the individual rights of someone who (for some odd reason) is in thrall of assault weapons with the reasonable expectation of safety owed to the general public, including children."

[Tommy_Carcetti]

10. I think it's erroneous in how it attempts to slyly change the conversation

Which is a classic red herring move.

I agree it also represents a matter of framing, but the way it attempts to flip the conversation is fallacious IMHO.

[UTUSN]

11. You *DON'T LIKE ABBA*?!1 - you lost me there. But sounds like the doctor old joke:

"Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do this!1" - "Well, don't *do* that!1"

*******Now, back to ABBA for me.