Fallacy of Exclusive Something-Or-Other?

[jackofallgeeks]

It strikes me that many of the most clearly-spoken yet passionate advocates of any cause or idea at all tend toward the same (apparent) fallacy. That is, they group all of their opponents into one camp or another, mentally dissect each camp, and then claim victory because they "know why the enemy doesn't understand." Maybe that's the main flaw there -- that they decide the enemy doesn't understand, and then go one to prove to themselves that the enemy can't understand.

Well, what about those who do understand, but are still the enemy? Obviously that beast can't exist, as it's been shown that either you are the enemy and don't understand, or you understand and are not the enemy.

I don't know, I'm not being very clear. I could point to This Comment as a recent example of what I've noticed, but that would tip my hand, and spill the beans, and let the proverbial cat out of the proverbial bag...

(As a note, I'm not saying anything about Furries or what not, I'm not pointing to his argument and saying "See? That bothers me." I've seen it here and in talks about Abortion (both sides) and Gay Rights and everything...)

Comments

[aiglet.livejournal.com]

Yes, I read your example comment. It looked to me like someone trying to find a justification for what they saw as an untenable position, along with a little bit of somewhat bitter commentary on behavior they've seen that resemebled the one they were trying to justify and why they saw it at the time.