Strange

True. But like so many other possible answers, this could cover a multitude of sins. (I would give you a +1 but I seem to have used them all up!) That is an excellent statement of the key point I am trying to describe. It is a non sequitur (and a lie and many of the other things described) but I was hoping for something specific to this particular type of non sequitur, lie, scapegoating, etc. (I would give you another +1 but ...) True. But it was his childish whinging this morning that brought this question to mind....

Please use the "Quote" button. It will make your posts more readable.

They are all (in my mind) examples where people try to shift the moral responsibility for their actions to someone else. In Assange's case, there is warrant out for his arrest (for jumping ballistic, I think) and so he is hiding from consequences of his actions. He twists this to claim he is being unlawfully detained.

Those are quite realistic problems of how blame can be assigned. The sort of things that are discussed in philosophy or ethics classes, and also often come up in movies as a way to justify the villains actions ("I have had to sacrifice a few people but it is for the greater good"). That is much closer. This is classic "victim blaming" whereas I am thinking more of a case where the hero is turned into a sort of secondary victim by having the blame (wrongly) assigned to them. Imagine the villain says: "Give me a dollar or I will shoot the kitten. The blood of this cute little kitty will be entirely on your hands. Can you live with that?" Hero: "Well, yes, I can because it isn't my responsibility at all. I may have a moral duty to try and stop you. But if you decide to kill the kitten then it is you who kills the kitten not me. In fact, maybe I'll just walk away now."

Best so far! I think you are right. I was just thinking out loud, I guess.

I'm not sure it really counts as a fallacy either. If it does, it is an informal, rhetorical fallacy rather than a logical fallacy. But your point about psychopaths is a good one. The reason the trope works in a thriller is because we (the audience) know The Villain doesn't care about killing people but Our Hero does. And so do we. Therefore, we feel the dilemma (which would exist even without The Villain articulating it so explicitly) of the hero who will feel responsible for their deaths if she/he is unable to stop them.

Hijacking reported. Can we stick to the example of The Villain in a movie telling Our Hero that she will be responsible for the deaths of all the people that The Villain is about to kill. It looks like there may not be a specific name for this type of argument.

On second thoughts, the situation I am thinking of is closer to "homicide by inaction" (ie doing nothing to help someone who is dying, which can, I believe, be the criminal offence of "depraved indifference" in the US). Did Bush say that it was the Democrat's responsibility? If not, this is an irrelevant diversion. (And, even if he did, it is irrelevant unless it leads us to a name for this tactic.) I don't really care about American politics - my own country is fucked up quite enough, thank you.

It is certainly an example of that. I was wondering if there was something more specific. As most examples seem to be from bad action films, I will take a look at TV Tropes (I may be some time....) To take a zero-tolerance approach to immigration which has caused headlines about children being taken from their families. That decision may be right or wrong. It is the fact that he claims it is the Democrats who need to change this, that is relevant to the OP. This is analogous to the prime example (fictional hostage takers) because he appears to be saying something like, "unless you [Democrats] do what I want, I will create more bad headlines" (as opposed to: "unless you give me 20 million helicopters and a dollar, you will be responsible for the death of these kittens")

Nope. I might or might not think he is right (that is not relevant) it was his decision not the democrats. Close. But that seems to be an unconscious act, whereas it seems to be deliberate in the cases I am thinking of. Closer. But isn't that more like "what about-ism" (you know, as in "What about Obama" )

Claiming that someone else has responsibility for one's own actions. For example: Villain in a movie says, "If you don't pay the ransom / release the prisoners then you will be responsible for the death of the hostages" Trump blames the Democrats for his government's actions against immigrants Julian Assange is hiding from the law and claims he is being unlawfully detained etc Does this rhetorical tactic have a name?

They just need to believe in it. Some people belief (in some particular worldview of gods) and some people don't. This is not based on reason or rational choice. It seems to be an inherent part of human nature. Some people are "believers" and others aren't. I don't think choice comes into it. I can't choose to believe in a god (whether Thor or Allah) and you can't choose not to believe in your "higher power". Even if you could choose your beliefs, it still doesn't make believing in an abstract "higher power" any different from believing in "things" (e.g. that the world is run by Lizard Overlords or that the Great Pyramid is an alien communication device).

If it had some basis, other than just personal beliefs, then it would not be "faith". It would be knowledge. The lack of a factual basis - the fact it is based purely on belief - is what defines it as faith. If you disagree with this, then you are using the wrong word (or using the word wrongly).

Yes, faith is just something you believe, based on your beliefs. That may mean it has no basis in reality (it might correspond to reality, but that is not because it is based on reality, it would just be a coincidence between your beliefs and the real world). I would agree that beliefs are distinct from delusions. But they are both based on what the person believes to be true.

But it is still just based on their beliefs (ie. their "own perspective understanding of reality"). So it is faith based on belief. Which is, of course, entirely reasonable. After all, that is what faith means. If it were based on objective evidence, for example, then it wouldn't be faith. You have added "moving the goalposts" to the growing list of rhetorical fallacies. Well done. Next up? "No True Scotsman", perhaps. YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN REASONABLE (and even brilliant) COUNTER-ARGUMENTS. You have chosen to ignore them. Shrug. If it were based on science it wouldn't be faith, would it. That is exactly what a bot would say.

Fiveworlds, please stop posting on topics you clearly have no clue about. It is embarrassing to watch. You have demonstrated limited programming knowledge (and defended that by saying you are learning, which is fair enough) but you very obviously have absolutely no idea at all about mathematics or computer science. Your posts on these subjects are just ridiculous.

This makes little sense. Your "higher power" is a thing, so believing in a higher power is the same as believing in a thing. And even if you describe it as a a "belief about reality itself" it is still just a (baseless) belief. That is because your answers make no sense.

It can’t. Faith is ... well, faith. It doesn’t need reason or evidence. Pretty much by definition. If it were based on evidence or reason, it wouldn’t be faith. (Ditto belief.)

They have been addressed. Reported for trolling, preaching and being a general idiot.

I think it is. That is the whole point of this thread.

Maybe you should try doing an introductory course in philosophy first. That will teach you the basic concepts of logical argument, critical thinking, etc. You are still ignoring the responses you have had. You fail.

I think you are just trying to promote your own vile beliefs.

I can only assume that you have serious brain damage and are not able to comprehend what you read, or forget it a few seconds later. Or both. You have had at least two good responses. One explaining that you are employing a straw man fallacy and the other pointing out that it is not all about you.

We know this. Look at the number of Nobel Prize winners, philosophers, theologians, politicians, scientists, and sundry other very intelligent people who have attempted to justify their own bigotry. So, again, so what. If you aren't trying to add credibility to your own bigotry (gold to see you aren't denying it) then what is your point? And as you have not shown any signs of logical thought in your threads so far, this seems doubly irrelevant.

So what. Even if he were racist (which seems doubtful, to say the least) you can't use it to justify your own bigotry: "Oh, it's OK for me to be a vile bigot because someone else was before me".