I was having a discussion with a friend the other day, and his way of arguing struck me as rather weird. He would constantly say things like:
Well that's just like this other thing (which I already have an opinion about)
When making this statement, he seemed to assume that I would share his view in this other example. The opposite thing he said constantly was:
Well, if you think that, do you also think this?
Again he tries to make an analogy of something he thinks is clear cut.
My thought was, that instead of "that's just like this other thing", one ought to provide the arguments that support the opinion of both things.
Is this an actual problem, or a legit way of arguing? If so, what is this fallacy called?
This is the actual discussion, if memory serves me right.
Me: Just because more people think we shouldn't pay for smokers' healthcare, doesn't make it true, or right.
Him: But that is democracy.
This puts me in a position where I need to argue against democracy, which I am willing to do, but I believe it will be a lot harder to convince him of that, than the subject at hand.
Me: We ought to want to pay for people who get sick, even from smoking.
Him: Do you also want to pay for people who break their legs skydiving?
Let me reiterate, this is not about whether the analogy is okay or not, simply if it is okay to use it like this
Scott Adams (in this video) seems to recognize this issue, but at the same time make it sound like it is something he made up.
This is different from Faulty Analogy in that the analogies might be perfectly corrolated.