argumentum ad prætextum

If you're not into philosophy, you can skip this post. At the moment I am reading what is essentially an encyclopaedia of fallacies (about 300 in all). I would add a fallacy to the list: argumentum ad prætextum (or ad causam). This is similar to the strawman fallacy. However, the strawman fallacy takes a claim, distorts it, and attacks the distorted claim (the strawman) -- while the argumentum ad prætextum is unable to attack the text, therefore it attacks a pretext. Here's an example: I cannot attack a man for his policy on race (the text). This is unlawful. Therefore I attack him for his policy on governance (the pretext). This is too distinct from the strawman fallacy to fall under that heading. OBSERVATION: As best I know, this has not entered the list of fallacies -- but it is big, as a phenomenon. As to whether it is a fallacy depends much on one's definition or theory of fallacy, and this is too large an area for one post. My own concept of fallacy is here: What Is Fallacy? This would include an argumentum ad prætextum -- as would, I think, the popular notion of fallacy.