This is when someone asks you to take action consistent with a previously stated opinion on objects not specifically mentioned in that opinion.

RefactorMe: Is there an underlying principle behind this '''and''' SlipperySlope?

''You could perhaps call it MistakenExtrapolation. -- EarleMartin''
----
''Person 1: Fruit is good for you, so I will eat an apple.''

''Person 2: If you think that fruit is so good, why don't you eat those oranges too?''


Isn't this related to the SlipperySlope? The SlipperySlope seems to be about arguing ''"If you allow one, you'll have to allow all, which we don't want, so don't allow one"''.

Continuing the above example:

''Person 3: No! I won't eat that apple! 'Cause if I do, I'd have to eat other fruit as well, and that includes bananas, which I '''hate''', so I won't eat that apple you're offering.''


An example that's a little more relevant to this wiki: ''"Why did you delete my page about D''''''aveDeeDozyBeakyMickAndTich? You have a page about JimiHendrix here, so you should allow all pages about musicians!"''  (While the SlipperySlope approach would be: ''"I'm gonna delete that JimiHendrix page, 'cause if we allow it here, we'll have to allow all pages about musicians, including D''''''aveDeeDozyBeakyMickAndTich, which we definitely '''don't''' want here."'') --AalbertTorsius 
(If I've offended any D''''''aveDeeDozyBeakyMickAndTich fans out there -- it's a tough world ''':)''' )

----
See also FallaciousArgument.