|When there is an attempt to redefine one option so that it encompasses another option.||You can’t claim to be intelligent since there is someone always more intelligent than you are.|
|The consequence of this fallacy is that the term in question is made impotent by removing any possible contrast.
This fallacy is similar to the continuum fallacy.
Case Study One
The god of some theists becomes so wrathful over a human’s very first offense that he deems that offender worthy of eternal torment. This very same god is defined as “loving” and “patient” by these theists, and this definition is justified by suggesting that their wrathful god usually waits a while before sending the offender to eternal torment. The absurdity of this is clear when considering a neighbor who, after claiming to love his children, eternally beats them upon their first offense, but only after they’ve had dinner.
Case Study Two
Some atheists claim that, to be a god-believer, you have to be “deluded”. This broad definition of “deluded” would include most humans, rendering the word “deluded” much less meaningful as its more narrow and clinical definition.
Keep in mind that a fallacious argument does not entail an erroneous position.