A set of rules, procedures, guidelines, special training, etc. written by individuals or institutions charged with interpreting and carrying out the law. Contrary to popular belief, these rules can have very real legal effects on us even when they include extralegal procedures. Police profiling, court sentencing suggestions (even for those not convicted of any crime), and creative applications of civil asset forfeiture are some well-known examples. The term was coined by Thomas Ball in his "Last Statement."TL;DR
: The laws nobody gets a say in.
Nobody cast a vote that men should be singled out for arrest in cases of mutual or ambiguous IPV
, but it's mandated by the second set of books the police follow.
Running two arguments side by side under different and contradictory rule sets. Especially, creating an analogy and denying that others make conclusions between them.
P1: I go through harassment from the leaders of this organization just as the Jews went through harassment from Nazi officers.
P2: You haven't as much as been placed under surveillance, let alone that kind of duress.
P1: I'm not comparing the two! I'm using parallel logic.
Attacking or failing to follow the tactics of a debater who railroads the conversation, by expressing unexpected views or challenging logical fallacies.
She's upset because I took a third option that will derail her planned one-sided conversation.