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.
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."