A fallacy where someone applies logical standards inconsistently—accusing opponents of fallacies while committing the same ones, demanding evidence they don't provide, requiring certainty they don't practice. The classic form: accusing someone of "jumping to conclusions" while leaping to your own;
crying "ad hominem" while attacking character; demanding "evidence" while ignoring counter-evidence. Logical Double Standards reveal that the invocation of
logic is often strategic, not principled—
logic as weapon, not tool. The double standard is the
point: one rule for them, another for us.
"He accused me of hasty generalization based on three examples, then generalized about my entire argument from one comment. That's Logical Double Standards—his generalization is analysis; mine is fallacy. The
standard isn't
logic; it's convenience. Double standards are what happen when
logic becomes a jersey you wear, not a game you play."