The armored raven
This is not an argument. It's deliberate trolling and flame baiting. It's the same as arguing about the amount of people died under the administration of modern Presidents of USA.
What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...
United Earth
Other examples are "Euthanasia is murder", "Abortion is murder", "Genetic engineering to cure diseases is eugenics!", "Evolutionary psychology is sexist!", "Taxation is theft!" and "Affirmative action is racist!". Not all of these are trolling, are they? The MLK example was chosen because of how obviously dissonant it is, but there's some that are a fair bit more subtle, and more difficult to disentangle.
As for what ![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
said, that comparison is completely off-topic, as it doesn't fit the model of the argument at all. Additionally, just because an argument is unsound, malicious, or even insane, doesn't mean it's not an argument.
edited 1st Sep '12 7:54:44 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
So that's what this does
Does the author offer any support to why he thinks the archetypal criminal is a mugger or a bank robber?
United Earth
Archetypal does not mean average, it means the caricature that pops up in your mind when thinking of it. 
When you think "criminal", you picture the type of people that Batman beats up in a Batman Cold Open.
So that's what this does
So in other words there are as many different archetypal criminals as there are human beings?
United Earth
Theoretically, this would be the case, but when it comes to humans sharing a same culture and being exposed to the same media, which in turn are heavily influenced by each other, each one's criminal archetype ends up resembling each other's. Hence why he have Hollywood Atlas, for example.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
I see the Awesomeness.
It seems a lot more like a specific application of the Genetic Fallacy.
Fight smart, not fair.
Zzzzzzzzzz
We already have a page for it, under its correct name. It's Association Fallacy.
edited 1st Sep '12 10:19:28 AM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
United Earth
I've checked the page and maybe I'm just being dense but I can't see the argument's form anywhere...
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
I see the Awesomeness.
Because the arguments form isn't important, it's the fallacy they're making.
Fight smart, not fair.
Zzzzzzzzzz
As deboss said, it doesn't matter what the form is. It's the function:
X has characteristic A.
Members of group Y have A, B, and C characteristics.
Therefore, X must have/is implied to have/is treated as though it is a Y, even though characteristic A is the only thing it has in common with Y's.
Your MLK example is Guilt By Association ->
- MLK broke laws.
- Criminals are bad people who break the law.
- Therefore he is a criminal and a bad person.
edited 1st Sep '12 10:58:34 AM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
I see the Awesomeness.
I think there may be a touch of small sample size bias as well. Possibly a directional cause/effect mix up as well, depending on whatever the name for that fallacy is.
edited 1st Sep '12 11:17:12 AM by Deboss
Fight smart, not fair.
That said, though. The lack of characteristic B and C should be relevant to the argument as well.
This utterly brilliant article
is so interesting that I suspect we should build a Logic Failure page around it, because the problem it puts forward is so common in the debates we have that we should be able to Pot Hole to it every time someone makes the mistake of invoking it.
Extract:
Well, it sounds dumb when you put it like that. Who even does that, anyway?
It sounds dumb only because we are talking soberly of categories and features. As soon as the argument gets framed in terms of words, it becomes so powerful that somewhere between many and most of the bad arguments in politics, philosophy and culture take some form of the Worst Argument In The World. Before we get to those, let's look at a simpler example.
Suppose someone wants to build a statue honoring Martin Luther King Jr. for his nonviolent resistance to racism. An opponent of the statue objects: "But Martin Luther King was a criminal!"
Any historian can confirm this is correct. A criminal is technically someone who breaks the law, and King knowingly broke a law against peaceful anti-segregation protest - hence his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail.
But in this case calling Martin Luther King a criminal is the Worst Argument In The World. The archetypal criminal is a mugger or bank robber. He is driven only by greed, preys on the innocent, and weakens the fabric of society. Since we don't like these things, calling someone a "criminal" naturally lowers our opinion of them.
The opponent is saying "Because you don't like criminals, and Martin Luther King is a criminal, you should stop liking Martin Luther King." But King doesn't share the important criminal features of being driven by greed, preying on the innocent, or weakening the fabric of society that made us dislike criminals in the first place. Therefore, even though he is a criminal, there is no reason to dislike King.
This all seems so nice and logical when it's presented in this format. Unfortunately, it's also one hundred percent contrary to instinct: the urge is to respond "Martin Luther King? A criminal? No he wasn't! You take that back!" This is why the Worst Argument In The World is so successful. As soon as you do that you've fallen into their trap. Your argument is no longer about whether you should build a statue, it's about whether King was a criminal. Since he was, you have now lost the argument.