The "not all Muslims are terrorists" fallacy

[Lemonvariable72]

There maybe a logical fallacy for this all ready, but here is my idea for this

This a logical fallacy commonly made when arguing against the actions of people that follow particular ideology where instead responding appropriately to the argument at hand, you make an erroneous assertion that the argument only applies to a small subset of people. For example

Me: islam is responsible for religious violence per capita then any other religion.
You: but not all Muslims are terrorists!.

[abaris]

Me: islam is responsible for religious violence per capita then any other religion.
You: based on what?

Fixed that, since you didn't provide the right answer to the statement.

[JesusHChrist]

Me: islam is responsible for religious violence per capita then any other religion.
You: but not all Muslims are terrorists!.

I'm going with a garden-variety red herring fallacy:

As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the straw man, which is premised on a distortion of the other party's position,[2] the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic.[3] According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a red herring may be intentional, or unintentional; it does not necessarily mean a conscious intent to mislead.[1]

The expression is mainly used to assert that an argument is not relevant to the issue being discussed. For example, "I think that we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. I recommend that you support this because we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected." The second sentence, though used to support the first sentence, does not address that topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

Or perhaps, a variant of straw man. The "you" response, does not address the claim made by "Me" and is irrelevant to the claim being made.

[Napoléon]

And this is the best response I've seen to the fallacy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

(Well, I guess she doesn't explicitly say "not all muslims are terrorists", but it's essentially the same argument)

[Lemonvariable72]

Me: islam is responsible for religious violence per capita then any other religion.
You: based on what?

Fixed that, since you didn't provide the right answer to the statement.

That was really just intended as a example of how it plays out in many conversations.

[abaris]

That was really just intended as a example of how it plays out in many conversations.

Usually it's not that straight. At least in my experience.

[Losty]

And this is the best response I've seen to the fallacy:

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

---

(Well, I guess she doesn't explicitly say "not all muslims are terrorists", but it's essentially the same argument)

That was fantastic thank you for sharing!

[Lemonvariable72]

That was really just intended as a example of how it plays out in many conversations.

Usually it's not that straight. At least in my experience.

It's not. But I was simply trying to be clear and concise.

[abaris]

It's not. But I was simply trying to be clear and concise.

But in my opinion that's the real fallacy. Trying to turn something complicated into something simple. Blanket statements are made by both sides, but they're not as clear cut as in your example. And they have to be adressed individually, not via their own blanket statement.

[pocaracas]

Oh... the muslims...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yGN8SlIEZ8