Messages

Maybe this has already been posted, but I run into this quite frequently.
Maybe "Guilt be defense" or "The guilt of the public defender fallacy"
It occurs when someone accuses you of committing some action merely based on your defense of that action.
Examples:
"I don't think heroine should be illegal."
"That's probably because you shoot up all the time."

"Prostitution shouldn't be illegal."
"Why? So you can keep paying women to sleep with you?"

Here's another one: argumentum ad servitus, or "appeal to slavery." This is when someone denounces a society, philosophy, policy, or economic theory by comparing it to slavery. Of course, if the person makes a legitimate comparison, it's not a fallacy; the fallacy comes from comparing something to slavery in order to make appeal to ridicule or poisoning the well fallacy. Since it covers these and several other fallacies as well, I think it should be considered one of its own.

It's kind of similar to Godwin's Law, so maybe the person who makes the comparison should be considered to have lost the argument.

To distinguish this from Godwin's law I would formalize this fallacy to mean "Equating voluntary servitude to slavery solely on the basis of compensation."
Example, "The wages walmart pays are barely enough to survive on, it's just like slavery!"