My observation here then is that this is less a fallacy than a strategy in getting a desired outcome. — Hanover
You point out to Group C, the neutral jury, that A doesn't seek the truth (i.e. justice), but just seeks a preferred outcome regardless of the facts and is therefore not to be trusted. — Hanover
where a Group A refuses to admit their stronger claim has failed and that their position is admittedly objectively weaker, there isn't the proper repercussion where a controlling Group C meaningfully condemns them. Instead, Group A just grows stronger, each member proud of their group's shameless advocacy of a desired outcome. — Hanover
less a fallacy than a strategy in getting a desired outcome — Hanover
Nice example. My observation is that in a debate, if the strong claim—the claim that (A) wants to prevail—fails, then retreating to a more defensible position is a tactic still to make the strong claim prevail. I think it’s fair to call this a fallacy. — Jamal
They're separate. There's the fallacy and there is the motivation for deploying the fallacy. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I also don't trust that it's rightly construed as just a fallacy of inference — fdrake
trying to point the fallacy out will appear as castigation. — fdrake
What can one do then? Not flagging it is letting the other party get away with dishonest argumentation. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Depends on the context? — fdrake
In a court of law, everything is sophistry anyway, therefore there are no fallacies. — Jamal
as if jurors don't recognize the sounder of the arguments — Hanover
it would have been poor advocacy on B's behalf. — Hanover
7 ) I now defend not( not(X implies Y) implies Y) — fdrake
I don't think anyone ever gets to stage 7. — fdrake
I also don't trust that it's rightly construed as just a fallacy of inference. — fdrake
It looks to me, my lords, as if the motte is the ideal place from which to attack the bailey. — unenlightened
Or is it the motte itself that is your real target, and you are attacking that, by way of first taking the bailey? In that case the dissimulation is on your own side. — unenlightened
M&B, "moving goal posts", and "no true Scotsman" may have distinctions among them, but they're all of a shared genus. — TonesInDeepFreeze
meaning theysuffered from from extreme confirmation bias. — Hanover
In modern discourse you will rarely see bigots sincerely peddle their true argument (the bailey) because it's not only wrong and clearly fallacious, but often times monstrous. The problem however is trying to expose the bailey instead of fighting on the motte, because the motte is the shadow, it's never really about that. — Darkneos
1 ) I believe X.
2 ) Another person tries to show X implies Y.
3 ) I believe Y is bad.
4 ) I now defend not(X implies Y)
5 ) The other person tells me that I am defending Y by defending not(X implies Y).
6 ) I still believe Y is bad.
7 ) I now defend not( not(X implies Y) implies Y)
8 ) The other person now tells me I believe Y.
I don't believe any of this depends upon any of the contained statements being true. As in X, Y, X implies Y, and the perverse negations like not(X implies Y). I also don't trust that it's rightly construed as just a fallacy of inference. Why? It seems also to be about assigning inconsistent meanings to positions. Rather than just about defending a precisely articulated position incorrectly. In that regard I think cognitive dissonance plays a key role in that dynamic. And as a corollary, trying to point the fallacy out will appear as castigation. — fdrake
Mind you that he never said anything else but what he felt or what background he's coming from. As soon as the man walked away, the woman called him a bigot and homophobic. — L'éléphant
I agree. Nonetheless, those narrow-minded people, like you said, would make it like he was advancing an argument.He's not advancing a wild argument that is indefensible but more like he grew up knowing one thing and seeing another needs to adjust. Spending 70 years of your life knowing one thing and then having to change course is hard but he's not making any wild claims. — Darkneos
Two women replied, calling me misogynistic and demeaning, and referring to me as "puffing on a corncob pipe through withered lips" and avoiding the civil and women's rights movements in the 1960s. To which I replied I was on campus and had demonstrated against George Wallace as he stood in the doorway to the admissions office at the U of Alabama, denying entrance to a black man, and that, actually, I had joined the women's lib movement during that decade. — jgill
Corncob pipe? — L'éléphant
George Wallace demonstration and the date it happened. — L'éléphant
Wow. I had no idea. Thanks.1963. There was turmoil all around, with the Klan playing the crowds. At one point there was an explosion, which someone said was one of the confederate canons at the ROTC building going off. One of the civil rights demonstrators yelled, "I hope they hit the bastard this time!" (meaning Wallace). — jgill
My observation is that in a debate, if the strong claim—the claim that (A) wants to prevail—fails, then retreating to a more defensible position is a tactic still to make the strong claim prevail. I think it’s fair to call this a fallacy. — Jamal
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.