h a l f b a k e r y"Not baked goods, Professor; baked bads!" -- The Tick
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
In this contentious world I'm noticing a debate tactic
that's
increasingly popular that doesn't have a name. It's having
numerous points that are technically correct, but that
lead to a
wrong overall assertion to counter a single correct
assertion. Since it's a
thing, it should have a name
like other things do.
So we'll take a single contention that's true as an
example.
Singular contention: The Ford GT40 is a beautiful and
very
fast
car.
Cumulative contentions of somebody debating somebody
who made that statement, in the form of a critical cross
examination:
1- "You say this is a beautiful car. Please look at this
picture of a bug on the windshield that was splattered as
it
hit the car. We can see the guts, the blood, the body
parts.
So this is beautiful is it?"
2- "Next picture is of the ThrustSSC, a twin turbofan jet-
powered car which achieved 763.035 mph. But you're
contending that this car of yours that crawls along at 164
mph is supposedly fast? But OK, let's take away the jet
car
for a second. Bugatti Chiron Super Sport 300+: 304 mph.
But you're lumbering pile of junk you say is fast scrapes
along the ground at almost half that speed, and there
you
are, ugly and stupid saying how supposedly "fast" your
car
is. (soon the personal insults get into it, we'll get into
Goodwin's law in a second.)
3- "Next picture is of the Parker Solar Probe launched in
2018. Our first witness is rocket scientist Dr Peabody T.
Braniac. Dr Braniac, we're going to show you two
vehicles,
we'd like you to compare them. The Parker Solar Probe
and
the so called Ford GT40. How would you compare their
relative speeds?" (Dr Brainiac) "They're not comparable.
The GT40 goes a couple of hundred miles per hour if it's
highly modified. The Parker Solar Probe goes 244,225
miles
per hour." (jury gasps) "How many times faster is that
than
the Ford?" "Approximately 220 times faster." (woman in
the
front row of the jury faints)
4- Now let's look at the person who claimed the 200 mile
per hour speed. This next picture shows him with a
hooker
while on vacation in Amsterdam... "OBJECTION! What
does
that have to do with the car!" "Overruled, you may
continue councillor."
Anyway, that's an example of cumulative vs singular
assertions. The singular assertion has one contention,
the
cumulative ones can go on and on forever with a little
creativity and this is a primary tool we use for trying to
get to the truth. It's like using pudding to smash rocks
yet this horrible tool is still used to engineer solutions to
the world's problems.
"Ugly", "slow" and generally "horrible" car.
https://www.ebay.co...02%26algv%3DDefault
The Ford GT40. Plus, we're not saying the designer is worse that Hitler, but there's no conclusive proof that he's not. [doctorremulac3, May 20 2020]
Baked!
http://www.perseus....ction%3DApoplanesis
... to a crisp, repeatedly. [pertinax, May 21 2020]
[link]
|
| |
Premise and red herrings. |
|
| |
//Premise and red herrings// |
|
| |
Yes, exactly. Red Herrings vs Premise actually to
translate the title. |
|
| |
But now I have to look up where the hell "red
herrings" came from. |
|
| |
"The actual origin of the figurative sense of the
phrase can be traced back to the early 1800s. Around
this time, English journalist William Cobbett wrote a
presumably fictional story about how he had used red
herring as a boy to throw hounds off the scent of a
hare." |
|
| |
I think "stink bomb" would be a good new incarnation
of the term. |
|
| |
The man in the wilderness said to me,
"How many strawberries grow in the sea?"
I answered him as I thought good,
"As many red herrings as live in the wood." |
|
| |
Traditional, but quoted by Beatrix Potter. |
|
| |
Regarding the idea, the phenomenon described is not new
at all.
There is already a well developed vocabulary to describe
rhetorical tricks, much of it recorded (and often applied)
by
Cicero. |
|
| |
Start by googling ...
Suggestio falsi
Suppressio veri
Aposiopesis
|
|
| |
You see, in ancient law courts, there were no "rules of
evidence"
such as we have nowadays, so people pulled this sort of
trick all
the time. |
|
| |
{edit} Ah yes, the particular term you need here is
"apoplanesis". See link. |
|
| |
"Albeit that this figure may in these respects rehearsed be
a necessarie forme of speech, yet may it be abused by
evill conscience, subtilty and craft, as when it is used to
smother good causes, and to shift out with evill matters,
an abuse God knoweth too common." |
|
| |
OK, that's cool, but I'm zeroing in on multiple,
technically true statements adding up to a false
conclusion. |
|
| |
Sounds like an election manifesto. |
|
| |
Thank you [pertinax] for another great word. |
|
| |
This is why I get all my news from internet forums. |
|
| |
I'll try to add that to my vocabulary just to have it
there, but the chances of me ever finding a person
who understands what that is are very slim. |
|
| |
Don't forget, [doctor], that rhetoric is a dirty game; you may find
the word more useful with people who *don't* know what it
means. |
|
| |
Following on from the example in the body of the idea ... |
|
| |
"First of all I'd like to commend counsel for the plaintiff on his
brave effort to argue such a weak case. However, that effort is
transparently apoplanetic. For example, he cannot deny the
beauty of the car, so he shows you instead the ugliness of a bug-
splatter. He cannot deny the speed of the car, so he shows you
[etc.]" |
|
| |
The point to note here is that, as soon as you reach the word
"apoplanetic", your opponent is frantically typing it into google to
find out what it means while the rest of your audience are
stunned into suggestibility by the impression of your superiority,
which is constructed from two elements, namely, (1) the
condescending back-handed compliment to your opponent and
(2) your classy vocabulary. |
|
| |
Your calling out his cheesy rhetorical trick (whose name, ex
hypothesi, he didn't know) distracts from the fact that you then
go on to deploy some rhetorical tricks of your own (starting with
anaphora). |
|
| |
As I said, it's a dirty game. |
|
| |
OK, it's in my arsenal, you sold it. |
|
| |
I could also be merciful and explain what it means
briefly. |
|
| |
It's a messy game because words aren't one diementional. Numbers, maybe, but for that power they lose definition. |
|
| |