3 ms·
The only correct approach is [1] if by whiskey Not the logical fallacy, that would be a terrible thing that does nothing to support discourse, and actively make
by jfoutz 4y ago
The only correct approach is [1] if by whiskey
Not the logical fallacy, that would be a terrible thing that does nothing to support discourse, and actively makes it worse.
but the rhetorical flourish, taking everything good and support it, while take everything bad, and reject it. That's a thing of beauty.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey
- spacemanmatt 4y agoHow is giving equal weight to both sides different than staying out of it?
- jfoutz 4y agoin highly charged political environments it's a status game. if you say nothing, you're implicitly on the wrong side for each listener (Backfires, like tfa discusses). If you hold up the virtues and tear down the corruption of each side, everybody only listens to the parts they want to hear. So you're on their side, or at least could be converted. Also, the comment was kind of a joke. The original speech in the wiki article is pretty darn funny.
- spacemanmatt 4y ago> So you're on their side, or at least could be converted I think the authors hold that the opposite is true because people see through such attempts to sit on the fence and judge that behavior more harshly than simply holding opposing views.
- XorNot 4y agoWhat does equal weight mean to you, when one side is calling for change, and the other wants no change? It's status quo conservatism: "I am content with how things are now".
- spacemanmatt 4y agoI don't know, it wasn't my example.
- spiderice 4y agoNot sure I agree with you take on if-by-whiskey. I read the excerpt from the speech in the link you posted. He isn’t “taking the good parts of whisky and rejecting the bad”. He simply stating what the good and bad are, without taking a side. Further, you can’t legalize the good effects of whisky while outlawing the bad. Whisky is either legal or illegal, and you accept or reject both the good and the bad. Essentially he’s pandering to his audience without making a stance on whether or not he supports legal whisky. How is that a “thing of beauty”? I think I kind of get what you’re saying. That we should have more nuance in our opinions. But I don’t think if-by-whisky supports that like you’re suggesting. Edit: I also realize I’m probably taking your comment to seriously. For which I apologize :)