10 ms·
The If-by-whiskey fallacy
- randallsquared 14y agoThe given example is more clarification than fallacy. He's against bad things and for good things? What could be clearer? :)
- Gigablah 14y agoWell, you can't just tick all the boxes...
- mikedmiked 14y agoFinally somebody I can get behind; we need to get this guy into office. Does anyone know of any other examples of if-by-whiskey being used today? Is it useful for politicians or would it completely backfire, where any opposition would try to say "You are quoted as being pro-alcohol: calling it the philosophic wine" or "anti-alcohol, calling it the devil's brew" and pick the paragraph that suits their needs?
- jerf 14y ago"Does anyone know of any other examples of if-by-whiskey being used today?" The whole debt debate. If by spending you mean crippling debt being left to our children, interest paid to furreiners, etc etc, it's bad and everyone who supports it is bad. If by spending, you mean the concrete things that we are spending money on, of course this specific thing is so wonderful that it's worth it and anyone who says otherwise is bad, and in fact I may I just go out on a limb and say that we need more of this sort of spending. (Lest you think I'm being partisan here, there's a very clear pattern in the last 20 years on which party in the US wants to spend, and which party wants to cut, and it's not D/R or liberal/conservative in either direction. The pattern is that the majority party wants to spend, and the minority party wants to cut. One can not help but cynically observe that what really bothers the minority party is majority's successful ladling out of the pork for patronage to the other guy's constituents, rather than any sort of real offense about spending. And thus, to be clear, the reason I chose this as my example is that you can find instances of the same individual giving both halves of this speech, playing both sides of the argument, separated by about a decade and one flip of the majority party.)
- twoodfin 14y agoThe minority party certainly did not want to cut from, say, 2002-2004. If anything, the dynamic was just the opposite: Stimulus bills didn't have enough "state aid". Medicare Part D had a miserly donut hole. Special education was being woefully shortchanged if the Federal government didn't honor its "promise" to pick up 100% of the cost. Oh, and don't forget that we weren't spending enough on body armor and the VA. I think your theory needs tuning.
- jerf 14y agoPity Google doesn't have a "please just let me search in 2003" mode. Democrats got tons of mileage out of Bush-era deficit complaints, though. I'm pretty comfortable with my general thesis.
- prattmic 14y agoTry the "Custom range..." under "Time". https://www.google.com/search?q=special+education+spending&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2003%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2003&tbm= https://www.google.com/search?q=special+education+spending&#...
- thisone 14y agoYou can find some of these types of arguments when reading opinions on the death penalty, gun control, and abortion. The arguments aren't always doublespeak I'd say. You can very well be for something, given a set of circumstances, but against the same thing, given a different set of circumstances. The political problem I'd say, is figuring out how to separate, or even if you can separate, the "bad circumstances" from the "good circumstances"
- cabinguy 14y agoThis exactly describes the gun debate going on today. Is it a terrorist or a freedom fighter? = Is it an assault weapon or a rifle?
- chrisrhoden 14y agoI don't think that's really a fair comparison. Assault weapon is a strictly legal term which refers to a specific subset of the category we refer to as rifles. The word rifle usually brings to mind a class of weapons that were specifically not covered by the assault weapons ban. A more apt analogy would be Religious Conservative : Taliban :: Rifle : Assault Rifle My point being that, in this case, it's not simply a matter of perspective. Now, if the debate were much more polarized, one could see something like Terrorist : Freedom Fighter :: Murder Machine : 2nd Amendment Rights
- sp332 14y agoLately, "assault" weapons are (legally) characterized by the amount of ammo they can hold. For example this 30-round magazine is illegal no matter which gun you put it in, whereas the same gun with a different-sized magazine may well be legal. http://www.mediaite.com/online/nbcs-david-gregory-displays-30-round-magazine-on-tv-matter-is-under-investigation-by-police/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/nbcs-david-gregory-displays-3...
- AngryParsley 14y agoMagazine restrictions are a separate law in most states. California has an assault weapon ban which restricts features such a pistol grips, collapsible stocks, and flash hiders. They have another law restricting the possession of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Old magazines are grandfathered in, so you can use them in legal rifles. It looks like the law is similar in DC. Possession of a magazine with >10 round capacity is a crime. Other firearm laws are irrelevant to the case you linked to.
- sp332 14y ago
- abuiles 14y agohaha I was wondering about this too, I actually asked in quora http://www.quora.com/Fallacy/What-are-some-famous-examples-of-the-if-by-whiskey-fallacy http://www.quora.com/Fallacy/What-are-some-famous-examples-o...
- galactus 14y agoWhy is it considered a "fallacy"?
- cwoebker 14y agoWell I think thats cause on the one hand a supporter might consider " the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together..." as true while another might consider "the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence" as true. Depending on ones opinion something is true for one but not true for another. A person might only be able to see their own side of things without allowing other opinions. So I guess fallacy is a somewhat appropriate term here:)
- simias 14y agoI guess it could be considered very similar to the "no true scotsman" fallacy. "If by scotsman you mean..." Not sure what it has to do on the frontpage though.
- mikedmiked 14y agoIts a type of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist_fallacy
- wmat 14y ago
- guessWhy 14y agoSeems to be related to the straw man: The question is "Should whiskey be prohibited or not?" but he takes it to be "Is there anything good or bad about whiskey?" or "Do I think whiskey is good or bad?".
- magoon 14y agoI was half expecting an alcoholic connotation of Paul Revere, e.g. two if-by-whiskey, one if-by-beer.
- jessaustin 14y agoPerhaps it's a fallacy that you can be both in favor of a particular thing and also against that same thing? I have the feeling that if I heard that speech I would actually believe that Soggy is both for and against whiskey. I don't think I'd vote for him, but I would believe him.
- Udo 14y agoThat's not what he meant when he said it though. After characterizing the supporters of prohibition as drooling religious fanatics, he made some pretty good points about the judicious use of alcohol as a social and physiological enhancer. He was acknowledging that alcohol could be used for good or for bad things, and he was (maybe from our perspective only) making a good point about the use of polemic, misleading, and ridiculously overblown rhetorics. His was a reasonable argument, a witty meta argument, and a biting satirical observation all at the same time. The point is, "Soggy" wasn't really undecided on the issue. Hell yeah, I'd vote for that guy.
- addlepate 14y agoRight. Which is why it's so weird to call this a fallacy. It does not strike me as fallacious.
- illuminate 14y ago"After characterizing the supporters of prohibition as drooling religious fanatics" But they wouldn't see that characterization as inapt, or insulting, so it's not a very strong or brave position to take.
- bjhoops1 14y agoThey need to add this to http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/. And if you haven't been there, you should check it out!
- Adrock 14y agoIf by "if-by-whiskey" you mean the fallacious, flip-flopping, cowardly practice of pandering, then certainly I am against it. But, if when you say "if-by-whiskey" you mean the circumspect, open-minded, responsive practice of consideration, then I am certainly for it. This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.
- hashmymustache 14y agoIf by "if by 'if by whiskey'" you mean to circularly employ the same manipulative tactic of deceptive self-promotion, then I am certainly against it. But if by "if by 'if by whiskey'" you mean to strategically exercise the same practice out of admiration of its effective and pacifying avail to reason, then I am certainly for it. That is my position. I will not waver.
- damon_c 14y agoWell done, both of you.
- Shish2k 14y agoIf by "If by \"if by 'if by whiskey'\"" you mean you're offering me some whiskey to help with trying to comprehend this level of nesting, then yes please :-)
- FredFredrickson 14y agoThis is starting to look like some horrible regex nightmare!
- mindcrime 14y agoif by "regex nightmare" you mean "regex" then I am opposed to it!
- InclinedPlane 14y agoWhat is the fixed point of this function? Is there one? Quick, someone apply the y-combinator!
- jordan0day 14y agoIs this a fallacy? It seems that the speaker is clearly being satirical, especially given that he prefaces his speech with " On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be." And then proceeds to argue for both sides of the issue. Perhaps politics in 1950's Mississippi were just as solidly partisan as our national politics are today. In that case, perhaps Mr. Sweat's satire was meant to try to influence the partisans to, at least somewhat, understand the other side.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- benburleson 14y agoNo, no, no. He's arguing against both sides of the issue.
- skeltoac 14y agoYou're both right.
- nealabq 14y agoIf by right you mean wrong then you're both right and wrong. ;)
- JasonFruit 14y agoDo you mean "both" or "both both"?
- nealabq 14y agoNeither. Or maybe either.
- jonnathanson 14y agoI think this is a generous interpreation. Seems more likely that he was simply pandering to both sides, and/or trying to dodge responsibility for a position altogether. The history of political speeches is pretty rife with this sort of tactic, although seldom as memorable as in this case. Politicians and public figures who don't want to alienate either side of an argument will often pay lip service to both sides.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- jiggy2011 14y agoThis seems like a more schizophrenic version of the no-true-scotsman fallacy. In that it can be used to show support for something (often some ideal) whilst distancing oneself from any negative consequences of that.
- obituary_latte 14y agoThis is like Microsoft. It is great when it works and isn't causing troubles, but a bottomless hell when forced to look at the event viewer...
- martinced 14y agoI think the canonical example on Wikipedia is false in that it is historically where the name comes from, but it's not itself a fallacy at all. From the description of the fallacy the "if-by-whiskey" fallacy would be someone taking either one side, or the other. So the "canonical example" is not at all an example of the fallacy but simply the roots of the name of the fallacy.
- simonh 14y agoNot at all. When Mr Sweat asks "if by whiskey you mean..." he's making it explicit that his opinion depends on that of the questioner.
- if_by_whisky 14y agoI've heard of this!!!
- wissler 14y agoA litmus test of moral cowardice.
- petercooper 14y agoThis immediately made me think of abortion and the terms pro-life and pro-choice. I am both pro-life and pro-choice by the literal meanings, but many in the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" camps seem to use their terminology to paint the other side as bad (i.e. the opposite side is "anti-life" or "anti-choice" by default, even though that's not necessarily true).
- nealabq 14y agoIt made me think of C++.
- superuser2 14y agoIs there a situation where the belief that abortion should be illegal does not oppose a woman's ability to choose abortion? Of course the central premise of opposition to abortion is not (usually) opposition to choice, but "anti-choice" isn't technically an invalid characterization.
- qu4z-2 14y agoI think the point is that I'm pro-life, I'm just "proer"-choice. Obviously situations where the mother's life is in danger are kind of a gray area, but I think you could comfortably be "proer"-life and oppose the choice in non-life-threatening situations. Not that I agree, but that opinion wouldn't be "anti-choice".
- alxp 14y agoThat makes you solidly pro choice.
- illuminate 14y agoIt's the same sort of weasel words that Creationists use to confuse Christians who can accept science but now think it runs counter to the idea of "God's Creation".
- qu4z-2 14y ago
- hcarvalhoalves 14y agoJust politicians being politicians.
- nealabq 14y agoIf by politician you mean a tireless statesman, fighting the good fight, a champion of worthy causes that benefit us all, then I enthusiastically concur. But if by politician you mean a low, corrupt, power-mad petty puppet jerked around by evil special interests, then sadly I have to agree.
- mathattack 14y ago"If by C programming, you mean writing unreadable code with memory leaks that is impossible to support and violently breaks in unpredictable ways, then I am against it. If by C programming, you mean writing elegant code that dances with the machine producing blazing code, optimized to the technology and problem at hand, then I am for it. This is my stand. I will not compromise." I really hate to say it, but I haven't seen this if-by-whiskey technique so formally named, but it does give me great insight into political double-speak. And perhaps it'll give me a few outs from tough situations. :-)
- Dylan16807 14y agoOn the other hand you made an example that was accidentally valid. The axis of good/bad code exists independent of language. But there is no such thing is good/bad (morally) casks of whiskey. Get to work strongly implying that C is the actual cause of all these things with no externalities, and then you get toward the fallacy.
- criley 14y ago>there is no such thing is good/bad (morally) casks of whiskey. I disagree -- just as someone writing C can do it well or poorly, someone drinking whiskey can behave well or poorly. The spectrum of drunken behavior is a big one, and does include moral and immoral activity...
- Dylan16807 14y agoThat is the drinkER, not the drink. mathattack was focusing on the programming language. To parallel the whiskey morals they need to focus on the act of programming, or on the programmer. Not the language.
- mathattack 14y agoI interpreted it as more of a longwinded way to take both sides of an issue to not anger either side. C programming seemed less controversial than something like guns or abortion, but perhaps not around here. :-)
- funthree 14y agoHe condones what is widely seen as good about whiskey and he condemns what is widely seen as bad about whiskey. That is the stance he's getting across, and it's one which is also sort of (unsurprisingly?) the sum total position of the people he represents.
- transitionality 14y agoHe's against irresponsible drinking to the point where it will cause harm to oneself and others, but for responsible drinking to the degree that it will confer benefits. I don't see a fallacy here.
- superk 14y agoHighly recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Language-Thought-Action-Fifth-Edition/dp/0156482401 http://www.amazon.com/Language-Thought-Action-Fifth-Edition/... Which talks in detail about the "informative" and "affective" connotations of words (it's a lot more entertaining than it sounds). Only slightly related, but I was just reading in the book how we have the terms "light meat" and "dark meat": because ladies and gentleman in 19th century Britain couldn't bring themselves to say "leg", "thigh" or "breast" – even of a chicken!
- charlieok 14y agoIf you follow the link to Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat Jr's wikipedia page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_S._Sweat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_S._Sweat ...you get a great audio recording of the speech (over 50 years later, and not by Noah)