5 ms·

Is 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 sta

Is 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 ago
No, no, no. He's arguing against both sides of the issue.
- skeltoac 14y ago
  You're both right.
  - nealabq 14y ago
    If by right you mean wrong then you're both right and wrong. ;)
    - JasonFruit 14y ago
      Do you mean "both" or "both both"?
      - nealabq 14y ago
        Neither. Or maybe either.
jonnathanson 14y ago
I 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.
- nickkthequick 14y ago
  I find that more of a negative interpretation. The easiest way to avoid responsibility is to not talk about the issue all together. Here he managed to outline the positives and negatives of both cases. If his view of whiskey's positives and negatives line up with yours, perhaps he understands and feels about the issue the same way you do and might make the decision that you would make in the same position. If not, you actually don't like his stance on the issue. I think it's more interesting to consider the concept he isolates, though, and it's bothersome that we can so cleanly map the concept he considers to issues we have today.
  - jonnathanson 14y ago
    "The easiest way to avoid responsibility is to not talk about the issue all together." Yes, but often politicians and public figures aren't given that choice. In this case, the man in question was either a judge or a lawyer at the time, and it seems likely that he was being asked or compelled to weigh in on the issue. His speech was a way of satisfying the weigh-in requirement without taking a controversial stance.
- msbarnett 14y ago
  > Seems more likely that he was simply pandering to both sides, and/or trying to dodge responsibility for a position altogether No, it's explicitly a sarcastic parody of his fellow politicians behavior that he gave at the end of his only term in office on the floor of the legislature to his fellow members, not to pander to constituents. It was essentially a convoluted way to call his peers a pack of idiots and invite them to kiss his ass. He was a cagey legal mind without a lot of patience for idiots, and he notes his amusement with the fact that half of his peers in the legislature heartily applauded the first half, and the other half heartily applauded the last half, and each half hated the other.
edanm 14y ago
It seemed to be pretty clearly satirical to me as well. I'm actually surprised that others are arguing your point, I didn't realize people interepereted it otherwise. Fyi, reading the first linked reference in Wikipedia brought me to a page talking about "the satiric straddling" in regards to the speech, which makes me think it also considers it satiric.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

benburleson 14y ago

No, no, no. He's arguing against both sides of the issue.

skeltoac 14y ago
You're both right.
- nealabq 14y ago
  If by right you mean wrong then you're both right and wrong. ;)
  - JasonFruit 14y ago
    Do you mean "both" or "both both"?
    - nealabq 14y ago
      Neither. Or maybe either.

jonnathanson 14y ago

I 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.

nickkthequick 14y ago
I find that more of a negative interpretation. The easiest way to avoid responsibility is to not talk about the issue all together. Here he managed to outline the positives and negatives of both cases. If his view of whiskey's positives and negatives line up with yours, perhaps he understands and feels about the issue the same way you do and might make the decision that you would make in the same position. If not, you actually don't like his stance on the issue. I think it's more interesting to consider the concept he isolates, though, and it's bothersome that we can so cleanly map the concept he considers to issues we have today.
- jonnathanson 14y ago
  "The easiest way to avoid responsibility is to not talk about the issue all together." Yes, but often politicians and public figures aren't given that choice. In this case, the man in question was either a judge or a lawyer at the time, and it seems likely that he was being asked or compelled to weigh in on the issue. His speech was a way of satisfying the weigh-in requirement without taking a controversial stance.
msbarnett 14y ago
> Seems more likely that he was simply pandering to both sides, and/or trying to dodge responsibility for a position altogether No, it's explicitly a sarcastic parody of his fellow politicians behavior that he gave at the end of his only term in office on the floor of the legislature to his fellow members, not to pander to constituents. It was essentially a convoluted way to call his peers a pack of idiots and invite them to kiss his ass. He was a cagey legal mind without a lot of patience for idiots, and he notes his amusement with the fact that half of his peers in the legislature heartily applauded the first half, and the other half heartily applauded the last half, and each half hated the other.

edanm 14y ago

It seemed to be pretty clearly satirical to me as well. I'm actually surprised that others are arguing your point, I didn't realize people interepereted it otherwise. Fyi, reading the first linked reference in Wikipedia brought me to a page talking about "the satiric straddling" in regards to the speech, which makes me think it also considers it satiric.