Stop apologizing for not being a liberal

[Speaker to Animals]

Which part of that definition do you disagree with?

Pretty much the entire characterization of a diverse group of people who are simply skeptical of the Enlightenment.

Besides the moralizing part...

I thought it was a reasonable definition...

It could apply to pre- industrial revolution, pre-Enlightenment, pre-bronze age, pre anything really...

Not reasonable at all. It reminds me of how feminists define men who want to discuss male issues like suicide and child custody as "pro-rape" in order to shut down their events. It only works because people have no idea what the people being shut down actually believe.

[jediuser598]

Pretty much the entire characterization of a diverse group of people who are simply skeptical of the Enlightenment.

What parts of the enlightenment?

What parts of the Enlightenment are off-limits to be skeptical about??

None.

The enlightenment was largely about skepticism. Are you skeptical about skepticism?

[Speaker to Animals]

What parts of the enlightenment?

What parts of the Enlightenment are off-limits to be skeptical about??

None.

The enlightenment was largely about skepticism. Are you skeptical about skepticism?

Motte: meet Bailey.

[jediuser598]

What parts of the Enlightenment are off-limits to be skeptical about??

None.

The enlightenment was largely about skepticism. Are you skeptical about skepticism?

Motte: meet Bailey.

Eh?

[Speaker to Animals]

None.

The enlightenment was largely about skepticism. Are you skeptical about skepticism?

Motte: meet Bailey.

Eh?

That's your problem right there.

[jediuser598]

Motte: meet Bailey.

Eh?

That's your problem right there.

Is that your way of saying "Pot meet kettle"?

What prompts that?

[Speaker to Animals]

Eh?

That's your problem right there.

Is that your way of saying "Pot meet kettle"?

What prompts that?

I have to hold your hand through this, don't I..

Motte and bailey (MAB) is a combination of bait-and-switch and equivocation in which someone switches between a "motte" (an easy-to-defend and often common-sense statement, such as "culture shapes our experiences") and a "bailey" (a hard-to-defend and more controversial statement, such as "cultural knowledge is just as valid as scientific knowledge") in order to defend a viewpoint. Someone will argue the easy-to-defend position (motte) temporarily, to ward off critics, while the less-defensible position (bailey) remains the desired belief, yet is never actually defended.

In short: instead of defending a weak position (the "bailey"), the arguer retreats to a strong position (the "motte"), while acting as though the positions are equivalent. When the motte has been accepted (or found impenetrable) by an opponent, the arguer continues to believe (and perhaps promote) the bailey.

Note that the MAB works only if the motte and the bailey are sufficiently similar (at least superficially) that one can switch between them while pretending that they are equivalent.

The MAB is a fallacious argument style.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey

Example:

Person A: These feminist academics constantly talk about how men should be exterminated, that we need to be taught not to rape, etc. It seems to me that feminism, in it's purest most academic form, is a form of sexism against men.

Person B: OMG!! Feminism is just for gender equality! You don't disagree with gender equality do you??

Person A: Well, I guess not. I don't have a problem with gender equality, but what about all this other stuff that feminists..

Person B: Then you are a feminist!!



That's a Motte and Bailey argument.

[jediuser598]

That's your problem right there.

Is that your way of saying "Pot meet kettle"?

What prompts that?

I have to hold your hand through this, don't I..

Motte and bailey (MAB) is a combination of bait-and-switch and equivocation in which someone switches between a "motte" (an easy-to-defend and often common-sense statement, such as "culture shapes our experiences") and a "bailey" (a hard-to-defend and more controversial statement, such as "cultural knowledge is just as valid as scientific knowledge") in order to defend a viewpoint. Someone will argue the easy-to-defend position (motte) temporarily, to ward off critics, while the less-defensible position (bailey) remains the desired belief, yet is never actually defended.

In short: instead of defending a weak position (the "bailey"), the arguer retreats to a strong position (the "motte"), while acting as though the positions are equivalent. When the motte has been accepted (or found impenetrable) by an opponent, the arguer continues to believe (and perhaps promote) the bailey.

Note that the MAB works only if the motte and the bailey are sufficiently similar (at least superficially) that one can switch between them while pretending that they are equivalent.

The MAB is a fallacious argument style.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey

Example:

Person A: These feminist academics constantly talk about how men should be exterminated, that we need to be taught not to rape, etc. It seems to me that feminism, in it's purest most academic form, is a form of sexism against men.

Person B: OMG!! Feminism is just for gender equality! You don't disagree with gender equality do you??

Person A: Well, I guess not. I don't have a problem with gender equality, but what about all this other stuff that feminists..

Person B: Then you are a feminist!!

That's a Motte and Bailey argument.

I don't subscribe to the informal fallacy magazine. Hit me with a formal fallacy, if I get stuff wrong. I just ignore the rest of "well this is a fallacy, because <insert informal fallacy>"

If a feminist isn't for equality, then they're not a feminist. It's right there in the definition. Can't be a feminist if you're not for equality.

[Speaker to Animals]

Is that your way of saying "Pot meet kettle"?

What prompts that?

I have to hold your hand through this, don't I..

Motte and bailey (MAB) is a combination of bait-and-switch and equivocation in which someone switches between a "motte" (an easy-to-defend and often common-sense statement, such as "culture shapes our experiences") and a "bailey" (a hard-to-defend and more controversial statement, such as "cultural knowledge is just as valid as scientific knowledge") in order to defend a viewpoint. Someone will argue the easy-to-defend position (motte) temporarily, to ward off critics, while the less-defensible position (bailey) remains the desired belief, yet is never actually defended.

In short: instead of defending a weak position (the "bailey"), the arguer retreats to a strong position (the "motte"), while acting as though the positions are equivalent. When the motte has been accepted (or found impenetrable) by an opponent, the arguer continues to believe (and perhaps promote) the bailey.

Note that the MAB works only if the motte and the bailey are sufficiently similar (at least superficially) that one can switch between them while pretending that they are equivalent.

The MAB is a fallacious argument style.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey

Example:

Person A: These feminist academics constantly talk about how men should be exterminated, that we need to be taught not to rape, etc. It seems to me that feminism, in it's purest most academic form, is a form of sexism against men.

Person B: OMG!! Feminism is just for gender equality! You don't disagree with gender equality do you??

Person A: Well, I guess not. I don't have a problem with gender equality, but what about all this other stuff that feminists..

Person B: Then you are a feminist!!

That's a Motte and Bailey argument.

I don't subscribe to the informal fallacy magazine. Hit me with a formal fallacy, if I get stuff wrong. I just ignore the rest of "well this is a fallacy, because <insert informal fallacy>"

If a feminist isn't for equality, then they're not a feminist. It's right there in the definition. Can't be a feminist if you're not for equality.

You really don't get how this fallacy works, do you?

[jediuser598]

You really don't get how this fallacy works, do you?

Nah.

You're saying that you're skeptical about parts of the Enlightenment.

I ask what parts of the Enlightenment are you skeptical about.

You reply with "What parts aren't ok to be skeptical about?"

I reply with "Well the enlightenment is largely about skepticism, are you skeptical about skepticism?"

Did I get the record right?

So what parts of the Enlightenment are you skeptical about?