I'll try and blog properly later 
but for now I just wanted to throw open a question to the (admittedly not huge) audience.
Is there an actual name for the situation where you believe someone's argument is fundamentally wrong in two separate ways, but arguing against them both at once seems contradictory?
(Note: 'arrogance' will not be accepted
)
Examples:
Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural
(It is natural, but why would it matter if it wasn't?)
Darwin recounted evolutionary theory on his deathbed
(He didn't, but even if he did, it wouldn't affect the validity of evolutionary theory?)
Chemicals are bad because they are man-made
(Well a great many clearly aren't, but since when has man-made meant 'bad' anyway?)
...and I'm sure you can think of your own. I think it needs a snappier title than 'you're-wrong-but-even-if-you-were-right-you'd-still-be-wrong' syndrome. (Note - I'm not actually asking for a debate on these particular arguments themselves (!) - if you disagree with me on their content, I'm sure you can still think of your own situations where this applies...)
but for now I just wanted to throw open a question to the (admittedly not huge) audience.Is there an actual name for the situation where you believe someone's argument is fundamentally wrong in two separate ways, but arguing against them both at once seems contradictory?
(Note: 'arrogance' will not be accepted
)Examples:
Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural
(It is natural, but why would it matter if it wasn't?)
Darwin recounted evolutionary theory on his deathbed
(He didn't, but even if he did, it wouldn't affect the validity of evolutionary theory?)
Chemicals are bad because they are man-made
(Well a great many clearly aren't, but since when has man-made meant 'bad' anyway?)
...and I'm sure you can think of your own. I think it needs a snappier title than 'you're-wrong-but-even-if-you-were-right-you'd-still-be-wrong' syndrome. (Note - I'm not actually asking for a debate on these particular arguments themselves (!) - if you disagree with me on their content, I'm sure you can still think of your own situations where this applies...)
Comments
amber
21:29:20 - 25/01/07
Lucy
I wonder where you got the inspiration for this blog
Nicht impressed
Nicht impressed
15:34:35 - 27/01/07
You're actually wrong on this one honestly
honestly
15:39:18 - 27/01/07
Jesus II
Would your saying you're not blogging properly to a small audiec count as one. It's not a small audience as Amber kindly pointed out and even if it was we deserve better than something you believe to be substanderd. WE HAE NEEDS!!!!
00:02:00 - 03/02/07
Jesus II
And why isthere not a link to Sanna's blog on your site. Honestly, this favoritism is sickening.
00:03:23 - 03/02/07
Jesus II
is there*
00:04:05 - 03/02/07
Why is there or why is there not? 
(There is, btw...)
And, um, The Musings of a Red Dalek works hard to ensure high quality standards at all times
(There is, btw...)
And, um, The Musings of a Red Dalek works hard to ensure high quality standards at all times
00:16:57 - 04/02/07
Add a Comment
Emoticons
Comments must be approved before being published.
Links are converted automatically.
By posting you accept the terms of comments.
By posting you accept the terms of comments.
isnt the term: "wrong by definition" i know its not quite the same but it could cover it.