Talk:Doublespeak argument

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Logic

HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE? "Many people simply accept and repeat what the're told. Because none of us can possibly check the accuracy of every statement we hear or read, we tend to accept a good deal of information on faith- especially if it comes from a source who 'oughta know.'"

                                       -From HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE?
                                        by: David Klein and Marymae E. Klein

[edit] They really say that?

They actualy say condoms have little holes in them? I don't think it should be taken down, cause it's a good example of doublespeak, but I would like to see the source. --67.70.0.174 04:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the examples from unsubstantiated and unsourced allegations, to more common hypotheticals. I changed the "tiny holes" conspiracy theory to the more common (and accurate) "not 100 percent effective" argument. Someone opposing condom use on moral (or religious) grounds would still oppose failsafe condoms, as their real concern is not efficacy. 72.244.206.38 17:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hypothical examples may not be the best, but the previous paragraphs seemed (to me) loaded with "Allegedly" an awful lot... 68.39.174.238 (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)