Talk:If-by-whiskey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
The Bush statement doesn't appear to be following the definition of the fallacy because A. it does not state two sides of an either/or boolean arguement. It appears (to me) that he is framing one option in terms that few would openly debate - "an appeal to decency" fallacy, not an "if-by-whiskey" fallacy.
[edit] When is this ever a fallacy?
Is this ever actually a fallacy? If so, could we provide an example?
It seems to me that this is simply saying "If (some aspect of A) then B. If (some other aspect of A) then C."
- I don't think this is a logical fallacy. It is really saying, I think, "If person holds A to be true, and not B, then C. If person holds B to be true, and not A, then not C". It is not clear whether the two conditionals negate each other by the article's example, but they are apparently contradictory. In itself, this is not a logical fallacy, but a rational one. For it supposes that what the person believes determines an objective truth not (apparently) contingent on the person. Another example is: "If you believe there is a green monster, the locals of the village saw the green monster. If, however, you don't believe in the green monster, the locals only imagined the green monster." Rintrah 08:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is there a semi-colon after "But"? This is very strange syntax; it assumes "but" forms a clause of its own. Rintrah 08:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The canonical example looks to me like it's satirical in intent. Unless there's evidence to the contrary, I think "Soggy" was making the same kind of point described in the "When it's not a fallacy" section - that both sides have merit - and doing so quite effectively. Is there any evidence that he seriously intended both sides of his statement to be taken at literal face value? It's only a fallacy if you do that, and I don't think that's the natural interpretation of the words.216.59.230.140 16:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The thing here is that the speech didn't exactly refer to two aspects or even two different meanings of "whiskey". It was talking about the connotations of the term, which are subjective and can't exactly be invoked in a logical argument. It could be considered an appeal to emotion. No matter whether you consider it to be good or bad, whiskey is still whiskey, so all the if-by-whiskey stuff was completely irrelevant. It fails to express any point of view whatsoever. Since both of the things he talked about were whiskey, he was essentially saying that a) he is against it and b) he is for it. How do you ban the "devil's brew" without banning the "oil of conversation"? You can't, since they are the same. They are both whiskey! This argument constitutes a contradiction and an appeal to emotion because a) it contradicts itself and b) it appeals to the audience's associations with the term "whiskey", trying to take care of both POVs. --WPholic [ talk ] 14:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
........................................................................................................................... I think the "if-by-whisky" statement is actually a good thoughtful analysis...given that words have limited meaning, even his "no" has to be qualified. He just clarified his answer. I hope I formatted this reply correctly. 67.163.163.206 21:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I don't know who wrote this page, but...
It is excellent.
[edit] Which is it?
on the subject of whether Mississippi should prohibit or legalize alcoholic beverages
Either the subject was whether to prohibit alcohol or not, if it weren't prohibited yet, or else was whether to legalize alcohol or not, if it had already been prohibited. The subject cannot have existed as stated, since that would require a preexisting state of both prohibition and legalization. Maybe the author likes to be lazy and not look up which it was, but don't pass the buck like this. --75.49.222.55 04:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
