Talk:Poisoning the well
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. | ||||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
The origin of the phrase comes from the belief in medieval times that outbreaks of bubonic plague were caused by Jews poisoning the water supply. Suggesting that someone was not to be trusted after accusing them of the unrelated crime of poisoning the water was effective rhetoric, but bad logic.
Source? (No pun intended.) I thought the origin was metaphorical (the opponent being the well, his/her arguments as the water, and the attack as the poison). --Townmouse 23:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- I too call bullshit. This sounds like another one of those retarded origins people make up because the obvious answer isn't as exciting as they'd like. -Branddobbe 03:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- I too am doubtful. A google search reveals that this explanation for the origin of the phrase is quite widespread, but evidence is hard to come by. As for when the phrase "posioning the well" was first used in the sense of a rhetorical device, one web page I found suggests that it was in John Henry Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua. (This page also asserts that the phrase "ultimately alludes" to Jews and the plague, but no evidence is offered, and none is to be found in Newman, who speaks of well-posioning as an unfair tactic used in warfare.) - Coriander 21:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- I would have to say I am nearly certain that this supposed origin is total bullshit. This seems rather like the "rule of thumb" coming from some apocryphal rule about beating one's wife. john k 23:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- One of the hadith or sayings of Muhammad is "Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees and do not poison the wells of your enemies", which would put it long before the Jews-and-plague explanation; but I don't think we're going to find a definitive origin, nor would it be particularly relevant to this article. However, it probably is relevant to mention Newman as the originator of its metaphorical use to describe the logical fallacy, as seems to be accepted (will provide link). Vilcxjo 14:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Is this the same as saying, for example, "Only an idiot would think that marijuana is addictive."? Those who believe that marijuana is addictive are then reluctant to speak up because doing so would get them automatically labelled as an idiot. - You see this sort of attack all the time. It's like a pre-emptive ad hominem attack. 163.192.21.46 21:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Since we're having a meta-discussion about poisoning the well
What's wrong with parallel examples?
- The so-called "Theory" of Intelligent Design
- We now examine the theory of intellient design...
If discussion of E can be poisoned, can't the discussion of ID be poisoned in the same manner? patsw 18:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I don't see the need for parallel examples. I picked the evolution one as its a popular one, but any example would do. If you find it offensive, replace it with any other example. I don't see why having parallel examples explains the concept better, in fact I think it confuses the issue. The text is an example of how an inappropriate heading has already shown the conclusion that will be reached, rather than letting the text of the argument persuade. Codec 23:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia as source
Actually, the example of the Wikipedia as source is an example of the genetic fallacy and not poisoning the well. patsw 04:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Removed. (Not good form in general for Wikipedia to refer to itself anyway.) Vilĉjo 09:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kawalimus Edit
Why, I did not do it, For I am to lazy and uncreative, But I must say, I laughed out loud at the edit, Mainly because he linked it in support of an Arguement on GameFaqs.D3115 02:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spelling of “preemptively”
As mentioned before, the use of diaereses for such words is unusual, archaic, and clearly controversial. The word “preëmptively” doesn’t appear in the Merriam-Webster nor any other online dictionary except for wiktionary, and the only reason it appears in the latter is because you added it. [1] [2] [3]
Wikipedia is not the place for such literary activism. We should use the most commonly accepted spelling, and that is clearly “preemptively”. This isn’t the New Yorker.
I suggest we put this to a vote, which is how such disputes should be resolved. I vote for “preemptively”. Archiesteel 16:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- “Preëmptively” might not be in any dictionary, but “preëmpt”, “preëmption”, “preëmptioner”, “preëmptive”, and “preëmptory” (as well as “preëmptor”, misspelt as “preëmtor”), can all be found in this online dictionary). Dismissing preëmptively’s presence in Wiktionary on the grounds that I added it is an irrelevant genetic fallacy (and as this is an article concerning logic, we should really steer clear of them). Except for the regularly inflected verbal and adverbial forms, all the words derived from “preëmption” have each been thrice cited, thus satisfying Wiktionary’s criteria for inclusion. Noöne is seriously going to be confused by seeing “preëmptively” — yet all of your objections unto the use of the diæretic spelling are based on this
reasonexcuse. Clearly, all the citations and rationale in the world isn’t going to persuade you (instead, you move to justify your stance with the argumentum ad numerum below). I therefore suggest that we compromise, and use neither “preemptively” nor “preëmptively”, instead opting for “pre-emptively”. I will go change it unto the hyphenated form now. If this is acceptable unto you, then the debate is over. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Hmm... touché. I guess that is rather hypocritical of me; thanks for pointing that out. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm personally fine with "pre-emptively". Archiesteel 02:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... touché. I guess that is rather hypocritical of me; thanks for pointing that out. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Survey of the spelling “preëmptively”
Add “*Support” or “*Oppose” followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
- Oppose. These sort of spellings are almost completely extinct today; there's no need to resurrect them and confuse readers. Strad 17:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose for the reasons given above. Archiesteel 19:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose — The letter is not in the English alphabet. This debate is totally unrelated to the subject of the article. This disruption has to stop. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
A similar incident occured here. As you can see there was unanimous opposition to the spelling coöperation, except of course from Doremítzwr himself. I raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and most who responded were against using diaereses in this way, but I guess that it never made it into the Manual of Style itself. Strad 17:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do my eyes deceive me? Or are you people really arguing over how the word "preemptively" should be spelled? There are some words that have more than one acceptable spelling. Come on. Save it for something that matters. Dino 12:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's okay, this was resolved over a month ago. The point was that the proposed alternate spelling (i.e. with diacritical marks over the second repeated vowel) was controversial. Was it an excercise in futility? Some could argue it was, but arguing this in itself seems rather futile... :-) Archiesteel 16:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
