# I pit "If x happened, y would say z" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 29, 2007, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582 "2007-12-29T08:51:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2008, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582/41 "2008-01-04T02:05:02Z")
y would say mx + b if he wanted to throw a curve at you ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2008, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582/42 "2008-01-04T02:25:28Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Thank you. I understand now. Personally, I would assess the hypothetical based on how reasonable or plausible it seemed based on my knowledge of human nature and the person or people in question. [/QUOTE] The thing is, it’s not an argument at all. There are no facts to support it. I can say anything in any form like that, and it’s equivalently useful. On the other hand, if I give an historical example (“Last time we talked about whether a political scandal should end the politician’s career, you said it should. Why the double standard for this guy?”), then it is useful: it shows a person that they might be allowing their judgment to be influenced by such irrelevant details as the party of the politician in question. True, it opens itself up to defense (“The double standard is because last time we were talking about a scandal involving bribery, which fundamentally corrupts the political system, whereas this time we’re talking about a scandal involving sex, which isn’t the public’s business.”). **That’s what good arguments do: they use facts, and are therefore vulnerable to fact-based defenses**. That such arguments are rooted in facts, not speculation, is their strength, not their weakness. Again, it’s one thing to ask someone how they would respond to a hypothetical (“If this politician were a Democrat, do you still think you’d be calling for his resignation?”). That’s legit and can advance debate. But an accusation of how someone would act in a situation that’s contrary to fact is meanspirited and useless. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2008, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582/43 "2008-01-04T08:58:58Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] The thing is, it’s not an argument at all. There are no facts to support it. I can say anything in any form like that, and it’s equivalently useful. On the other hand, if I give an historical example (“Last time we talked about whether a political scandal should end the politician’s career, you said it should. Why the double standard for this guy?”), then it is useful: it shows a person that they might be allowing their judgment to be influenced by such irrelevant details as the party of the politician in question. [/quote] One thing doesn’t necessarily rule out the other. For example: “If politician X were a Democrat, then the conservatives would likely be screaming for his resignation. Just look at how prominent conservatives reacted when Bill Clinton did Y.” ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2008, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582/44 "2008-01-04T09:27:24Z")
Spot on rant, **Max**. There’s a rather good example of it here: > **[Christians pissing on the cross -- imagine what would happen in Islam!](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448710)** > > I came across the funniest thing in the washroom of the local Anglican Cathedral. It appears they have this model of urinal. Unfortunately, I have been unable to locate a picture of what I want to show you, but it here is a description. There are... -Where it’s not enough to complain about what a group _actually does_ - the OP has to express outrage against _what it is alleged they would do_ in some ridiculously hypothetical situation. ETA: I posted this youtube link in that thread, but it’s relevant here, so I’ll repeat it: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/Cq7e9R9h7OA/hqdefault.jpg "Harry Enfield - Self Righteous Brothers - Julio Iglesias") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq7e9R9h7OA) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2008, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582/45 "2008-01-06T04:49:10Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] One thing doesn’t necessarily rule out the other. For example: “If politician X were a Democrat, then the conservatives would likely be screaming for his resignation. Just look at how prominent conservatives reacted when Bill Clinton did Y.” [/QUOTE] In your quote, check out the switch between “the conservatives” and “prominent conservatives.” This is a related problem: folks paint with too broad a brush. I will not be held accountable for not reacting to a Democratic politican’s scandal in a manner equivalent to how Michael Moore reacted to a Republican politician’s scandal. That said, if you fix this problem and talk about the same subject in the first and second sentence, you’re closer to saying something useful. Assuming that a person has commented in the thread in question, and has not screamed for the Republican’s resignation, you may point out that in a similar thread about a Democrat, they _did_ scream for that Democrat’s resignation. You may then ask them why they had the different response. The ball is then in their court. They can give a lame difference between the two cases, and thereby show that they’re being blinded by partisanship. They can give a significant difference between the two cases, and then you’ve learned something interesting. They can say, “You’re right. If I’m going to be consistent, I should call for this guy to resign, too.” The difference is that you’ve presented them with facts and asked for an explanation. That’s **totally completely different from** presenting them with a fantasy and claiming that their actions in the fantasy demonstrate their hypocrisy. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2008, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582/46 "2008-01-06T11:02:26Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] The difference is that you’ve presented them with facts and asked for an explanation. That’s **totally completely different from** presenting them with a fantasy and claiming that their actions in the fantasy demonstrate their hypocrisy. Daniel [/QUOTE] Fine, so the point is that one should have a factual basis for one’s assertions. Somebody who says “If X happened, Y would do Z” should be prepared to offer facts about how Y’ did Z’ when X’ happened. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2008, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582/47 "2008-01-06T12:33:16Z")
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool] A common rhetorical device here on the dope (probably other places too, but it’s here that I notice it and I bugs me) is to observe some partisan scandal or other, and then make a remark of the form “well, we all know if that if (person on the other side from the person involved in the actual scandal) did the same thing, then (you people I disagree with) would (have a fit/be strangely silent)”. [/QUOTE] My god your people are sooooooooo predictable,i was wondering how long it would be before one or the other of you would come up with this point. But I notice that theres a deafening silence when you guys do it. Typical,just typical! ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2008, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582/48 "2008-01-06T18:39:34Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Fine, so the point is that one should have a factual basis for one’s assertions. Somebody who says “If X happened, Y would do Z” should be prepared to offer facts about how Y’ did Z’ when X’ happened. [/QUOTE] Precisely! And one should be further prepared for the other side to point out why the current X is substantially different from the previous X, because that’s how such matters naturally progress. It may be worth rereading the OP; it sets out all these points really well. The argument is legitimate when the person you’re talking to actually has behaved differently when relevantly similar events have unfolded. It’s completely illegitimate when this isn’t the case. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2008, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582/49 "2008-01-06T20:14:40Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] It may be worth rereading the OP; it sets out all these points really well. [/quote] Ummm, this is from the OP: > [@](#): > > I DESPISE this argument. . . . Why? Many reasons: > > (1) It’s unprovable. “We all know… what WOULD happen”. No we don’t. How could we? Even in the rare situations where there are two VERY similar situations, and the person making this argument takes the time to cite actual people actually doing the actual thing, that doesn’t prove anything, because the two situations are, by their very nature, not precisely identical. * * * > [@](#): > > The argument is legitimate when the person you’re talking to actually has behaved differently when relevantly similar events have unfolded. It’s completely illegitimate when this isn’t the case. Looks like you disagree with the original poster. ---
**Author:** ![Autolycus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@Autolycus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autolycus)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2008, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582/50 "2008-01-06T21:18:29Z")
If “I pit ‘If x happened, y would say z’” happened, then **MaxTheVool** would say > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I DESPISE this argument. I think it should be added to the list of Godwin-esque things which, when used, are tantamount to admitting that you have no actual argument to make. Why? Many reasons ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2008, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582/51 "2008-01-07T03:58:54Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Ummm, this is from the OP: Looks like you disagree with the original poster. [/QUOTE] Sort of, and sort of not. The form in which it’s legitimate is, “ **When** x happened, y **said** z.” That’s a different argument from the one the OP pitted. It’s very similar, and the OP suggests that it’s fundamentally flawed because no two X’s are identical. I disagree that this is a fundamental flaw: all that’s required is that the X’s be **relevantly similar**. Someone who objects to a Republican’s shady deals with lobbyists, but who doesn’t object to a Democrat’s shady deals with lobbyists, is open to a charge of partisan bias, even if the two cases are not identical. If such a person cannot point out a principled difference between the two, they ought to admit that it’s not a highminded principle that guides their judgment here. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2008, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582/52 "2008-01-08T02:12:38Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] Sort of, and sort of not. [/quote] Lol. Maybe I should recap. Here’s what the OP said: > [@](#): > > I DESPISE this argument. . . . Why? Many reasons: > > (1) It’s unprovable. “We all know… what WOULD happen”. No we don’t. How could we? Even in the rare situations where there are two VERY similar situations, and the person making this argument takes the time to cite actual people actually doing the actual thing, that doesn’t prove anything, because the two situations are, by their very nature, not precisely identical. Here’s what I said: > [@](#): > > Fine, so the point is that one should have a factual basis for one’s assertions. Somebody who says “If X happened, Y would do Z” should be prepared to offer facts about how Y’ did Z’ when X’ happened. And here’s what you said: > [@](#): > > Precisely! And one should be further prepared for the other side to point out why the current X is substantially different from the previous X, because that’s how such matters naturally progress. > > It may be worth rereading the OP; it sets out all these points really well. No it didn’t. The OP was in flat contradiction to my point above. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2008, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582/53 "2008-01-08T02:57:09Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Lol. Maybe I should recap. [/QUOTE] Lolzers! Didja read any of post 51 besides the part you quoted? I am well aware of that stuff you recapped, and I accounted for it in the rest of post 51. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2008, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582/54 "2008-01-08T10:32:33Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] Lolzers! Didja read any of post 51 besides the part you quoted? [/quote] Yep. > [@](#): > > I am well aware of that stuff you recapped, and I accounted for it in the rest of post 51. Then I don’t understand why you said “sort of.” The fact is that the OP was in flat contradiction to my point. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2008, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582/55 "2008-01-08T12:04:29Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Then I don’t understand why you said “sort of.” The fact is that the OP was in flat contradiction to my point. [/QUOTE] Note the difference between the conditional and the indicative: the OP railed against the former, I said the latter was acceptable. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2008, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582/56 "2008-01-08T22:47:10Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] Note the difference between the conditional and the indicative: the OP railed against the former, I said the latter was acceptable. [/quote] Dude, the OP criticized EXACTLY what you said was acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2008, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582/57 "2008-01-09T01:22:28Z")
I’m the OP and I think I know what you guys are squabbling about. Politician 1 (a democrat) has an ethics scandal. Later, Politician 2 (a republican) has an ethics scandal that is at least superficially similar. In a thread about this, poster 3 (a liberal) says nasty things about politician 2. Poster 3 was nowhere to be found back when politician 1 had his scandal. Is that what you are talking about? Or the stronger case: Politician 1 has an ethics scandal. In a thread about it, poster 3 defends politician 1 and stresses how minor the scandal was. Then later on, politician 2 has a superficially similar scandal, and poster 3 attacks him. Even in the stronger case, I think attacking poster 3 is pretty weak, for at least three reasons: (1) Even superficially similar scandals are often really not that similar at all, and it’s entirely possible that the differences between them are in areas that really matter to poster 3. In fact, even if the scandals are identical, poster 3 may be complaining about a larger issue. For instance, there’s a general belief that Republicans who get involved in gay sex scandals are more pittable than Democrats, because of the extra hypocrisy involved. (2) Whether or not some random doper is a hypocrite has nothing to do with how serious a particular scandal is. If poster 3 posts a 5 part list of reasons why this scandal is serious enough that the politician should be impeached, pointing out that poster 3 is a hypocrite doesn’t really address his 5 part list one way or the other (3) So what if poster 3 isn’t totally objective? None of us are. So, part of the time an attack of this kind is groundless. And nearly all of the time, it’s pointless. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2008, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582/58 "2008-01-09T17:39:21Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Clinton was impeached for a blow job. [/QUOTE] Wow. Who’d he blow? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2008, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582/59 "2008-01-10T00:06:46Z")
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool] So, part of the time an attack of this kind is groundless. And nearly all of the time, it’s pointless. [/QUOTE] I agree that part of the time, an attack of this kind is groundless, and I said as much. Virtually every format of argument is sometimes groundless. I disagree that it’s nearly always pointless. The point of making such an argument is to point out to a poster that their professed reasons for reaching a conclusion may not be their actual reasons. If someone values the principle of justice (treating relevantly similar situations in a relevantly similar fashion), it may be helpful for them to see when they’re not attaining that principle’s goals. It can be helpful, in other words, to poster 3, not to posters 4 and 5 who are watching the debate. This depends, of course, on poster 3’s willingness to entertain the possibility that they’ve got biases of which they’re not aware. If they’re not willing to do so, then you’re right, it is pointless. And there’s another situation in which the indicative form of the argument is indispensable. If you’re trying to detect bias in third parties, you simply can’t do it without this form. For example, Greg suspects that Mountain Trash Apartments refused to rent to him because he was black. He contacts the Fair Housing Authority (or whatever they’re called), and gives them his information. The FHA investigates, sending black and white renters with equivalent credit histories and other relevant data to Mountain Trace. If X (Mountain Trace) says Y (you can rent from us) when Z (a white renter approaches) occurs, but not when Z-prime (an equivalent black renter approaches), that establishes a strong _prima facie_ case that X is biased. This principle is used in virtually every investigation of bias that I’ve heard of. Surely you’re not pitting it as a tool of argument? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2008, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582/60 "2008-01-10T00:29:19Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] This principle is used in virtually every investigation of bias that I’ve heard of. Surely you’re not pitting it as a tool of argument? [/QUOTE] I guess it’s entirely a matter of context. If someone starts a thread, and the purpose of the thread is to prove that **MaxTheVool** is a hypocrite, and they dig up two very similar partisan situations in which I have reacted totally differently, well, they got me, I’m a hypocrite. But if someone starts a thread about the evil thing that Joe Republican Senator just did, and I post in that thread, then responding to my post in that thread with an accusation of hypocrisy, no matter how well supported, is at best a distraction. (Although your point is well taken that it might be helpful to ME, assuming I’m intellectually honest. Thing is, posts of that sort almost always coming off as attempts to discredit or distract, directed at third parties, rather than attempts to inform and educate.) So yes, it is logically entirely possible to give good evidence of hypocrisy by pointing out someone’s varying reactions to two incidents, but: (a) it’s also possible to try and fail due to difference between the incidents (b) doing so is often just an attempt to obfuscate the actual issue under discussion and (c) so some random SDMB poster is not totally objective. So what? All of that of course is assuming that the reaction being pitted actually existed and was not an assumed you-would-say-X. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-if-x-happened-y-would-say-z/431582.md?page=4)