[QUOTE=brazil84]
Well, you can call it an “example,” or something else. But whatever you call it, it’s often useful to use “what ifs” to illustrate your point.
[/QUOTE]
Everyone, possibly excepting you, is smart enough to know what the word “hypocrite” means without having it explained for them.
Every one of those quotes you gave shows Johnasking how someone would react to a hypothetical, as opposed to arbitrarily assuming their response and declaring it inadequate. Can you really not see the difference?
[QUOTE=athelas]
If you disallow those statements, how do you expect people to demonstrate real double-standards, then? If you advanced a historical example - reaction to a reverse incident - then your opponents would simply nitpick the minor differences, ignoring the thrust of your argument. Would you prefer that people simply ignored double-standards?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=brazil84]
I totally agree. The fact is that a lot of people harbor double standards and are totally unaware of it. These people tend to be very practiced at making statements that start with the phrase “That’s different because”
[/QUOTE]
The frustrating thing, IMO, is that the double-standards of posters rarely has anything to do with the topic at hand.
In a pit thread about a specific poster, for example, it would make much more sense to try to infer hypocrisy. In threads about issues and events, hypotheticals such as described in this OP turn the debate/discussion into one about the posters and pretty much leave the relevant topic behind.
I agree with brazil84. The problem is that the partisans often assume (with no evidence) that you’re a member of “the other team.”
Several times on this board I’ve made disparaging comments about Bill Clinton, and been immediately branded a “Bush-lover.” Similarly, when I’ve said something negative about Bush, I’m lumped in with all of the hard-core straight-party-line Democrats. Sorry, they’re both wrong. I don’t like Bush’s behavior in office, and I didn’t like Clinton’s either.
People need to realize that you can call a politician on bad behavior without being a card-carrying member of the other party.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
I disagree. The hypothetical illustrates the point.
Saying “I think you’re a hypocrite” doesn’t mean much unless you explain why. An example is often a good way of explaining something.
[/QUOTE]
Illustrating or clarifying a point is a fine use of hypotheticals, but I don’t think its what the OP is talking about. Its when the hypothetical is used as an accusation or attack rather then to simply help people understand what your saying that it gets silly and counterproductive. “If there was a puppy here right now, you’d probably kick it, you puppy hating jerk” etc.
Several times on this board I’ve made disparaging comments about Bill Clinton, and been immediately branded a “Bush-lover.” Similarly, when I’ve said something negative about Bush, I’m lumped in with all of the hard-core straight-party-line Democrats. Sorry, they’re both wrong. I don’t like Bush’s behavior in office, and I didn’t like Clinton’s either.
[/QUOTE]
Sounds to me like you don’t agree with brazil84 at all. He’s arguing in favour of using made-up examples to do precisely what you say you dislike. There are two rhetorical techniques in question here:
Posing a hypothetical, and asking for people’s reactions.
Posing a hypothetical, making up people’s reactions, and condemning them on the basis of said fiction.
The former is fine. The latter, plainly, is not. It seems to me that the blithe assumptions inherent in the latter are what annoy you, and yet brazil84 appears to be arguing in favour of precisely this approach.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
I totally agree. The fact is that a lot of people harbor double standards and are totally unaware of it. These people tend to be very practiced at making statements that start with the phrase “That’s different because”
There are a group of people I think of as “partisans” The group includes a lot of liberals and a lot of conservatives. They have a set of standards for their team, and a set of standards for the other team. They tend to say things like “Ollie North shouldn’t be a senator because he’s a convicted criminal.” (oh yeah, well what about Teddy Kennedy?) Or “Bill Clinton shouldn’t be president because he lacks military service” (what about Ronald Reagan?). Or “Of course I believe Anita Hill. Women don’t make this stuff up.”
I have a lot of contempt for partisans. (When we’re talking politics. At other times, they can be perfectly lovable people.)
Hypotheticals are often a decent way of exposing the bias of these sorts of people.
[/QUOTE]
Your examples of hypocrisy are not hypothetical, though. (Kennedy vs North, Reagan vs. Clinton) They are actual real examples. I believe the OP is talking about a statement such as “Well if Bush got a blowjob, you wouldn’t care.” See, that’s just some made-up shit.
Everyone, possibly excepting you, is smart enough to know what the word “hypocrite” means without having it explained for them.
Every one of those quotes you gave shows Johnasking how someone would react to a hypothetical, as opposed to arbitrarily assuming their response and declaring it inadequate. Can you really not see the difference?
[/QUOTE]
Ummm, my point in giving those examples was to demonstrate that a hypothetical example can be useful to make a point. Which you would understand if (1) you had actually read my posts before jumping in; and (2) you had a minimal level of intelligence.
[QUOTE=Jamaika a jamaikaiaké]
Your examples of hypocrisy are not hypothetical, though. (Kennedy vs North, Reagan vs. Clinton) They are actual real examples. I believe the OP is talking about a statement such as “Well if Bush got a blowjob, you wouldn’t care.” See, that’s just some made-up shit.
[/QUOTE]
Look at the posts I was responding to. The point is that hypotheticals can be useful to illustrate a point.
As far as the bigger question goes, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to answer one’s own hypothetical questions.
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
Illustrating or clarifying a point is a fine use of hypotheticals, but I don’t think its what the OP is talking about. Its when the hypothetical is used as an accusation or attack rather then to simply help people understand what your saying that it gets silly and counterproductive. “If there was a puppy here right now, you’d probably kick it, you puppy hating jerk” etc.
[/QUOTE]
I think the line is a little blurry. If the point to be made is that a person or group is biased and/or has a double-standard, then obviously it’s a bit of an attack.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Ummm, my point in giving those examples was to demonstrate that a hypothetical example can be useful to make a point. Which you would understand if (1) you had actually read my posts before jumping in; and (2) you had a minimal level of intelligence.
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately for you, I can actually see what this conversation is about (it being uncryptically stated right in the OP was something of a clue). This leaves us with two options, neither of them particularly flattering to you. Either you are arguing in favour of being able to make up opinions and attribute them to others, or you didn’t even understand the OP. Which of these options would make you look less stupid is unclear to me, but I’m willing to wait while you choose.
I’ll give you a little hint because I’m nice, though: no-one is disputing that hypotheticals can sometimes be useful. However, I invite you to very carefully think about the difference between the (perfectly acceptable) John Mace hypotheticals that you quoted, and the utterly specious form of hypotheticals with which the OP is taking issue. It’s really not hard, but we can draw you a diagram if your forehead starts to sweat.
Ah, on preview I see that you’ve opted for the first choice, and you are indeed saying that answering your own hypothetical, then criticising the answer as if it were someone else’s is perfectly good debating technique. Oh dear.
[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
I imagine it’s like making a pinata, then having it beat you unconscious with a stick and escape to make a new life for itself in Mexico.
(And believing that’s what’s supposed to happen.)
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=athelas]
If you disallow those statements, how do you expect people to demonstrate real double-standards, then? If you advanced a historical example - reaction to a reverse incident - then your opponents would simply nitpick the minor differences, ignoring the thrust of your argument. Would you prefer that people simply ignored double-standards?
[/QUOTE]
If you advance an historical example, people have the opportunity to point out flaws in your argument, and then you have the opportunity to show why they’re not flaws. It appears to me as though you’re favoring the hypothetical example because it’s immune from dispute: there’s no way for your opponent to point out any flaw in the argument, except for the fact that the argument is based on a fantasy.
Let’s try it. I claim that, if you ever got control of a country, you’d be worse than Pol Pot in terms of what you’d do to the populace.
How do you dispute that? I’ve not used a single fact in my argument, so you can’t dispute me on the facts. You can dismiss it as absurd, of course, but then, if I’m the sort of weasel who usually uses the hypothetical, I’ll sneer at how you have no response. How do you dispute it?
On the other hand, let’s say I phrase it as a question: if you got control of a country, how would you do things that would make you better than Pol Pot?
In that case, you may dispute the argument by showing how you would do things differently. There’s room for discussion.
The use of hypotheticals to allege hypocrisy is a totally idiotic and intellectually bankrupt form of ad hominem.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Simply that you’re in no position to criticize Pol Pot, given that you’d do the same thing he did, given the chance.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
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.