Second Thoughts
September 10, 2009 9:56 PM Subscribe
Is there a specific word or phrase to describe this sort-of-straw-man argument tactic? (Not even sure it's a "fallacy" per se.)
Example: Witness is called for some investigation to which said witness is hostile.
Witness: Prosecuting people without full evidence is a bad idea! Remember what happened in Salem...
Senator: This committee has been called a "witch hunt..."
Witness: Oh, no! I didn't mean that! I'm sure you're all very wise and thoughtful individuals, etc.
---
The Senator's tactic is what I'm interested in. That is, restating your opponent's case in more extreme terms to make THEM deny and repudiate it for you. What's that called? It's not quite a strawman because you're not arguing against it yourself, right?
For that matter, what is the Witness' tactic called? That is, when someone implies something by stating that they don't believe it is true? (Like that "Glenn Beck etc. in 1990" meme that was floating around last week.) So I guess this is two questions for the price of one.
Any insights out there in the hivemind?
Example: Witness is called for some investigation to which said witness is hostile.
Witness: Prosecuting people without full evidence is a bad idea! Remember what happened in Salem...
Senator: This committee has been called a "witch hunt..."
Witness: Oh, no! I didn't mean that! I'm sure you're all very wise and thoughtful individuals, etc.
---
The Senator's tactic is what I'm interested in. That is, restating your opponent's case in more extreme terms to make THEM deny and repudiate it for you. What's that called? It's not quite a strawman because you're not arguing against it yourself, right?
For that matter, what is the Witness' tactic called? That is, when someone implies something by stating that they don't believe it is true? (Like that "Glenn Beck etc. in 1990" meme that was floating around last week.) So I guess this is two questions for the price of one.
Any insights out there in the hivemind?
It's false equivalence of a sort, sort of crossed with reductio ad absurdum. Of course, it's not really a refutation so there's no logical fallacy that describes it per se, as the Senator isn't trying to refute the allegation. In some sense, it's merely exaggeration. I vote false equivalence.
posted by GuyZero at 10:08 PM on September 10, 2009
posted by GuyZero at 10:08 PM on September 10, 2009
There's no direct reference to this in Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit, but it the term I've heard used is "putting words into someone's mouth".
posted by quadog at 11:05 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by quadog at 11:05 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I think it is a straw man argument. While the witness is implying an equivalence with a witch hunt, the Senator is misrepresenting his position as slander instead of criticism. One could also go with misleading vividness.
As to the witness, I think this is a type of apophasis [prv] or possibly proslepsis [prv]
posted by dhartung at 11:28 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
As to the witness, I think this is a type of apophasis [prv] or possibly proslepsis [prv]
posted by dhartung at 11:28 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:04 PM on September 10, 2009