Talk:Motte and bailey
Even though Motte and Bailey's are often intentional, they don't necessarily need to be. Some cases where they might not be intentional:
- The ambiguity might be subtle enough that speaker himself doesn't see the difference.
- The speaker might believe it is ok to hold both beliefs. This sometimes happens with modern churches, which will teach the literal version of God/Jesus and will also teach a more conceptual version. They'll do this to "cater to different people" or be more "open-minded".
- Perhaps the speaker believes the Motte is an adequate argument for the Bailey, essentially being an appeal to common sense.
- I'm not sure that the article says it's intentional. It can very well be a subconscious bias or reflex that people have. If you want to clarify along those lines, you are welcome to; we could always use new users to help improve the site. CorruptUser (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)