Talk:Motte and bailey

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Always Intentional?[edit]

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.

Turkeypotpie (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

List of MaB Arguments?[edit]

So... Do we have a shortlist of MaB examples? CorruptUser (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

ContraPoints just did a video o Jordan Peterson doing this and there's this video from Alt Right playbook https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui-ArJRqEvU that discusses people using redefinition to make unreasonable things look reasonable and vice versa. Keter (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)