Talk:Moving the goalposts

Goalpost(s)

Is appeal to WP a logical fallacy? Neveruse513 19:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Originally the goalposts were fixed in the ground. They can now move, and take evasive action from peculiar arguments. This is clearly an example of evolution in action. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"historical example"

Frankly, ASK is pretty obscure, and the example isn't clear. You may as well include an example citing past interactions on Conservapedia.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You just said "ASK is pretty obscure" with a straight face, I assume. By extension, is PJR also "obscure" to the RW audience? Even as an occasional marginal participant, I see his name bandied about, a lot. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ideally, the RW audience extends beyond its editors.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No kidding, Sherlock! Notice that we have articles on both A Storehouse of Knowledge and Philip J. Rayment for the audience's amusement. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but arguments between RW editors and PJR are definitely what I would call obscure. It's similar to why we purged most CP references from mainspace.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

"Difference from 'no true scotsman'"

I'm just wondering how this is different from the no true Scotsman fallacy. There doesn't seem to be any from my perspective except that the no true Scotsman fallacy sounds more like an example of a fallacy and this is a more general case. Is that accurate? --Anon343 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No true scotsman is like watching a vegetarian eat cheese and saying to them "No true vegetarian would eat cheese!". Moving the goalpost is changing the burden of proof to be more and more burdensome. In a non-logical answer, it's like you ran a marathon but when you're about to cross the finish, the line starts moving down the road farther away. In logistical terms this is like someone saying Hitler was an atheist, you provide a couple quotes from Mein Kampf talking about god and they say you need more proof, then you mention the belt buckles, then they ask for more. Zero (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Raising the goalposts from the very start?

If I understand correctly, this fallacy involves having a the bar for evidence at a determined height, and moving said bar upwards once the evidence is met. This can lead to a tedious loop which often causes the bar being set so unreasonably high that it can never be reached. My question is what would it be called if the bar was already set to this "unreasonably high" standard from the beginning, while skipping the loop of actually "moving" them in a conversation? Take an example based off something written on the article; if a Barack Obama citizenship denier saves themselves the cognitive dissonance from being constantly proven wrong and instead dismisses all relevant evidence from the start as "not good enough" and focuses on proof that his mother was in the hospital at the time, or some other piece of evidence that might be impossible to get anymore. If they ask for evidence of the long form Birth Certificate, and also include that it must ALSO include school and college records and it must have some other thing etc etc.. isn't that just some form of denial? Some way to keep their worldviews intact by conditioning to ignore all relevant evidence and instead focus on a fantastical piece of evidence they know is impossible to get, while also saving themselves the embarrassment of being "the idiot moving goalposts". I've seen some religious people and Creationists do this yet I don't what the name for the phenomenon is --Sexwagon (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)