Talk:Moving the goalposts

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Goalpost(s)[edit]

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"[edit]

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'"[edit]

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)