Talk:Original position fallacy

Article fails to clearly state the fallacy

If it's a meaningful fallacy it should be possible to state in the form

1. X
2. Y
3. X^Y->Z

But it isn't at all clear what the invalid deduction or intuition is here. All I can infer from the article is "it's bad to be on the wrong side of a revolution" which... duh? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That's true, @Ikanreed. @Panzerfaust should explain it up or it should get deleted. Wikipedia does not even list this as a fallacy. Bongolian (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Not a fallacy, OK

If it's not a fallacy then feel free to delete it as I left commented on the article itself. The thing is, that way of thinking is very extended on circles as libertarians believing if their fantasy became true they'd be among those who would benefit on it and not be in the losing side, up to not bothering to care why that would happen (just like those who dream to be a, say, Star Trek character and believe they'd be one of the top officers of the Enterprise and not a redshirt of the bunch).

Maybe it would fit better under "delusions of grandeur" or its equivalent. Any ideas?. --Panzerfaust (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

My problem is that your article is unclear, not that it's not a fallacy. You've explained a little better here, but it doesn't really line up with the article text. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Unclarity

Can someone familiar with the topic rewrite the sentence beginning 'Basically...': it is basically unclear. Anna Livia (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

What would even be an example of this?

Even if it isn't a fallacy, the concept seems to be well grounded in reality. I can only think of the term "We need a war" as an example. Fuzikami (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)