RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2120Goal: $3500

Talk:Special pleading

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

THis is kind of difficult to follow...can someone provide an example to make it clearer? Researcher 08:47, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I dropped the whole "person C believes stuff S" chalk-dust stuff and put it in plainer language. Does that help? Scarlet A.pngd hominem 15:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


I'm new here. Is "s/he" RationalWiki style? It's pretty lame, if you ask me, and certainly not grammatical. I think the better choice, in examples, is to judiciously choose to use the generic "she" and later "he." But my edit to that effect was reverted. So someone chime in and let me know. Thanks! --JoeOnSunset (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Using one and then the other can only confuse people. "S/he" is at least acceptable here, I think. Peter mqzp 02:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting using one and then the other in the same example. Only that, in general speech, when one chooses a pronoun arbitrarily, one should just make a choice but attempt to use "she" as often as "he." Or else, "he or she" if you must. Nevertheless if RationalWiki is willing to accept the non-English of "s/he" that's fine too... but isn't the sentence in the article using "s/he" AND "he" to refer to the same person? It should atleast be consistent? --JoeOnSunset (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I changed it all to 'they,' which is consistent with the previous paragraph. Peter mqzp 02:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Well thanks. "They" isn't technically correct, of course, either but maybe your edit won't just get straight-reverted with no discussion. Cooo000l.--JoeOnSunset (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about? 'They' as a singular, neutral pronoun has been in use since forever.±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRcritical thinking is the key to success! 02:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Whatever, that's up for debate between descriptivists versus precriptivists, and was really just an aside and not my main point. I was just trying to fix an inconsistency in one sentence among the pronouns. --JoeOnSunset (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


I didn't think Special Pleading was an *formal* fallacy? (e.g. see Wikipedia)

Amphibology problem[edit]

In the Spanish Wikipedia has an article with the same name but referred to a different fallacy. Given the problem of amphibology, I think that should rename this article from RationalWiki as Fallacy of special pleading (double standard) or Fallacy of the funnel, or Fallacy special case.https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falacia_del_alegato_especial. Regards--Javiergeografo (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are you coming here to talk about a Wikipedia article? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, is that I sent also to the Wikipedia in English and haste did not remember correct it. But I encourage you to see the bibliography of the article I link, is nearly all in English. Peace.--Javiergeografo (talk) 10:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
What difference does it make? If it was fallacia de cabra, would it make a difference? Also note that the Engish Wikipedia is also "Special Pleading". Super Dude,Where's my car? 16:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello SuperDude. I do not understand what you mean. The idea I propose is to create a new voice: Special pleading, and differentiate the current voice as Special pleading (double standard), for example. There are two different fallacies. Regards--Javiergeografo (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Change to biblical morality section[edit] added:

"the only truly unequivocal passages condemning gay sex are about non-agreed activity, at least implicitly." I've rolled that back until someone has ample citations suggesting this is the Christian (and Jewish) consensus, because many sources disagree. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)