You Disagree With Me, So Therefore You Are Against Free Speech

[guywithashovel]

I see this a lot both in online debates and in real life. There will be people who will have an opinion about religion, politics, a certain social issue, or whatever, and they will hold that opinion adamantly and speak out about it every chance they get. And that's fine, too.

However, if anyone challenges their opinion, they'll make some snide remark along the lines of, "Well gee, I guess people in your camp only value free speech for people who agree with you."

So the fact that I challenge your position means I'm saying you don't have the right to voice it?

[Flyndaran]

Wasn't there already a thread about childish nitwits like that on this forum?
That law gets trotted out every time someone moderates a private forum even though it never applies.

[guywithashovel]

Maybe there was. I probably should have checked before starting a thread.

[Flyndaran]

Maybe there was. I probably should have checked before starting a thread.

I already made a mistake by mixing up the two forums to which I post. I"m not sure if I did it again.

[Boozy]

"Well gee, I guess people in your camp only value free speech for people who agree with you."

This line has always been an indication for me that I have won the argument. It's the last refuge of someone with nary a leg to stand on.

[Talon]

However, if anyone challenges their opinion, they'll make some snide remark along the lines of, "Well gee, I guess people in your camp only value free speech for people who agree with you."

Oh look, one of my favourite vomit-inducing meals. False Dichotomy, with a side order of Glass Cannon syndrome (can dish it out, but can't take it). And Boozy's absolutely right, it's a last resort of the intellectually impotent.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I thought the last resort of people like that was invoking Godwin's Law?

[Dreamstalker]

Godwin's Law is usually read as the party/person that makes the comparison loses.

The ex was famous for crap like that. Said argument was always trotted out when it was crystal-clear that he was losing whatever tenuous hold on the debate he may have had.

[Boozy]

Well, Boozy's Law says that anyone who equates disagreement with the trampling of their rights also loses.

Boozy's Law also says that when someone pulls out a dictionary definition in the middle of a debate, the debate is not fun anymore.

[Nyoibo]

Unless it's a debate about definitions.

[Flyndaran]

...
Boozy's Law also says that when someone pulls out a dictionary definition in the middle of a debate, the debate is not fun anymore.

Well, too often discussions lose traction, because of slightly different definitions about concepts fundamental to the topic.
I, and my friends and family have a slightly odd way of looking at things, and that often causes problems with those from wildly different locations and life experiences.
But I understand that it can bog down light and fluffy small talk.

[Boozy]

Sometimes a definition can be helpful, but too often I find that people don't accept the one that is offered, and the whole debate turns into a discussion about the meaning of a word. It's usually a sign that too many pedants have gathered, and I bow out. I'm more of a big picture debater.

[crazylegs]

Unless it's a debate about definitions.

Or dictionaries!

[Slytovhand]

And whether people like a dictionary's definition... don't ya just hate it when you roll out the definitions (standard, from most dictionaries) but then they go "Oh, well, when I say it means..." crap... grrrrr... what's the damn point of that?? I can make 'elephant' mean 'waterbottle' anytime I want.. it isn't going to help a debate on animal rights any!


OTOH, I really hate when an analogy is used, and 'Oh, but that's different' comes trotting out... there's a thing called 'relevantly similar'... and that's where 'Godwin's Law' comes into play (not that it does, but anyway...) sometimes, a situation is exampled that is relevantly similar to Nazi Germany.


And we had a thread on bad arguments...