Difference between revisions of "Talk:Circular argument"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (tidied up formatting of midian comment) |
m (changed name of template to avoid problems on talkpages) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{excerpt|The [[Circular argument]] page says:}} | {{excerpt|The [[Circular argument]] page says:}} | ||
"Redefining marriage to allow gay people to marry would be a bad idea because what's to stop us from redefining it again to something even worse?" The ending phrase presumes the conclusion that gay marriage is bad, with no supporting argument. | "Redefining marriage to allow gay people to marry would be a bad idea because what's to stop us from redefining it again to something even worse?" The ending phrase presumes the conclusion that gay marriage is bad, with no supporting argument. | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{-excerpt|}} |
This is a bad example, since it isn't presuming gay marriage is bad, but that redefining terms is bad. | This is a bad example, since it isn't presuming gay marriage is bad, but that redefining terms is bad. | ||
Redefining terms waters down not only our language, but everything based on our language, such as the law. | Redefining terms waters down not only our language, but everything based on our language, such as the law. | ||
Revision as of 21:29, 26 December 2006
midian says
| The Circular argument page says: |
|
"Redefining marriage to allow gay people to marry would be a bad idea because what's to stop us from redefining it again to something even worse?" The ending phrase presumes the conclusion that gay marriage is bad, with no supporting argument. |
This is a bad example, since it isn't presuming gay marriage is bad, but that redefining terms is bad.
Redefining terms waters down not only our language, but everything based on our language, such as the law.