Difference between revisions of "Acorn tossing"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Examples: no easy way to point to reference) |
(one more step in the argument, for clarification; SMW) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | <hide> | ||
| + | [[page type::article]] | ||
| + | [[thing type::rhetorical manipulation]] | ||
| + | [[used in::discussion trolling]] | ||
| + | [[category:rhetorical deceptions]] | ||
| + | </hide> | ||
==About== | ==About== | ||
| − | + | [[Throwing acorns]] is a form of [[rhetorical manipulation]] in which an irrelevant attack is used as a distraction to throw the discussion onto ground where the attacker is more able to defend their position. It is typically used in situation where one party has a very solid point and the other party wishes that point to appear much weaker, typically by making its supporter look foolish. | |
| + | This technique is often used in [[discussion trolling]]. | ||
| + | ==Form== | ||
It most often takes the form of a "[[why do you care]]" question, thus [[shifting the topic]] to the question of why the defender cares about the irrelevant attack, though other forms are presumably possible. | It most often takes the form of a "[[why do you care]]" question, thus [[shifting the topic]] to the question of why the defender cares about the irrelevant attack, though other forms are presumably possible. | ||
| − | + | ||
The technique usually follows a pattern like this: | The technique usually follows a pattern like this: | ||
* '''A''' advocates a particular point | * '''A''' advocates a particular point | ||
* '''B''' attacks the point with an irrelevant but false claim | * '''B''' attacks the point with an irrelevant but false claim | ||
| − | * '''A''' | + | * '''A''' states that claim is false but irrelevant (attempts to get back on track) |
* '''B''': "Why do you care if [false claim] is false, if it's irrelevant?" | * '''B''': "Why do you care if [false claim] is false, if it's irrelevant?" | ||
| + | * '''A''' is forced to either explain the irrelevancy of the claim, refute it, or abandon the discussion | ||
This is much like the following situation: | This is much like the following situation: | ||
| Line 15: | Line 24: | ||
* '''A''': "Stop throwing acorns at me!" | * '''A''': "Stop throwing acorns at me!" | ||
* '''B''': "Why? It's just an acorn. It's not like I'm hurting you or anything. Is your thinking so unfocused that you can't continue speaking just because an acorn drops on you? What if it just fell from a tree? Would you blame the tree and refuse to continue our discussion? Does this discussion matter so little to you?" | * '''B''': "Why? It's just an acorn. It's not like I'm hurting you or anything. Is your thinking so unfocused that you can't continue speaking just because an acorn drops on you? What if it just fell from a tree? Would you blame the tree and refuse to continue our discussion? Does this discussion matter so little to you?" | ||
| + | * '''A''' is forced to either spend time convincing B to stop throwing acorns, to put up with the annoyance and distraction, or abandon the discussion | ||
==Examples== | ==Examples== | ||
* If you aren't bothered by the idea of a [[Muslim]] [[President of the United States|president]], then why do you care if Obama is a [[Barack Obama/Muslim smear|Muslim]] or not? | * If you aren't bothered by the idea of a [[Muslim]] [[President of the United States|president]], then why do you care if Obama is a [[Barack Obama/Muslim smear|Muslim]] or not? | ||
Revision as of 13:31, 6 May 2012
About
Throwing acorns is a form of rhetorical manipulation in which an irrelevant attack is used as a distraction to throw the discussion onto ground where the attacker is more able to defend their position. It is typically used in situation where one party has a very solid point and the other party wishes that point to appear much weaker, typically by making its supporter look foolish.
This technique is often used in discussion trolling.
Form
It most often takes the form of a "why do you care" question, thus shifting the topic to the question of why the defender cares about the irrelevant attack, though other forms are presumably possible.
The technique usually follows a pattern like this:
- A advocates a particular point
- B attacks the point with an irrelevant but false claim
- A states that claim is false but irrelevant (attempts to get back on track)
- B: "Why do you care if [false claim] is false, if it's irrelevant?"
- A is forced to either explain the irrelevancy of the claim, refute it, or abandon the discussion
This is much like the following situation:
- A tries to start serious discussion.
- B throws acorn at A.
- A: "Stop throwing acorns at me!"
- B: "Why? It's just an acorn. It's not like I'm hurting you or anything. Is your thinking so unfocused that you can't continue speaking just because an acorn drops on you? What if it just fell from a tree? Would you blame the tree and refuse to continue our discussion? Does this discussion matter so little to you?"
- A is forced to either spend time convincing B to stop throwing acorns, to put up with the annoyance and distraction, or abandon the discussion
Examples
- If you aren't bothered by the idea of a Muslim president, then why do you care if Obama is a Muslim or not?
- If you're not bothered by communism/socialism/Marxism, then why do you care whether or not they are based on atheism?
Notes
This topic was inspired by a discussion on Blag Hag.