Difference between revisions of "Moving the fulcrum"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (moved Moving the Fulcrum to Moving the fulcrum: technique names don't get capitalized) |
(capitalization standards have changed; minor rewrite of one sentence) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[Moving the | + | [[Moving the fulcrum]] is a [[rhetorical deception]] in which one party takes up an extreme position (which they do not actually hold) in order to convince a third party of the validity of their ''actual'' position. It generally depends upon the [[fallacy of moderation]] in order to succeed. |
==Definition== | ==Definition== | ||
| − | + | Say you have two people, '''A''' and '''B'''. '''A''' holds position '''P<sub>a</sub>''', '''B''' holds position '''P<sub>b</sub>'''. | |
* They are both trying to convince a third party, who is helping them resolve their dispute, of the validity of their positions. | * They are both trying to convince a third party, who is helping them resolve their dispute, of the validity of their positions. | ||
* '''A''' is honest, and directly argues the merits of '''P<sub>a</sub>'''. | * '''A''' is honest, and directly argues the merits of '''P<sub>a</sub>'''. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
* The third party agrees that "there are two sides to every story" and "where there's smoke there's fire", and suggests that both parties be reasonable and settle on position '''P<sub>b</sub>'''. | * The third party agrees that "there are two sides to every story" and "where there's smoke there's fire", and suggests that both parties be reasonable and settle on position '''P<sub>b</sub>'''. | ||
| − | Obviously this sort of argument wouldn't work if the facts were clear-cut; it's mainly useful in situations where | + | Obviously this sort of argument wouldn't work if the facts were clear-cut; it's mainly useful in situations where the best answer is perceived to be a matter of [[opinion]] or [[judgment]] (whether or not this is actually true). |
==Links== | ==Links== | ||
* '''In the News''' | * '''In the News''' | ||
Revision as of 01:15, 11 September 2010
Moving the fulcrum is a rhetorical deception in which one party takes up an extreme position (which they do not actually hold) in order to convince a third party of the validity of their actual position. It generally depends upon the fallacy of moderation in order to succeed.
Definition
Say you have two people, A and B. A holds position Pa, B holds position Pb.
- They are both trying to convince a third party, who is helping them resolve their dispute, of the validity of their positions.
- A is honest, and directly argues the merits of Pa.
- B, however, is less so, and instead of arguing Pb argues for an extreme position Pc, wherein a seemingly-reasonable "middle ground" between Pa and Pc would be approximately Pb.
- The third party agrees that "there are two sides to every story" and "where there's smoke there's fire", and suggests that both parties be reasonable and settle on position Pb.
Obviously this sort of argument wouldn't work if the facts were clear-cut; it's mainly useful in situations where the best answer is perceived to be a matter of opinion or judgment (whether or not this is actually true).
Links
- In the News
- 2005-12-22 Banter over Bias Shields the Real Problem of the Media by Timothy Karr
- Humor
- I Drew This political cartoon: Compromise Both Sides