Most equivocations aren't planned. They result from semantic drift when people are defending two different generalizations (which often constitute the premises of a categorical syllogism).
E.g., Democrats are socialists, socialism is bad, therefore Democrats are bad.
E.g., Democrats are socialists, socialism is bad, therefore Democrats are bad.
In order to defend "Democrats are socialists", your criteria for "socialism" tend to broaden, in order to ensnare more Democrats.
In defending "Socialism is bad", you tighten your definition and cherry-pick the very worst examples of socialism.
This requires no foresight, but only a tendency to compartmentalize.
And, if someone points out that you're working from two different characterizations of socialism, your fallback plan is to suggest that there is a slippery slope from one to the other.
And, if someone points out that you're working from two different characterizations of socialism, your fallback plan is to suggest that there is a slippery slope from one to the other.
This also works for "whites are racist, racism is bad, therefore whites are bad", "affirmative action is racist, racism is bad, therefore affirmative action is bad", and "taxation is theft, theft is bad, therefore taxation is bad."
Our criteria for our terms drift in different ways depending on which generalizations they are a part of.
Keeping criteria consistent is difficult -- especially if we don't have a strict definition to work from.
Keeping criteria consistent is difficult -- especially if we don't have a strict definition to work from.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
