Is there a name for this argumentative fallacy?
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,135
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/02/ ... wn-as.html
(interestingly the link when discussing the fallacy basically encourages that you commit one in the face of one...)
Mmm... that still misses the heart and soul of it. Maybe a latin translation of "Victory via encumberment" or something like making them "Carry the mule" (for the old proverb of the guy who was criticized for saddling a mule with a heavy load, then for making the mule walk, then ridiculed for carrying the mule and the load).
_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin
Rewrite War & Peace? When do I start?
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,135
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
Don't have one, you'll have to just work with me here. Call it a fit of inspiration.
_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin
That's exactly it. I don't think it would need to be Latin, a witty three or four word hyperbole/metaphor would be good as well. If there isn't a particular name I'll keep thinking; I've been known to have neurons fire in such a way from time to time.
Perhaps we could use what you said: "I can't bring a mountain in a wheelbarrow." That sounded pretty cool.
I've always thought of it as a variant of "rope-a-dope", the object isn't so much to engage in a debate as to make your opponent wear themselves out gathering the demanded information. I wouldn't so much call it a fallacy as I would a dirty trick that people should be aware of. If you keep posting well sourced sophisticated arguments only to get back single sentence replies dismissing the whole things on technicalities like unproven source bias and the like, you may be getting rope-a-doped.
I do think 91 one was closes with the verbosity fallacy, but I think what Techstep is talking about is more of an asymmetrical demand for supporting argument lest the demander "declare victory".
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
I do think 91 one was closes with the verbosity fallacy, but I think what Techstep is talking about is more of an asymmetrical demand for supporting argument lest the demander "declare victory".
Actually I have seen this happen before and I think it is happening to me on another thread right now. I made a speculative statement about prehistory which everyone knows has no evidence (no documental evidence anyway) and someone is demanding I provide documents. I keep telling them no documents exist and its just a loose logical conclusion. They keep telling me I'm spreading lies etc.
But I have seen it happen in the past on other debates.
http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/02/ ... wn-as.html
(interestingly the link when discussing the fallacy basically encourages that you commit fallacy in the face of one...)
I think that's reverse to what you want. What the OP is talking about is insisting that someone has to go to extreme effort. Verbosium is what the person just piles on the words.
Anytime someone asks you to prove a negative its kinda like what you're talking about- virtually impossible- even with xeroxing the whole Encyclopeadia Britannica.
Decades ago India got angry at the USA, and the PM of India claimed that the CIA was operating in India. And then said "prove that it isnt!"
Eric Severied pointed out that in principle India could produce evidence of the positive- that the CIA was operating in India.
But its virtually impossible for anyone to prove the negative- that it wasnt. "The only way to do that would be to show the Indian PM a list of every CIA agent - convince him that was a complete list- and to persuade him that each agent was operating in countries not named 'India'."