CDZ Jumping back and forth between two different arguments

[RandomPoster]

Visitor: You can't store those two horses together in the pasture or they will die.

Farmer: Why?

Visitor: Because they are both males and wouldn't you think they would kill each other because of male aggression?

Farmer: I have stored them together in the pasture for years and they are still alive.

Visitor: That's just because the fence is protecting them.

Farmer: From what?

Visitor: Stray dogs.


The visitor attempts to dismiss the factual evidence that contradicts his theory with an ad hoc explanation. He swaps in a different argument without making any concession whatsoever so that he can retreat back to his original argument at a later point in time. When the farmer seems to be making progress against one argument, the visitor starts ranting about the other one, seemingly always jumping back and forth between the two arguments.

It seems to contain an ad hoc rescue fallacy, except is there more to that tactic?

 

[sakinago]

Visitor: You can't store those two horses together in the pasture or they will die.

Farmer: Why?

Visitor: Because they are both males and wouldn't you think they would kill each other because of male aggression?

Farmer: I have stored them together in the pasture for years and they are still alive.

Visitor: That's just because the fence is protecting them.

Farmer: From what?

Visitor: Stray dogs.


The visitor attempts to dismiss the factual evidence that contradicts his theory with an ad hoc explanation. He swaps in a different argument without making any concession whatsoever so that he can retreat back to his original argument at a later point in time. When the farmer seems to be making progress against one argument, the visitor starts ranting about the other one, seemingly always jumping back and forth between the two arguments.

It seems to contain an ad hoc rescue fallacy, except is there more to that tactic?

I'm not sure I understand the premise of the debate. When asking "except is there more to that tactic?" as in they use the tactic to also flat out ignore the original point, as in cognitive dissonance? What exactly is being debated

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Liberals do this all the time. ALL the time.

 

[RandomPoster]

Visitor: You can't store those two horses together in the pasture or they will die.

Farmer: Why?

Visitor: Because they are both males and wouldn't you think they would kill each other because of male aggression?

Farmer: I have stored them together in the pasture for years and they are still alive.

Visitor: That's just because the fence is protecting them.

Farmer: From what?

Visitor: Stray dogs.


The visitor attempts to dismiss the factual evidence that contradicts his theory with an ad hoc explanation. He swaps in a different argument without making any concession whatsoever so that he can retreat back to his original argument at a later point in time. When the farmer seems to be making progress against one argument, the visitor starts ranting about the other one, seemingly always jumping back and forth between the two arguments.

It seems to contain an ad hoc rescue fallacy, except is there more to that tactic?

I'm not sure I understand the premise of the debate. When asking "except is there more to that tactic?" as in they use the tactic to also flat out ignore the original point, as in cognitive dissonance? What exactly is being debated

If the horses actually were going to kill each other, as was originally claimed, the fence would not have prvented it and they would be dead. In other words, even if the fence actually is protecting the horses from stray dogs, as per the second argument, it is doing absolutely nothing to prevent the horses from killing each other. The individual tries to leave the original argument on the table and after arguing the second point for a while, eventually goes back to arguing "Wouldn't you think they would kill each other?"

 

[usmbguest5318]

"The Psychological Advantage of Unfalsifiability: The Appeal of Untestable Religious and Political Ideologies," (PAU) examined a slippery way by which people get away from facts that contradict their beliefs. Of course, sometimes people just dispute the validity of specific facts; however, the researchers found that sometimes people go one step further and, as in the opening example, reframe an issue in untestable ways.

"Ideological Faraday Cages" and Other Implements

Far too many folks employ the shady tactic you've described in your OP.

 

[OldLady]

"The Psychological Advantage of Unfalsifiability: The Appeal of Untestable Religious and Political Ideologies," (PAU) examined a slippery way by which people get away from facts that contradict their beliefs. Of course, sometimes people just dispute the validity of specific facts; however, the researchers found that sometimes people go one step further and, as in the opening example, reframe an issue in untestable ways.

"Ideological Faraday Cages" and Other Implements

Far too many folks employ the shady tactic you've described in your OP.

They're all over it today in the "XXXXhole"/immigration threads, switching back and forth from the actual situation to illegal immigration and then getting PO'd when I point it out. Makes me question my sanity at times.

 

[Leo123]

They're all over it today in the "XXXXhole"/immigration threads, switching back and forth from the actual situation to illegal immigration and then getting PO'd when I point it out. Makes me question my sanity at times.

The whole debate is about illegal aliens. Within that debate are people who get their panties in a wad because what was reported Trump said about shit-hole countries of which there are, sadly, many. Meanwhile the media gets suckered again into yet another rabbit hole while Trump continues to work for We The People.

 

[OldLady]

They're all over it today in the "XXXXhole"/immigration threads, switching back and forth from the actual situation to illegal immigration and then getting PO'd when I point it out. Makes me question my sanity at times.

The whole debate is about illegal aliens. Within that debate are people who get their panties in a wad because what was reported Trump said about shit-hole countries of which there are, sadly, many. Meanwhile the media gets suckered again into yet another rabbit hole while Trump continues to work for We The People.

During talks Thursday, Trump said, “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” He was referencing immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador, and African nations, the Washington Post reported, citing people briefed on the meeting. In the context of the bill, that looks like an objection to giving green cards to immigrants with TPS — even though Trump administration officials have said repeatedly that Congress needs to address TPS holders.
How a day that started with a bipartisan immigration deal ended with a "XXXXhole"

TPS stands for Temporary Protected Status. That is what I've been talking about. Desperate people allowed here from countries that have experienced some kind of disaster. Trump has ordered Haitians, Nigerians and El Salvadorans here on TPS to go home. The bill proposed yesterday to the President on immigration apparently didn't eliminate the program.

 

[Leo123]

During talks Thursday, Trump said, “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” He was referencing immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador, and African nations, the Washington Post reported, citing people briefed on the meeting. In the context of the bill, that looks like an objection to giving green cards to immigrants with TPS — even though Trump administration officials have said repeatedly that Congress needs to address TPS holders.
How a day that started with a bipartisan immigration deal ended with a "xxxxhole"

TPS stands for Temporary Protected Status. That is what I've been talking about. Desperate people allowed here from countries that have experienced some kind of disaster. Trump has ordered Haitians, Nigerians and El Salvadorans here on TPS to go home. The bill proposed yesterday to the President on immigration apparently didn't eliminate the program.

Why give a green card to TPS aliens? They are only here on a temporary basis. If their countries were not 'shit-holes' then why not just send them back?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Visitor: You can't store those two horses together in the pasture or they will die.

Farmer: Why?

Visitor: Because they are both males and wouldn't you think they would kill each other because of male aggression?

Farmer: I have stored them together in the pasture for years and they are still alive.

Visitor: That's just because the fence is protecting them.

Farmer: From what?

Visitor: Stray dogs.


The visitor attempts to dismiss the factual evidence that contradicts his theory with an ad hoc explanation. He swaps in a different argument without making any concession whatsoever so that he can retreat back to his original argument at a later point in time. When the farmer seems to be making progress against one argument, the visitor starts ranting about the other one, seemingly always jumping back and forth between the two arguments.

It seems to contain an ad hoc rescue fallacy, except is there more to that tactic?

it's explained in 'rules for radicals'.


I had one the other day with nycarbine

 

[Circe]

Visitor: You can't store those two horses together in the pasture or they will die.

Farmer: Why?

Visitor: Because they are both males and wouldn't you think they would kill each other because of male aggression?

Farmer: I have stored them together in the pasture for years and they are still alive.

Visitor: That's just because the fence is protecting them.

Farmer: From what?

Visitor: Stray dogs.


The visitor attempts to dismiss the factual evidence that contradicts his theory with an ad hoc explanation. He swaps in a different argument without making any concession whatsoever so that he can retreat back to his original argument at a later point in time. When the farmer seems to be making progress against one argument, the visitor starts ranting about the other one, seemingly always jumping back and forth between the two arguments.

It seems to contain an ad hoc rescue fallacy, except is there more to that tactic?

Store? Store horses? This is not English. Keep them in the field, pasture them maybe. Not store, like flour in a canister.

Male aggression? Horses are always gelded if male, unless they are definitely wanted for breeding, which is a very small number, because uncut male horse weigh a whole lot, around 1000 lbs, and are incredibly dangerous, almost as bad as bulls. Or boars. And no, no one would keep intact male horses in a field together. The Norwegians used to fight male horses like people do with cocks --- those little dun horses they have up there.

Unless the thread parent is a foreigner from a city, this is another example of how far America has gotten from the land. People can't even talk about farm issues coherently.

 

[Circe]

Why give a green card to TPS aliens? They are only here on a temporary basis. If their countries were not 'XXXX-holes' then why not just send them back?

Even if they are....what you said....send them back, let them fix up their own stupid country, don't come here and gum up ours.

 

[Leo123]

Visitor: You can't store those two horses together in the pasture or they will die.

Farmer: Why?

Visitor: Because they are both males and wouldn't you think they would kill each other because of male aggression?

Farmer: I have stored them together in the pasture for years and they are still alive.

Visitor: That's just because the fence is protecting them.

Farmer: From what?

Visitor: Stray dogs.


The visitor attempts to dismiss the factual evidence that contradicts his theory with an ad hoc explanation. He swaps in a different argument without making any concession whatsoever so that he can retreat back to his original argument at a later point in time. When the farmer seems to be making progress against one argument, the visitor starts ranting about the other one, seemingly always jumping back and forth between the two arguments.

It seems to contain an ad hoc rescue fallacy, except is there more to that tactic?

Store? Store horses? This is not English. Keep them in the field, pasture them maybe. Not store, like flour in a canister.

Male aggression? Horses are always gelded if male, unless they are definitely wanted for breeding, which is a very small number, because uncut male horse weigh a whole lot, around 1000 lbs, and are incredibly dangerous, almost as bad as bulls. Or boars. And no, no one would keep intact male horses in a field together. The Norwegians used to fight male horses like people do with cocks --- those little dun horses they have up there.

Unless the thread parent is a foreigner from a city, this is another example of how far America has gotten from the land. People can't even talk about farm issues coherently.

Ya, I guess they would call a barn with stalls and paddocks a 'horse warehouse.' Stallions can be trained to not try to attack other stallions when handled or ridden by good horsemen. We trained our stallion (we used to breed paints) and used to put a dab of Vicks Vapo rub on his nose to keep him from smelling other stallions and mares in heat at show events where there were lots of unknown horses. Also if a horse is gelded too late, they may still become aggressive.

 

[westwall]

This is the CDZ boys and girls. Watch the language.

 

[OldLady]

This is the CDZ boys and girls. Watch the language.

Wasn't us, westwall. It was President Trump.
And you missed one--post #9.

 

[Circe]

Ya, I guess they would call a barn with stalls and paddocks a 'horse warehouse.' Stallions can be trained to not try to attack other stallions when handled or ridden by good horsemen. We trained our stallion (we used to breed paints) and used to put a dab of Vicks Vapo rub on his nose to keep him from smelling other stallions and mares in heat at show events where there were lots of unknown horses. Also if a horse is gelded too late, they may still become aggressive.

Very interesting, Leo -- I boarded horses here for decades, but I took care never to keep a stallion, not looking for trouble. I can remember two dreadful geldings that were indeed a big male problem, could hardly put them in the field with other horses, especially mares.

I am impressed you were willing and able to show a stallion -- I know they were always used as war horses by men back in the day, but this isn't work for a woman IMO, at least I didn't care to try that on. The whole point of women and horses, of course, is that we can learn to dominate and control very big, fast, strong, dangerous animals --- and after horses, men are never a problem. However, there's no use getting crazy about training ourselves.

 

[Leo123]

Ya, I guess they would call a barn with stalls and paddocks a 'horse warehouse.' Stallions can be trained to not try to attack other stallions when handled or ridden by good horsemen. We trained our stallion (we used to breed paints) and used to put a dab of Vicks Vapo rub on his nose to keep him from smelling other stallions and mares in heat at show events where there were lots of unknown horses. Also if a horse is gelded too late, they may still become aggressive.

Very interesting, Leo -- I boarded horses here for decades, but I took care never to keep a stallion, not looking for trouble. I can remember two dreadful geldings that were indeed a big male problem, could hardly put them in the field with other horses, especially mares.

I am impressed you were willing and able to show a stallion -- I know they were always used as war horses by men back in the day, but this isn't work for a woman IMO, at least I didn't care to try that on. The whole point of women and horses, of course, is that we can learn to dominate and control very big, fast, strong, dangerous animals --- and after horses, men are never a problem. However, there's no use getting crazy about training ourselves.

Thanks, our stallion was a reigner and highly trained. The trainer could stand on his back. Cost lots of $$$ to do that. We had 14 head at one time. Very expensive hobby, no money really to be made. Not to mention the vet bills, hay, grooming products, supplements, etc. Couldn't afford it and sold all 15 years ago. The guy in the OP......I have no patience for those making stupid comments about what they know nothing about.

 

[Circe]

Ya, I guess they would call a barn with stalls and paddocks a 'horse warehouse.' Stallions can be trained to not try to attack other stallions when handled or ridden by good horsemen. We trained our stallion (we used to breed paints) and used to put a dab of Vicks Vapo rub on his nose to keep him from smelling other stallions and mares in heat at show events where there were lots of unknown horses. Also if a horse is gelded too late, they may still become aggressive.

Very interesting, Leo -- I boarded horses here for decades, but I took care never to keep a stallion, not looking for trouble. I can remember two dreadful geldings that were indeed a big male problem, could hardly put them in the field with other horses, especially mares.

I am impressed you were willing and able to show a stallion -- I know they were always used as war horses by men back in the day, but this isn't work for a woman IMO, at least I didn't care to try that on. The whole point of women and horses, of course, is that we can learn to dominate and control very big, fast, strong, dangerous animals --- and after horses, men are never a problem. However, there's no use getting crazy about training ourselves.

Thanks, our stallion was a reigner and highly trained. The trainer could stand on his back. Cost lots of $$$ to do that. We had 14 head at one time. Very expensive hobby, no money really to be made. Not to mention the vet bills, hay, grooming products, supplements, etc. Couldn't afford it and sold all 15 years ago. The guy in the OP......I have no patience for those making stupid comments about what they know nothing about.

Very interesting! I never had more than 10 here at once; that was my outside limit. We had good stabling, but that was as high as I went. Yeah, horses, you gotta love them, but. I expect some people make money on them --------- if they win the Triple Crown.

 

[Leo123]

Ya, I guess they would call a barn with stalls and paddocks a 'horse warehouse.' Stallions can be trained to not try to attack other stallions when handled or ridden by good horsemen. We trained our stallion (we used to breed paints) and used to put a dab of Vicks Vapo rub on his nose to keep him from smelling other stallions and mares in heat at show events where there were lots of unknown horses. Also if a horse is gelded too late, they may still become aggressive.

Very interesting, Leo -- I boarded horses here for decades, but I took care never to keep a stallion, not looking for trouble. I can remember two dreadful geldings that were indeed a big male problem, could hardly put them in the field with other horses, especially mares.

I am impressed you were willing and able to show a stallion -- I know they were always used as war horses by men back in the day, but this isn't work for a woman IMO, at least I didn't care to try that on. The whole point of women and horses, of course, is that we can learn to dominate and control very big, fast, strong, dangerous animals --- and after horses, men are never a problem. However, there's no use getting crazy about training ourselves.

Thanks, our stallion was a reigner and highly trained. The trainer could stand on his back. Cost lots of $$$ to do that. We had 14 head at one time. Very expensive hobby, no money really to be made. Not to mention the vet bills, hay, grooming products, supplements, etc. Couldn't afford it and sold all 15 years ago. The guy in the OP......I have no patience for those making stupid comments about what they know nothing about.

Very interesting! I never had more than 10 here at once; that was my outside limit. We had good stabling, but that was as high as I went. Yeah, horses, you gotta love them, but. I expect some people make money on them --------- if they win the Triple Crown.

10 horses is definitely a project. Large pastures help quite a bit. If you don't have that then it's hay and $$$ per bale. (been a while, not sure what a bail of alfalfa/grass goes for these days). We used to buy oat hay as well. Some folks have 'arable land' with enough irrigation to grow hay and have pastures. We had seasonal pasture only.

 

[Circe]

10 horses is definitely a project. Large pastures help quite a bit. If you don't have that then it's hay and $$$ per bale. (been a while, not sure what a bail of alfalfa/grass goes for these days). We used to buy oat hay as well. Some folks have 'bottom land' with enough irrigation to grow hay and have pastures.

Trust me, you don't want to know what hay is now.

We're feeding sheep now, they'll eat any kind of hay in winter, even rained-on, but the neighbor's son farms now and brings in our hay every summer and off-loads it for us, so we pay whatever he likes to say, Aaaarrrrgh.