Congrats, Occupiers -- You ARE the 1%!

[Humes fork]

I thought Hells Angels and Bandidos were the 1%.

 

[BenBurch]

Got a link?

Tell me you don't think that would happen?

 

[WildCat]

Tell me you don't think that would happen?

The clam is that it did happen, not that it would.

And as we see in Illinois it's not like the Dems are into sunshine and transparency. This is the home, after all, of the alderman with an $8 million war chest - $160 for every man, woman, and child in his ward.

 

[000063]

No, the general public seem to be less bigoted and narrow-minded than your average JREF pigeon-holer. They'll take the opportunity to share their own tales of woe (lost jobs etc) and express sympathy for the movement's aims. That's the kind of reaction I've seen most roving mics evoke, anyway.

Ahem.

 

[Piggy]

They'll take the opportunity to share their own tales of woe (lost jobs etc) and express sympathy for the movement's aims.

Oh, well, in that case they should have representatives in Congress and a ticker-tape parade in no time.

 

[000063]

Odd that they're choosing to sit around on the streets instead of forming their own political party, eh? It'd be like the reform party, only they might actually be relevant.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The headline is not ambiguous, it's opaque.

Nonsense. Without reading the OP, anyone would take it to refer to the same "the 1%". (Again, the definite article indicates it's the only one.)

Romney put up a campaign vid in which Obama is heard saying "If we talk about the economy we are going to lose" (or something close to that). Trouble is, that was Obama quoting a McCain staffer.

That's equivocation, because it gives the unmistakable impression that it's a direct quote from Obama, not Obama quoting someone else.

No. Equivocation depends on an ambiguity. In Romney's ad, it was simply a factually false statement (saying that Obama said this).

Using a word in a non-conventional sense is not, in fact, equivocation. That should be clear by now.

Actually, it is. If you're using a term in an unconventional sense, there is an ambiguity (two meaning to the term--the conventional one, and the one you're using). It's pretty much the definition of equivocation:

Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings.

I hadn't seen those other threads you had read, so I can understand if you saw the header and thought "Here's another one of those", but that's what you're bringing to the table, so you can't accuse me of intending it.

I've already made clear what I'm accusing you of intending. You intended to make it sound like the OWS protesters are somehow hypocrites. Using the term "the 1%" in this way somehow suggests that they've become exactly what they're protesting.

I cited those other threads to refute your defense that nobody would possibly read "the 1%" to mean that the OWS protesters somehow are extremely wealthy members of elite status.

And once you saw what I did mean, then it surely would make no sense to accuse me of equivocation.

Again, explaining what you meant in the OP doesn't undo the equivocation in the thread title.

That would be like saying it's reasonable to say, "Free lunch!*"

*Lunch costs $5.

Your OP merely explains that you don't mean the OWS protesters have become "the 1%".

ETA: Your Yahweh argument by analogy is a false analogy since the difference between the conventional and the unconventional meaning is that the unconventional meaning is simply figurative (while the conventional meaning is not). That's not the case with "the 1%". There are not two different lexical meanings of "Yahweh"--rather using it figuratively depends on the grammar (see again the definition of equivocation from the Fallacy Files).

 

[Piggy]

Again, explaining what you meant in the OP doesn't undo the equivocation in the thread title.

Nothing to undo, brother.

You mis-read the headline based on something you'd seen elsewhere (which I had not) and in the OP you discovered that you were incorrect in your assumption.

That doesn't constitute an equivocation. Nor can it, since an equivocator does not immediately explain the accurate reading to be the one intended; an equivocator allows the audience to come away with a false idea based on the ambiguity.

Fork, please.

 

[Piggy]

If you're using a term in an unconventional sense, there is an ambiguity (two meaning to the term--the conventional one, and the one you're using). It's pretty much the definition of equivocation.

Actually, it isn't "pretty much" the definition of equivocation. In fact, it isn't at all the definition of equivocation.

In fact, for equivocation to work best, the perpetrator should avoid unconventional uses of terms.

In the examples I gave, the terms used to give a false impression are not at all unconventional. The word "robot" is used just as easily for androids as for industrial machines. The word "whistle" is used just as easily for what humans do when we play a melody for ourselves as for what trains do to signal when they're approaching crossings.

Of course, unconventional definitions can come into play, as when Bush attacked Kerry for "voting for tax hikes" some insane number of times. In that calculation, Bush counted votes against versions of bills (even if Kerry later voted for the version that passed), votes against tax cuts, and other things that people would not assume would be included.

And of course, unconventional definitions can be used in all sorts of ways that have nothing to do with this rhetorical fallacy.

But in any case, if you want to equivocate, you need to leave the intentional misperception out there. As soon as you explain the intended meaning of your words, you're not equivocating.

 

[Piggy]

Your Yahweh argument by analogy is a false analogy since the difference between the conventional and the unconventional meaning is that the unconventional meaning is simply figurative (while the conventional meaning is not). That's not the case with "the 1%". There are not two different lexical meanings of "Yahweh"--rather using it figuratively depends on the grammar (see again the definition of equivocation from the Fallacy Files).

So now you're telling me that I wasn't using the term "1%" figuratively, even though it is crystal clear from the OP that I was using it figuratively.

Can it get any more ridiculous?

You took it literally, then upon reading the OP it was clear that it wasn't being used literally, so you decide that it somehow wasn't actually intended figuratively based on your misreading despite the clear language in the OP.

There's nothing I can say to that.

 

[Moss]

The thread headline alone really does make it seem like you accuse the OWS protesters of being actually part of the "1%". Your OP changes the meaning of this "the 1%" to "making their own rules while disregarding others". But that is not selfevident from the thread title.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So now you're telling me that I wasn't using the term "1%" figuratively, even though it is crystal clear from the OP that I was using it figuratively.

Your unconventional usage is not figurative.

Again, it's equivocation when the ambiguity is lexical (as in your usage) rather than syntactical (as in the Yahweh example).

The fact that you contradict what the thread title says in your OP doesn't make the thread title NOT fallacious. (See my asterisked "Free lunch" example.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nothing to undo, brother.

Here's your redefinition of "the 1%" from the OP:

They move into public parks, intended to be oases for people who live in cities, and pave them over with tents so nobody else can use the place, or would want to.

In other words, they decide to become their own 1%.

(Obviously by "their own 1%" you mean your own redefinition of their "the 1%"--also an abuse of language.)

Compare your thread title:
"Congrats, Occupiers--You ARE the 1%"

With a hypothetical thread title that actually says what you claim you intended:
"Congrats, Occupiers--You've moved into public parks and paved them over with tents so nobody else can use the place"

By the way, by your definition, would you say the homeless settlements in most large cities are also properly "the 1%"?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually, it isn't "pretty much" the definition of equivocation. In fact, it isn't at all the definition of equivocation.

Not true. I've already shown that equivocation is a type of ambiguity. Ambiguity by definition means dealing with multiple meanings. The difference with an extremely unconventional lexical meaning (like the one you've introduced) is that you're creating an ambiguity where there normally isn't one. (Again, the definite article in "the 1%" means that there is only one referent to the term.)

ETA: A few definitions of the fallacy of equivocation:

Wikipedia: "Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words."

Fallacy Files (again): "Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings."

Drury.edu: "It is the slippage from the one sense to the second that allows for the peculiar conclusion" (this "definition" is the explication of a specific example).

LogicalFallacies.org: "The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.
For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning each time they appear in its premises or conclusion."

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And to tie all this into the "argument" you're actually making, it seems like you're dressing up a statement of disapproval (you basically don't like the OWS protests) as if it were something more substantial.

Using a public space for one of the intended uses of such public spaces isn't a problem in itself. That those public spaces aren't available for other uses while they're being used by OWS protesters isn't unique to OWS. (For example, Kiener Plaza in St. Louis, where the Occupy St. Louis protesters were is also unavailable to the general public when it's being used for any number of events: the Go! St. Louis Marathon, the Susan Komein breast cancer fundraiser, and so on.)

But again, at least by connotation your thread title suggests that they have somehow become exactly what they're protesting against. And about all you're really saying is that you don't like them. I certainly don't think you have to like them or even approve of them.

 

[BenBurch]

The clam is that it did happen, not that it would.

And as we see in Illinois it's not like the Dems are into sunshine and transparency. This is the home, after all, of the alderman with an $8 million war chest - $160 for every man, woman, and child in his ward.

But the point is that the GOP would never allow this to happen as long as they have one more Senator than is required to filibuster.

And you cannot deny that.

 

[Neally]

But the point is that the GOP would never allow this to happen as long as they have one more Senator than is required to filibuster.

No the point is that if enough people wanted it, it would have been passed or could be passed. Claiming that it's impossible to enact it because the GOP would block it is obviously false.

 

[BenBurch]

No the point is that if enough people wanted it, it would have been passed or could be passed. Claiming that it's impossible to enact it because the GOP would block it is obviously false.

No it's obviously true. The GOP will never allow ANYTHING that democrats want. Henceforth there is going to be no compromise. This will result in the destruction of the country or the destruction of the GOP, whichever happens first.

 

[Neally]

No it's obviously true. The GOP will never allow ANYTHING that democrats want. Henceforth there is going to be no compromise. This will result in the destruction of the country or the destruction of the GOP, whichever happens first.

Let me break it down for you, if enough people want something, they will elect people committed to passing it. If a member of congress wants to keep their job, regardless of party affiliation, and enough constituents demand something, they will get behind it rather than lose their job. The alternatives aren't either/or destruction of the country/destruction of the GOP, which is a false dilemma fallacy.

 

[BenBurch]

Let me break it down for you, if enough people want something, they will elect people committed to passing it. If a member of congress wants to keep their job, regardless of party affiliation, and enough constituents demand something, they will get behind it rather than lose their job. The alternatives aren't either/or destruction of the country/destruction of the GOP, which is a false dilemma fallacy.

Translation; If enough people want it, they will kick the GOP to the street and we'll never hear from those troglodytes again. Because 100% of the GOP leadership is 100% against any sort of limitation on financing whatsoever.