People often use blurry arguments, which vacillate between two interpretations: one which is plausible but uninteresting, and one which is interesting but implausible.* For instance, consider “killing is killing” uttered in the context of abortion. On a literal interpretation, killing is identical with itself, which is true but uninteresting. On the other interpretation, abortion is just as bad as, e.g. a murder of an adult human, which is a more interesting but much less plausible claim. Blurry arguments can be rhetorically effective, since the first interpretation makes them appear plausible, while the second interpretation makes them appear interesting. But of course from a logical point of view you can’t jump around between interpretations in this way, but have to choose one. Blurry arguments are thus akin to
Don't accept blurry arguments
Don't accept blurry arguments
Don't accept blurry arguments
People often use blurry arguments, which vacillate between two interpretations: one which is plausible but uninteresting, and one which is interesting but implausible.* For instance, consider “killing is killing” uttered in the context of abortion. On a literal interpretation, killing is identical with itself, which is true but uninteresting. On the other interpretation, abortion is just as bad as, e.g. a murder of an adult human, which is a more interesting but much less plausible claim. Blurry arguments can be rhetorically effective, since the first interpretation makes them appear plausible, while the second interpretation makes them appear interesting. But of course from a logical point of view you can’t jump around between interpretations in this way, but have to choose one. Blurry arguments are thus akin to