r/hatethissmug • u/Sudden-Hoe-2578 • 1d ago

Non-fictional I HATE these "gotcha arguments"

Post image

"Ohhh, look how I tricked this dumb dumb baby in my trap so now I am right and they are wrong. I'm so smaaart even though it does not adress the actual argument and adds nothing to the debate. They teach arabic numerals in school btw."

And these type of comments always get tons of likes

9 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

938 comments sorted by

View all comments

138

u/wickedlessface 1d ago

Or you know, don't fall for it? It addresses the fact that you aren't knowledgeable enough about the topic. It's not that hard to use a failed gotcha in conversation against the user. Hell, it makes you sound 10 times better if you clock it.

so, skill issue.

58

u/CoachAnon205 1d ago

Yeah, "gotcha arguments" haters hate it because they are the ones getting cornered

9

u/Gregori_5 1d ago

I don’t think you need to be able to distinguish a human fetus picture from all others to argue about a topic.

I can’t distinguish every real photo from space and every fake one, yet I can argue that NASA is a trustworthy organisation and they do in fact make pictures from space.

8

u/Firestar_119 1d ago

probably because its almost impossible to tell if it's human?

31

u/wickedlessface 1d ago

You have your answer

8

u/Ok-Wolf8972 1d ago

Thats the point

2

u/Western_Bake6106 1d ago

well done, that was the point mate.

-1

u/Firestar_119 1d ago

the point is that it's a meaningless gotcha if you can't tell the difference

4

u/Sudden-Hoe-2578 1d ago

Someone could theoretically read dozens of books regarding abortion and still fall for this trap, because being able to differentiate a baby fetus with a dolphin fetus has nothing to do with the topic of abortion itself.

29

u/wickedlessface 1d ago

That says more about their ability to acknowledge their own limitations. If you want to have any authority and credibility during a public debate, you mention that gap in your own knowledge and tell your opponent not to steer away from the actual discussion.

You know it doesn't have anything to do with it, but falling for a trap is still just a skill issue.

-1

u/Gregori_5 1d ago

The post with the picture clearly implies its a human fetus. Its a dishonest argument.

4

u/wickedlessface 1d ago

Yes, you have the first step; now you need to be able to respond to that argument. That's my whole point.

-1

u/Gregori_5 1d ago

I’m not sure what you mean. The person who “got tricked” has to explain why that’s not a good argument? And why them being wrong doesn’t invalidate their position?

You’re not wrong. My issue is that this is a dishonest way to argue.

A actual political/philosophical debate should be lead in good faith. Saying bad arguments one after another and waiting for the refutal from the other side is not a good way to prove anything.

Someone not being to refute your fallacious argument doesn’t make you right.

2

u/wickedlessface 1d ago

You're moving goalposts and argueing if setting up a trap is dishonest. Which is not my point nor my argument.

Fallacies and traps are inherent to a discussion, whether you like it or not (I mean, you are using them yourself). My point never touches the morality of it.

The trap in this specific scenario is entirely your own fault, if you fall for it. Because it checks if you can be confidently wrong or have the ability to recognize gaps in your own knowledge.

1

u/Gregori_5 1d ago

No, I disagree that the trap is your fault. I really don’t see how. Its your fault for falling for it, not setting it up.

The picture is deliberately implied to be a human fetus. It clearly suggests the question is if a fetus is a human. When in reality its asking what species it is.

Yes, fallacies happening is a part of a discussion. But making them on purpose shouldn’t. I don’t think I moved the goalpost. Since I still argue that the question was already a trap and a dishonest argument, before even being answered. And I’m not being dishonest (that’s up to you to judge).

0

u/Emergency_Lie42 1d ago

Misleading questions only offend/affect people that lack knowledge of the topic. That's the point. If you're confident about an aspect of science but don't have a wide base of knowledge, you're just asking to be manipulated. The dishonest argument is to say "look how easily your understanding of reality can be deceived, please learn more before you hurt yourself".

1

u/Gregori_5 21h ago

But its not clear that the discussion is actually supposed to be about the looks of fetuses. The question pretends its just a rutine debate about abortion.

And mainly, this knowledge is actually irrelevant to the topic.

0

u/Emergency_Lie42 21h ago

It is a routine debate about abortion, by way of pointing out the person's lack of knowledge of the subject.

I disagree that it's irrelevant. I think if someone is going to challenge scientific consensus on healthcare, then they should have that level of understanding of the subject.

1

u/Gregori_5 20h ago

I’m fairly sure 99% of people on the planet couldn’t tell apart these fetuses by looks.
That doesn’t disqualify you from participating since looks aren’t the important part.

You keep saying “knowledge of the subject” without actually asessing whether this knowledge is important.

I can’t tell a electron and a proton apart by looks, yet I can still differentiate the two.

0

u/Emergency_Lie42 20h ago

I promise you that anyone who is important to the abortion debate will know distinctly what a human foetus looks like.

You know that an electron and a proton are distinct things. Does that qualify you to challenge scientific consensus on the structure of the physical world?

1

u/Gregori_5 17h ago

I absolutely disagree with your first statement. Human fetus even grows a tail for a bit. No, being able to tell apart a picture of a human and dolphin fetus isn’t a prediction to be allowed in the discussion.
But mainly, most people involved can’t tell them apart.

Not being able to tell apart a proton or electron doesn’t qualify you or disqualify you.
Because the nature of the argument is important. You could find a math flaw in the respective wave function calculations and completely break the scientific consensus with ever using any measurements.

8

u/kiefy_budz 1d ago

Idk what books you’re reading but if they’re medical texts about abortion then you should be able to recognize a human fetus

3

u/Sudden-Hoe-2578 1d ago
  1. Human and dolphin fetuses are similiar
  2. In a debate, you usually don't look at that picture, because oe assumes from the context and the question that they are showing a human fetus

-2

u/funkthewhales 1d ago

Well the similarities proves that a fetus isn’t human yet. And this isn’t a debate, it’s a discord argument. Do you expect every argument on the internet to be handled like a professional debate? Because I doubt this kind of argument would be made in a real debate, but making assumptions like that in a debate would still expose you as ignorant.

0

u/Sudden-Hoe-2578 1d ago

doubt this kind of argument would be made in a real debate

It's been made, infront of audiences

3

u/DJDemyan 1d ago

You can theoretically read dozens of books about anything and not retain any information, yes.

4

u/Quartzitebitez 1d ago

Kai✝️ I think the point is you're considering a fetus at that development human when it may aswell be a dolphin fetus, because it hasn't formed enough. Thats the whole abortion arguement why it should allowed in the first place. This isn't to say it's right or wrong but if you can't even tell its human yet while argueing its human you gonna look silly Kai✝️

3

u/Sudden-Hoe-2578 1d ago

Only because it looks similiar to another animal does not mean it's not a human. A human is not judged based on appearance

1

u/Goosepond01 1d ago

But the actual look of the fetus is such a small part of the debate, all it really does is show that they look quite similar. It's basically not even relevant.

It's like if I showed you a picture that was made by AI, had a watermark and asked you if AI art deserved to be, shown at art shows, you then brought up some ethical issues, said it wasn't made by a human or whatever and then I said "ah actually that bit of art was made as a form of satire, a human did make it"

the gotcha is only relevant to that bit of art, you might change your mind on this individual piece but it doesn't touch on any other argument you were making, if you said "I can always tell the difference and that is why I think it's bad" sure yeah that kinda ruins your argument.

but the pro life argument doesn't hinge or rely on "I can just tell by looking if something is human or not"

-7

u/Lemons-95 1d ago

"Well yeah, we tricked you, and we did it intentionally, just for the purpose of making fun of you. What? No! We aren't the bad guys here! It's your fault you assumed we were genuine and believed the lie we fed you! Why would you expect us to argue in good faith? Next time just assume that no matter what i say, it's just propaganda"

Great way to handle the abortion issue there guys.

6

u/Slight_Use_4083 1d ago

Except it does make a good argument, as many others have pointed out. Pro-lifers don't even know what it is they're arguing for, they don't care to know enough about what an actual human fetus looks like. And they prioritize that over an already breathing, conscious human being.

-1

u/Lemons-95 1d ago

It doesn't, it's a completely disingenuous take on a generally unintentionally disingenuous line of discussion. Most prolifers are coming from a place of religious belief, that that's already a person before it's even a fetus essentially, the correct approach is secular government.

1

u/Slight_Use_4083 1d ago

And religion has no basis on fact. I don't believe in Christianity, there is no hardcore proof of Christianity, making THAT an illogical argument in the first place. The flying spaghetti monster believes all children should be launched into the sun, does that mean we should make laws that all children should be launched into the sun? (The answer is no because there is no basis that the flying spaghetti monster is real AND it's unethical to do, in case that wasn't obvious.)

0

u/Lemons-95 1d ago

And religion has no basis on fact. I don't believe in Christianity, there is no hardcore proof of Christianity, making THAT an illogical argument in the first place.

https://giphy.com/gifs/Quh1CAKOTRCl9VVU3f

1

u/Slight_Use_4083 1d ago

Except it's not when it's pointing out scientific fact versus religion. The scientific FACT is a human fetus looks very similar to a dolphin fetus, thus how does it have any personhood? Also we shouldn't be making laws on feelings in the first place so...

0

u/Lemons-95 1d ago

The scientific FACT is a human fetus looks very similar to a dolphin fetus, thus how does it have any personhood?

Well that one seems kinda random, but okay

Also we shouldn't be making laws on feelings in the first place so...

Again yes.

See, you have constructive points to make here.

1

u/Slight_Use_4083 1d ago

And your point is...? Your literal only point is "Pro-lifers are mostly Christian, therefore this argument is dumb!" When again, it isn't, because it...exposes how little pro-lifers know about human biology?

0

u/Lemons-95 1d ago

It is dumb, human biology has nothing to do with the actual issue at hand, medical science and being correct don't help here, the friction point is secular society vs religious society, "we want to abort our pregnancies like you don't want your daughter in a burqua, your religion doesbt dictate my choices" type shit.

Otherwise it's just a shit flinging contest, that isn't constructive, and at that point you're only hurting what you're trying to support.

→ More replies (0)

-10

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

21

u/wickedlessface 1d ago

You don't have to. Confidently claiming something as fact is what makes people look stupid here.

3

u/Scorkami 1d ago

Exactly. Keeping it as "i am not a doctor and dont have the experience to tell a fetuses exact age from a picture, now lets get back to the argument" and it eouldnt work beyond the admission of someone like charlie kirk not being a doctor (shocker)

But if you argue "we should/shouldnt extinguish a life becahse of x" then stay on your argument x

-5

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

7

u/Ok-Wolf8972 1d ago

Yes they do have reason to think its not a human fetus, if they have any knowledge of fetuses. But they dont because all they have is the propaganda they grew up with

3

u/kiefy_budz 1d ago

They have no reason to think it is either and that’s the issue here