Why Rabbit-trailing is not useful

[BobRyan]

In some cases person-1 makes a great point "A" on a certain topic.

Person-2 cannot answer the point "A" so they rabbit-trail away to some other subject/topic hoping to derail away from devastating-point-A.

Person-1 instead of taking the bait-and-switch... sticks with point "A" by showing what it is and answering the rabbit-trail briefly then reposition for a response to point "A" rather than more rabbit trail. This lets the reader see the flow of the discussion , and see the rabbit trail, and see it come back to the point of the subject of the thread - back to "A" again.

==========================

It is easy to see that sort of thing happen all the time on these threads for a short period of time.

But some folks will then oppose the idea that rabbit-trailing is not working.

Is this even a little confusing?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sometime these tangents lead to the real substance of the discussion. My favorite 'rabbit trail' is which was the first domino to fall?

 

[BobRyan]

Sometime these tangents lead to the real substance of the discussion

more often than not they lead so far off the subject that when you read the thread you find pages upon pages of "not the topic" that you have to wade through before finding a post that comes back to the topic.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

more often than not they lead so far off the subject that when you read the thread you find pages upon pages of "not the topic" that you have to wade through before finding a post that comes back to the topic.

Sometimes a thread just isn't interesting enough to stay on topic.

 

[Speedwell]

more often than not they lead so far off the subject that when you read the thread you find pages upon pages of "not the topic" that you have to wade through before finding a post that comes back to the topic.

Do you remember that wonderful sequence in Raiders of the Lost Ark where a big tough guy with huge sword chases Indiana Jones into blind alley? Indiana Jones is doomed because he hasn't got big sword, too, right? No, he just draws his revolver and shoots the guy.

 

[BobRyan]

Sometimes a thread just isn't interesting enough to stay on subject.

agreed. But where I see this happen a lot is when a point is made for which the other side has no good answer -- and after a few flawed easily-exposed attempts they "switch".

Pilate says to Christ "what is truth"? He is trying to switch away to a topic that he hopes will derail from where the conversation was headed.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you remember that wonderful sequence in Raiders of the Lost Ark where a big tough guy with huge sword chases Indiana Jones into blind alley? Indiana Jones is doomed because he hasn't got big sword, too, right? No, he just draws his revolver and shoots the guy.

Yes but that is on topic - finding a weapon to defeat the other guy. If instead he started painting the Mona Lisa that would have been truly off topic. And would have ended poorly for Jones

 

[OldWiseGuy]

agreed. But where I see this happen a lot is when a point is made for which the other side has no good answer -- and after a few flawed easily-exposed attempts they "switch".

Pilate says to Christ "what is truth"? He is trying to switch away to a topic that he hopes will derail from where the conversation was headed.

Kinda like you ask someone the time and they tell you the weather.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I like it when a comment is made that sums up the whole conversation, and it lays there like a turd in a swimming pool.

"Sometimes a person trips over a profound truth, pick himself up, dusts himself off, and proceeds as if nothing has happened."

 

[Sabertooth]

more often than not they lead so far off the subject that when you read the thread you find pages upon pages of "not the topic" that you have to wade through before finding a post that comes back to the topic.

As you alluded to (in the OP), it is most likely a defense mechanism.

Another familiar tactic is

1. for an opponent to feign outrage at the OP,
2. stir up others in the "hysteria," and
3. ask the mods to shut the thread down as a "flame war."

Those of us who grew up on Cold War fiction can spot such subterfuge a mile away.

Ya Got Trouble, The Music Man (1962)

 

[Speedwell]

Yes but that is on topic - finding a weapon to defeat the other guy. If instead he started painting the Mona Lisa that would have been truly off topic. And would have ended poorly for Jones

The point is, (and I m astonished tht I hve to explain it) that Indiana Jones rejected the terms of the argument, not the argument itself, a distinction which you seem incapable of making.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"...a distinction which you seem incapable of making."

This comment might engender a new rabbit trail.

 

[Sabertooth]

The point is, (and I m astonished tht I hve to explain it) that Indiana Jones rejected the terms of the argument, not the argument itself, a distinction which you seem incapable of making.

So, is debate an anything-goes form of combat, or a combat sport with rules?
"All's fair in love and war..." or "Queensbury rules...?"

If one's topic is "further details from the Bible on 'literal' Creation,"
is arguing against the basis for "literal" Creation appropriate (in that context)?

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you remember that wonderful sequence in Raiders of the Lost Ark where a big tough guy with huge sword chases Indiana Jones into blind alley? Indiana Jones is doomed because he hasn't got big sword, too, right? No, he just draws his revolver and shoots the guy.

The scene as played was not as originally written. The script called for a complex fight sequence. Reportedly Harrison Ford had a pronounced hangover and didn't feel up to playing it, so he suggested "Why don't I just shoot the guy?"

(If the story isn't true, it really ought to be.)

What was the topic again?

 

[Speedwell]

So, is debate an anything-goes form of combat, or a combat sport with rules?
"All's fair in love and war..." or "Queensbury rules...?"

If one's topic is "further details from the Bible on 'literal' Creation,"
is arguing against the basis for "literal" Creation appropriate (in that context)?

Absolutely.

 

[Sabertooth]

Absolutely.

That only speaks to the latter question.
It presumes the former option on the first question.

Every inquiry is based on a starting hypothesis. I believe that undermining said hypothesis is foul play (using "Queensbury" rules).

If I can't abide by a topic's fundamental hypothesis, I just won't join that conversation. (Though I can play devil's-advocate if one's position lacks self-consistency...)

"If I give you that X was true, it would create this new dilemma..."

~~~~~~~~~~​

A student was sitting outside his university classroom, reading God’s Word, when his atheistic professor walked by and happened to hear the student exclaim, “Wow! Praise the Lord!”

Intrigued, the professor asked the student what had him so excited.

“Well,” the student replied, “I just read how God parted the waters of the Red Sea so the Hebrews could pass to safety.”

The professor calmly explained that in actuality there was a mistranslation and the Reed Sea where the crossing actually took place was, at that time of year, only about three inches deep.

Confident he had handled the situation, the professor went to retrieve something from his office. Upon his return a minute or two later, he again passes the student as once more he loudly exclaims, ”Wow! Praise the Lord!”

Interested, the professor asks the student what is so fascinating this time. The student responds, “I just read how God drowned the entire Egyptian army in three inches of water!”

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That only speaks to the latter question.
It presumes the former option on the first question.

Every inquiry is based on a starting hypothesis. I believe that undermining said hypothesis is foul play (using "Queensbury" rules).

If I can't abide by a topic's fundamental hypothesis, I just won't join that conversation. (Though I can play devil's-advocate if one's position lacks self-consistency...)

"If I give you that X was true, it would create this new dilemma..."

~~~~~~~~~~​

A student was sitting outside his university classroom, reading God’s Word, when his atheistic professor walked by and happened to hear the student exclaim, “Wow! Praise the Lord!”

Intrigued, the professor asked the student what had him so excited.

“Well,” the student replied, “I just read how God parted the waters of the Red Sea so the Hebrews could pass to safety.”

The professor calmly explained that in actuality there was a mistranslation and the Reed Sea where the crossing actually took place was, at that time of year, only about three inches deep.

Confident he had handled the situation, the professor went to retrieve something from his office. Upon his return a minute or two later, he again passes the student as once more he loudly exclaims, ”Wow! Praise the Lord!”

Interested, the professor asks the student what is so fascinating this time. The student responds, “I just read how God drowned the entire Egyptian army in three inches of water!”

A recent post on another thread had six inches of water.

 

[Ophiolite]

A recent post on another thread had six inches of water.

This is the cut-price, Boxing Day Special.

 

[Speedwell]

That only speaks to the latter question.
It presumes the former option on the first question.

Every inquiry is based on a starting hypothesis. I believe that undermining said hypothesis is foul play (using "Queensbury" rules).

If I can't abide by a topic's fundamental hypothesis, I just won't join that conversation. (Though I can play devil's-advocate if one's position lacks self-consistency...)

"If I give you that X was true, it would create this new dilemma..."

~~~~~~~~~~​

A student was sitting outside his university classroom, reading God’s Word, when his atheistic professor walked by and happened to hear the student exclaim, “Wow! Praise the Lord!”

Intrigued, the professor asked the student what had him so excited.

“Well,” the student replied, “I just read how God parted the waters of the Red Sea so the Hebrews could pass to safety.”

The professor calmly explained that in actuality there was a mistranslation and the Reed Sea where the crossing actually took place was, at that time of year, only about three inches deep.

Confident he had handled the situation, the professor went to retrieve something from his office. Upon his return a minute or two later, he again passes the student as once more he loudly exclaims, ”Wow! Praise the Lord!”

Interested, the professor asks the student what is so fascinating this time. The student responds, “I just read how God drowned the entire Egyptian army in three inches of water!”

This argument creates a straw man, a form of false argumentation--and a frequent creationist technique. So if I see you using a false argument to defend literal inerrancy, it becomes a legitimate inquiry to determine what, exactly, you're are defending and why.

 

[Sabertooth]

This argument creates a straw man, a form of false argumentation--and a frequent creationist technique. So if I see you using a false argument to defend literal inerrancy, it becomes a legitimate inquiry to determine what, exactly, you're are defending and why.

So, just say that you subscribe to an anything-goes, free-for-all form of debate instead of beating around the bush.

We will be clear that you accept no ground rules (except, most likely, in your own arguments).

~~~~~~~~~~

My Brother Always Runs Red Lights​

There are these two guys driving a car. The guy driving blows right through the red light.

"Man, you just ran that red light," the passenger said.

"Don't worry, my brother does it all the time," said the driver.

Well, they continue to drive when the guy went flying through another stop light.

"You ran ANOTHER stop light. You are going to get us killed!" exclaimed the passenger.

"Don't worry, my brother does it all the time," the driver said.

After a while they came to a green light when the guy stopped.

"Why are you stopping?"

The driver turned around and said, "I thought that I saw my brother coming the other way!"