Gah! I knew there was something I was missing in my posts earlier I was trying to think of...
Fact stretching and exaggerations during debates.
Thanks eck and tinkerbell for the reminder.
By now I'm sure people have noticed when I argue, my 'examples' are often blown way out of proportion and grossly exaggerated. This isn't something that I'm doing to try to lie, nor does it mean I'm expending energy to do so.
I do so simply because a 'normal' example rarely fully shows the conceptualized thinking pattern, I automatically break things down into the line of reasoning, and then think of a better way to explain that same line of reasoning amplified to gross proportions to be obvious and easy to see. "That's not the same thing!" doesn't matter if yeu got to the same location by the same form of reasoning. Circumstances mean nothing, if someone was driving drunk... and got caught... they should be punished for the act. If someone was driving drunk and KILLED someone, they should still be punished the same severity for the same act; the circumstances should not matter, the fact that it was reckless endangerment of life is whot matters, whether life was actually lost or not is not the question at hand, but whether it was placed in a position where it could've been lost.
Of course, then our prisons we be overflowing. The point though, is that the intent, and the action and the reasoning is whot's important, not the circumstances. I find it stupid that if someone trips and accidentally kills someone by trying to grab onto the first thing in reach, and they knock someone over, breaking their hip, and that person dies... that they can be punished with manslaughter... for tripping and having reflexes. Whereas someone can actively try to harm someone, but because they failed, they could be sentenced to less, merely because of circumstances.
Or my favorite example...
Yeu are at a fancy dinner, and pick up the wrong fork since yeu had 3 of them to choose from. Yeu look silly.
Different circumstance, yeu're being held hostage at that fancy dinner, and someone who's insane demands that yeu pick the right fork; yeu choose the wrong one, and someone is killed for yeur incorrect decision.
The same reasoning, the same action, the same issues... but circumstances changed the end result.
The point is, even though the latter example was blown WAY out of proportion... the same situation occured. There was no difference on the individual's level. It was far easier to see the absurdity of blaming them for their ignorance, and pressuring them with a punishment if they made error or asked a question, which enforced that they remained ignorant. They were not allowed to ask for the answer or admit they didn't know, and were punished for it. The point remains valid, even though it's obviously blown waaaaaaaay out of proportion and just looks silly.
But being able to change the circumstances to the level of absurdity, is whot shows yeu the truth behind things. If the SAME line of reasoning is absurd, with a change of perspective, then it probably is flawed.