Talk:Noah S. Sweat

message: With all due respect to this individual and his descendants...  As I understand it, simply being a representative in local state government is not necessarily enough notability to justify a Wikipedia article.  Are there any other sources which can be used to prove this individual's fame?  Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Elonka 16:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add a reference to William Safire's book in which he categorizes Soggy Sweat's speech as one of the best political speeches in history (pg. 876) --Acadac 20:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Would someone please explain how this speech is an example of doublespeak?
Drawing attention to the dual nature of the subject being discussed has nothing to do with doublespeak.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.170.6.189 (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Doublespeak?

message: Is the speech text reliably sourced?  I notice that Perry's later recitation of it differs slightly. Davidships (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text of Speech 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Noah S. Sweat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120714122102/http://orig.clarionledger.com/news/0305/25/oorley.html to http://orig.clarionledger.com/news/0305/25/oorley.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: His nickname is based on his appearance 2600:1700:B2F0:11B0:4436:B76D:60D1:173 (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get a picture? 

message: :
One does not have to commit fully to a single position.  This appears to be a systemic flaw in western philosophy and its associated systems (jurisprudence, etc.) One can take both positions, without any fallacy whatsoever.  For example, take the example of war.  Both sides in a war suffer casualties and injustices.  To a disinterested observer who stands outside of the war looking in, one can see the benefits of defending one side or the other, and the harms and risks.  The same is true for a wide range of issues.  Another good example is of resource extraction and use pertaining to the environment and its ecosystems.  For humanity, this has historically been described in terms of civilization, progress, wealth and prosperity.  But for non-humans, it is often a form of ecocide.  And in this example, a third view exists, which is that the destruction of the non-human sphere often results in degradation of the human sphere.  Why should one commit fully to a single position when the philosophical reality necessitates understanding all of the positions in relation to their proponents?  If there is a fallacy here, it's the fallacy of bifurcation, not equivocation.  This is not a form of false balance.  In this example, the benefits of alcohol also have their risks.  Why would we need to commit to either the benefits or the risks?  It's a single, unified whole, inseparable, intertwined, and interconnected. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: example of the informal fallacy of equivocation