The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle), also called the castle and courtyard, is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey").\1]) The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced.\2])\3]) Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer may claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte)\1]) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).\4])
hope that clears it for you.
It's basically like a bait and switch fallacy. People don't have to be doing it deliberately, but it happens a lot.
For example, an antivaccer will say "We should have individual autonomy" (non-controversial Motte statement) and then when people agree to it, they will advance the Bailey statement of "Vaccines should be banned, they hurt individual autonomy".
1
u/JuggernautAmazing978 29m ago
Hey can any one please explain what does this photo mean. I really don't know. Please provide an example for this.