Talk:Noah S. Sweat

Notability
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 Notability (people). --Elonka 16:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

Doublespeak?
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)

✅ You're clearly right about this. Even if "doublespeak" had some different meaning in political discourse, there's no evidence for that. Also the statement that the speech is doublespeak that was formerly in the article was an unsourced opinion. Thus I took it out.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Text of Speech
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)

External links modified
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)

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

Re: example of the informal fallacy of equivocation

 * The speech is a common example of the informal fallacy of equivocation, and the phrase "if-by-whiskey" is often used as shorthand for an argument that prevaricates to avoid committing fully to a single position of a controversial issue.

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)