| rdfs:comment
| - Moving the goalposts is a logical fallacy that takes the following form. 1.
* 1st person, "Prove A to me!" 2.
* 2nd person, "This proves A." 3.
* 1st person, "That's not good enough, you've got to prove B as well!" 4.
* 2nd person, "This proves B." 5.
* 1st person, "That's not good enough, you've got to prove C as well!" 6.
* 2nd person, "This proves C." 7.
* 1st person, "That's not good enough, you've got to prove D E & F as well!" And so it goes on, however much you prove if your opponent keeps moving the goalposts there's always more you haven't proved yet.
- Characters A and B make a deal. However, Character A has much more power than Character B, usually because Character B is really desperate for whatever Character A is offering, and will do whatever it takes to get it. Character A ends up abusing this power badly, reneging on the initial agreement and making a seemingly endless series of demands without ever keeping his end of the bargain. This is Moving the Goalposts. Compare Taking Advantage of Generosity. Can overlap with Social Darwinism. Examples of Moving the Goalposts include:
|
| abstract
| - Moving the goalposts is a logical fallacy that takes the following form. 1.
* 1st person, "Prove A to me!" 2.
* 2nd person, "This proves A." 3.
* 1st person, "That's not good enough, you've got to prove B as well!" 4.
* 2nd person, "This proves B." 5.
* 1st person, "That's not good enough, you've got to prove C as well!" 6.
* 2nd person, "This proves C." 7.
* 1st person, "That's not good enough, you've got to prove D E & F as well!" And so it goes on, however much you prove if your opponent keeps moving the goalposts there's always more you haven't proved yet.
- Characters A and B make a deal. However, Character A has much more power than Character B, usually because Character B is really desperate for whatever Character A is offering, and will do whatever it takes to get it. Character A ends up abusing this power badly, reneging on the initial agreement and making a seemingly endless series of demands without ever keeping his end of the bargain. This is Moving the Goalposts. Take this for example: Jim wants in to an exclusive club, but he needs a recommendation from an established member to be considered. Jim's neighbor, Harry, is a member held in high esteem within the club. If Harry recommends Jim, he's is almost guaranteed to be allowed in. So, Jim goes off to ask his neighbor for a favor. Harry agrees to do it... if Jim can get him a date for the company Christmas party next week. Jim enlists his sister for the job. Harry says the girl's very nice, but it would make an even better impression on the company bigwigs if they showed up in a limo. Jim books a limo at his own expense. Harry thanks Jim for the car... but then mentions that he really, really needs an expensive present to give to his boss... Should Jim protest, Harry will threaten to take his offer Off the Table altogether -- usually after Jim has already spent time and/or money in keeping his end of the bargain. Harry has no intention of fulfilling his end of the agreement. There are usually two possibilities for why this is so: either Harry doesn't want Jim to get what he wants (e.g. he really doesn't want Jim in his club) and is devising a really elaborate method of putting him off, or he's opportunistic and greedy, realizing that he has a personal servant as long as he can keep Jim hanging with the vague promise that he'll meet his request. This set up can end in a number of ways. Sometimes, just to add insult to injury, Harry will manipulate Jim until he gets bored or has everything he needs, then tells Jim sorry, but the club's not accepting new members. Sometimes this will result in a Freak-Out and some well deserved retribution. Alternatively, Harry will develop a conscience (or a third party will hammer one into him) and finally give Jim the introduction he needs. A third option is that Jim will decide Celebrity Is Overrated and no reward is worth endless, humiliating and unappreciated labor. In Fairy Tales, the king setting Impossible Tasks may eventually decide it's not worth it, but usually one of the tasks backfires on him. Badly. There's also a Blackmail version of this trope, where the powerful party keeps his word -- more or less -- but makes it clear that he could change his mind at any time. Murder mysteries that involve the death of a blackmailer usually cite this as a motive: the blackmailer made an initial demand that was met, but soon realized that they had their victim trapped, and kept making additional demands until the victim decided the only way to get free was to kill their tormentor. Military/political agreements where one force is stronger than the other often have this connotation to them: a one-off favor might be used to bully the weaker country or politician into supporting the stronger, whether they like it or not. Indeed, it can be a problem with any Leonine Contract. The effect on the viewer depends on whose side they're on. If they like the weaker partner of the deal, it can be hugely frustrating to see them strung along like this (expect to be yelling What an Idiot! fairly loudly). If their sympathies lie with the more powerful half though, it can be used as slapstick humor. If the roles are usually reversed (Jim is Harry's boss, for example) it can be used to give a bossy or overbearing character their comeuppance. On the odd occasion, Harry might have genuinely good intentions. Maybe Jim wants Harry to introduce him to Harry's pretty coworker, who Harry knows is a Manipulative Bitch and a Gold Digger, so he tries to deter Jim from the girl without saying outright that she's bad news because he knows Jim wouldn't believe him. There also exists a situation that looks like this, but isn't: the proposed item fulfills the stated requirements, but not the unstated ones. For example, offering a reward for the head of a Gunslinger, but forgetting to attach "unattached to his body". Or asking for a polite courtier, and getting one who delights in stealth insults and backhanded compliments. "Moving the goal posts" is one of the more insidious forms of invisible or unrecognized child abuse: studies have shown that children with parents who keep moving the goalposts often suffer from serious trust issues for the rest of their lives. "Moving the goal posts" can also be used to describe a debate 'tactic' (read: fallacy). In this scenario, essentially Harry will make a point or demand evidence to counter his argument. Jim provides evidence or a counter argument to Harry's original argument. Harry then dismisses the evidence and/or demands further evidence on grounds which were not introduced or required in the original point and which may only be tangentially linked to Harry's original point, if indeed they are linked at all. For example, Harry claims that there's no product that easily kills fleas on cats. Jim directs him to a product which does so, only for Harry to then dismiss Jim's point by claiming that the product in question doesn't kill fleas on cats and on dogs. Essentially, Harry is attempting to wriggle out of having to acknowledge Jim's evidence or concede the point (usually because he otherwise has no rebuttal) by changing the terms of the debate and/or the subject entirely without anyone noticing. Compare Taking Advantage of Generosity. Can overlap with Social Darwinism. Compare and contrast There Will Be Cake. I Lied is the even more shameless version. Certain character types, like the Bad Boss who always has one last task for their employees to do before they get a "favor" that they had earned anyway, are particularly prone to this trope. See also Win Your Freedom, Obvious Rule Patch, and No True Scotsman. Sadly, not only Truth in Television but a common tactic employed by those running a 419 Scam or Spanish Prisoner one. Examples of Moving the Goalposts include:
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)