When You Say It Like That...

Theory

Anyone who defends a position with the statement, "Well, when you say it like that..." either has an indefensible position, or hasn't thought their position through. Those with consistent logic based on evidence will not use this defense.

Practice

Example One

Me to the Santa Claus Believer: So you believe in a fat man who constantly wears a red suit and has an army of elves to make toys for him. You believe that once a year, he distributes these toys from a magical sleigh flown by eight magical reindeer, and that he enters homes through the chimney, eats cookies and drinks some milk...all this at millions of homes worldwide in the space of one evening. He does this with absolutely no sense of self-interest. When he's not spending one night a year in worldwide charity, he's chilling at his home at the North Pole. Nobody has ever actually seen the real Santa Claus, though many of his "helpers" seem to pop up at malls just before Christmas each year. Am I getting it right so far?

Santa Claus Believer: Well, when you say it like that...

Example Two

Me to the Christian: So you believe in a non-physical, all-knowing, all-powerful consciousness in the sky who created the world and has handed down rules for us humans to live by. Some of these rules you follow, some you ignore, and others you decide are parables and metaphors, and are not to be followed literally. Every Christian has a different idea of which category all of these rules fit into. You believe you can psychically communicate your wishes to this sky-brain, and that they'll be granted. Nobody has ever directly seen God, though you say that certain people past and present have claimed the ability to more directly experience God, and that gives them religious authority over the rest of us. Your proof for all of this is a book, written by men, but supposedly dictated by this omnipotent, omniscient God. All the same, it's imperfect in that it can be interpreted and re-interpreted a thousand ways, and is not communicated in some sort of 'perfect' language.

You believe that if you're good, this sky brain will send you to eternal bliss in the sky and if you're bad to eternal damnation at the core of the earth. Well, not you exactly, but a little tiny version of his invisible consciousness called a "soul." This soul existed before you were born, and will continue to exist forever into the future, despite the complete lack of any empirical evidence. Even though God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, terrible things still happen in the world every day. Do I have all this right?

Christian: Well, when you say it like that...

Example Three

Me to Government-Loving Statist: Alright, so you believe that people need to be controlled because they're generally evil, or will take advantage if left to do whatever they want. Your remedy for this supposed problem is to give a monopoly of firepower and force to a small, select group of people to wield over everyone else. This group of controllers is granted their power over everyone because a majority of a fraction of the population that actually votes, voted for them. There is no guarantee that the same evil people government is supposed to defend us from won't simply seek out government power for themselves. In fact, the very creation of positions of power will attract evil people to those positions.

Somehow these people (for a specific period of years) gain the ability to tell everyone else what to do--at the threat of murder or imprisonment--just by signing pieces of paper. You believe that your support of these people in positions of power gives them authority over me. Their power includes the ability to shoot me in the head, without repercussion, if I disagree with you or them and act on my disagreement. You openly admit the corruption inherent in this group of people on a regular basis, but continue to justify the existence of the institution they're supported by, for some reason. Am I getting things right so far?

Statist: Well, when you say it like that...

Explanation

These are just a few of the more obvious examples, but a good illustration of the sorts of conversations I've always felt a little strange about. Instead of addressing the contradictions within their position, the people above are basically saying that they think you're mischaracterizing their argument. What you're really doing is stripping away all the propagandistic and confusing language they use to justify their position. You're simply translating their ideas into plain English.

Instead of "somehow squeezing down every chimney in the world in one night, even the houses that have no chimney," Santa Claus's forcible entry into houses is explained to be accomplished by "magical" means. This introduces a falsehood into the argument (that magic exists) as if it's completely true and viable. Any conclusions they come to might even be--or seem to be--true (i.e. it's nice to receive presents) but only accidentally, because of their faulty logic (i.e. presents come to us by way of a magical fat man in a red suit).

Any objectively correct beliefs people hold will not be subject to this same line of deconstruction of falsehoods, because there won't be any falsehoods. For example, I know that the initiation of the use of force is always immoral. If someone attempts to deconstruct this by saying, "Oh, so you don't think I should be able to defend myself from a raving lunatic with a sword," they're not making a valid claim. I would never need to respond to their argument with "Well, when you say it like that..." because they're not accurately translating what I said into plain English. The non-initiation of the use of force still allows for self-defense. Since they're misunderstanding my argument, there's no need to bust out "...when you say it like that."

Thus, I'm pretty sure that whenever you hear someone say, "Well, when you say it like that..." you can take it as fair warning that they've got a position with contradictory or false premises, and save yourself a lot of time arguing over whether you have a "tone" or not.

Challenges welcome: I'm wrong a lot more often than I'd like to be, so please correct me in the comments if you see something wrong with the above arguments. Thanks for reading!