The tactic of establishing a specific, often overly rigid, logical framework (e.g., strict formal syllogisms) as the only permissible mode of argument. Any point not presented within this narrow logical syntax is dismissed as “illogical” or invalid, regardless of its empirical or ethical merit.
Example: In a discussion about workplace fairness, someone declares, “We will only use propositional logic. Present your argument as a series of ‘If P, then Q’ statements, or it’s not a real argument.” They’ve set a logicpost, disqualifying narratives of experience, analogies, or ethical reasoning from the start.
by Dumuabzu February 8, 2026
Get the Logicpost mug.When, after an opponent successfully engages within a prescribed logical framework, the arguer changes the rules of what constitutes “valid logic.” This can mean switching logical systems (from deductive to inductive), redefining fallacies on the fly, or declaring that a formally valid syllogism is now invalid because it’s “based on a false premise” they previously accepted.
Moving the Logicpost Example:
You use their preferred deductive logic to build a sound argument.
They respond: “Deduction is limited. Real-world problems require fuzzy logic, which your binary reasoning fails. Your point is logically simplistic.”
They’ve moved the logicpost from formal deduction to an amorphous alternative to evade your conclusion.
You use their preferred deductive logic to build a sound argument.
They respond: “Deduction is limited. Real-world problems require fuzzy logic, which your binary reasoning fails. Your point is logically simplistic.”
They’ve moved the logicpost from formal deduction to an amorphous alternative to evade your conclusion.
by Dumuabzu February 8, 2026
Get the Moving the Logicpost mug.