We’ve all heard of the accusation of moving the goalposts. At bottom, this consists in illegitimately changing the standard of appraisal in order to match some arbitrary standard. While before you had to prove B, now you need only prove A, because, well, because. Closely related, so I think today, to this is the idea of enlarging the relevant dialectical context. Here’s a cartoon on point:
I have no comment on the actual discussion (and I don’t know anything about this Peterson fellow). This move nonetheless seems to be a pretty common one. It doesn’t so much as move the goalposts as enlarging the field of play to such a point where you’ll never catch the other player (I don’t know what game this is in my analogy, but you get the idea).
So it’s a kind of iron man. Like all such ferrous persons, it works in two ways: the first way is to make the object impervious to criticism; the second way is to make the critic look dishonest. There’s one more thing: it’s a status-booster for the iron-manner: their being aware of the relevant information is a way of basking in its reflected glory.
Such moves (and I’ve observed them in other contexts, however) are strategically risky: the greater the burden of critique, the greater the burden of understanding. While your critic might not land the blow, the costs of understanding such a complex and unassailable view might be too high for potential converts.
A student of mine is a lapsed vegetarian–with vegetarian parents. They object, for religious and ethical reasons, to his meat eating. He retorts with the following argument:
If it’s wrong to eat animals because they’re living creatures, it’s wrong to eat plants, because they’re also living creatures.
My student acknowledges that this is a weak argument but nonetheless reports that this is a successful rejoinder to the extent that his parents do not reply. Let’s say for the sake of argument that this is the case. Let’s further say, again for the sake of argument, that the parents’ argument is both weak in itself and weakly held by them.
This means that his parents do not have (or do not share) very good reasons for their vegetarianism. So, the student replies to a weak argument with an equally weak argument. When I raised this point, he shrugged his shoulders and said: “what does it matter? It does the job.”
Students of argumentation, in my limited experience, tend to study either bad arguments or bad replies, but not both together. And in this case, the bad reply is offered on purpose, because a better reply isn’t necessary.
I’m inclined to think this is wrong, and that the student owes the parents (and himself) a better reply to a better argument. I say this because he’s aware of how bad his own argument is. On the other hand, his parents haven’t offered a very good defense, and answering a better argument would be iron manning them.