Strawman - The Thread

[Further]

Mags, notice how I got the definition wrong, it was pointed out, I read and processed the new information, I was able to learn, adjust, and use the term correctly. This is ok to do, and in fact is a sign that I have some functioning brain cells. Take note, learn, and adjust once in a while.

 

[ABM]

this made my day

....and you saying that just made mine.

 

[MARIS61]

A strawman is any argument used by maxiep. He is the undisputed king of strawmen.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

It's basically just when you argue against something the person you're arguing with didn't say, right?

 

[ABM]

It's basically just when you argue against something the person you're arguing with didn't say, right?

My problem is, I generally get the short end of the strawman.

 

[PapaG]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

That's not "misrepresenting" your opponents position. It's making up a false parallel, which falls on the person constructing the strawman.

 

[PapaG]

or like Mags (continually) saying the atheists in this forum are all wrong because we can't prove god doesn't exist

That's no more a strawman than asking him to prove that god does exist.

 

[PapaG]

Crowbot is correct on the meaning of Strawman.

Nope

 

[magnifier661]

or like Mags (continually) saying the atheists in this forum are all wrong because we can't prove god doesn't exist

No I say atheist use faith. That is absolutely not a strawman. When I say that an atheist can't prove god doesn't exist; only implies its an opinion without facts. You can still believe he doesn't exist; but can't claim it as factual. It's using a form of faith

 

[RR7]

Now I can see why it always seemed so off when Mags would accuse people of using a strawman argument against him. He just doesn't actually know what one is.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Why am I suddenly reminded of this clip?

[video=youtube;5hfYJsQAhl0]

 

[NOVoodoo]

If you want an example of a "strawman" defense, just look at any of my posting exchanges King Speed, or any of King Speed's arguments for that matter.

 

[TripTango]

That's no more a strawman than asking him to prove that god does exist.

The difference is that atheist beliefs do not hinge on proving nonexistence (which is impossible, in the absolute sense).

A typical atheist position is based on the idea that, in the absence of conclusive evidence either way, disbelieving fantastic claims is the logical "default" conclusion.

 

[TripTango]

That's not "misrepresenting" your opponents position. It's making up a false parallel, which falls on the person constructing the strawman.

I can't tell if this is gratuitously argumentative, or brilliantly meta.

 

[oldguy]

So you voted for Sen. Brown?

Senator Brown says that we should not fund the star wars program.

I can't understand why Brown wants to leave our country defenseless like that.

He is a traitor to our country.

He should be recalled, because he is a traitor.

You voted for him, so you are a traitor.

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

Strawman is me saying they should repeal stand your ground laws and people saying I don't like hispanics or that I think the case was decided wrong.

It's easy to argue the case was decided right, because the jury made a verdict and followed the law.

But this was not my position at all. I do think he should have gone to jail, but under the traditional laws. Or the jury could have applied jury nullification. The facts of the case as presented aren't meaningful to argue, unless in the context of what if there were no stand your ground law, yet that's what people tried to get me to argue.

I do not want to rehash the argument here, just illustrate what a strawman is.

The requirement to prove God doesn't exist is a strawman as well. Not one person has said, "I don't believe in God because there's proof he doesn't exist." But rather, "I don't believe in God because there's no proof he does." So people try to refute that last part by arguing you can't prove he doesn't exist, which is easy to argue (tough to prove the negative!), but nobody's position.

 

[maxiep]

Strawman is me saying they should repeal stand your ground laws and people saying I don't like hispanics or that I think the case was decided wrong.

It's easy to argue the case was decided right, because the jury made a verdict and followed the law.

But this was not my position at all. I do think he should have gone to jail, but under the traditional laws. Or the jury could have applied jury nullification. The facts of the case as presented aren't meaningful to argue, unless in the context of what if there were no stand your ground law, yet that's what people tried to get me to argue.

I do not want to rehash the argument here, just illustrate what a strawman is.

The requirement to prove God doesn't exist is a strawman as well. Not one person has said, "I don't believe in God because there's proof he doesn't exist." But rather, "I don't believe in God because there's no proof he does." So people try to refute that last part by arguing you can't prove he doesn't exist, which is easy to argue (tough to prove the negative!), but nobody's position.

Denny, I hope you know that when I posted "Why do you hate Hispanics?", it was me mirroring the arguments that because all think George Zimmerman was guilty of was bad judgment, I was called a racist. It was what I will call a reverse-strawman tactic. It was absurdity meant to highlight absurdity on the other side of the argument.

I don't think you hate anyone for their general characteristics. You're a Libertarian, you hate people individually.

 

[Denny Crane]

Like I said, I don't want to rehash it here. I didn't mention anyone by name.

 

[crandc]

Straw man (or straw woman) is misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Basically, ascribing to an opponent an utterly ridiculous position that they do not hold, then attacking the ridiculous position rather than what they actually said.

For example:
"I support marriage equality for same sex couples."
"So crandc thinks people should be able to marry their dog."

if you don't like that one:
A says the U.S. should reduce military spending and put more money into education.
B says A wants to leave America defenseless by disbanding the armed forces and supports terrorists winning.

Straw people.

 

[maxiep]

Like I said, I don't want to rehash it here. I didn't mention anyone by name.

I wasn't rehashing it, I was clarifying that I was actually creating a strawman. Also, you needed to know that I never have considered you anti-Hispanic, in case you didn't get the intent of my post in the Zimmerman thread.

 

[Denny Crane]

I wasn't rehashing it, I was clarifying that I was actually creating a strawman. Also, you needed to know that I never have considered you anti-Hispanic, in case you didn't get the intent of my post in the Zimmerman thread.

I want you to know "I support marriage equality for same sex couples."

 

[Further]

I want you to know "I support marriage equality for same sex couples."

Denny thinks dogs should be put to death.

did i get that right?

 

[magnifier661]

Straw man (or straw woman) is misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Basically, ascribing to an opponent an utterly ridiculous position that they do not hold, then attacking the ridiculous position rather than what they actually said.

For example:
"I support marriage equality for same sex couples."
"So crandc thinks people should be able to marry their dog."

if you don't like that one:
A says the U.S. should reduce military spending and put more money into education.
B says A wants to leave America defenseless by disbanding the armed forces and supports terrorists winning.

Straw people.

You used this "strawman" in the Judaism vs atheism thread to a "T".

 

[Further]

You used this "strawman" in the Judaism vs atheism thread to a "T".

This is not something to be proud of. It's easy to derail a discussion, but adding something interesting if far more fun. When I argue with you, I usually am not trying to "win", im trying to explore a different angle.

 

[magnifier661]

This is not something to be proud of. It's easy to derail a discussion, but adding something interesting if far more fun. When I argue with you, I usually am not trying to "win", im trying to explore a different angle.

I disagree. You go into most arguments with no intention to change your mind. I haven't noticed you changing anything substantial.

 

[Further]

I disagree. You go into most arguments with no intention to change your mind. I haven't noticed you changing anything substantial.

It depends on what you mean by substantial. You are correct that I am not going to start believing in God because you say something pithy. But there have been many times where I have been shown that my argument does not hold water or some aspect of my worldview is off, and I have reconsidered. But usually you and I argue on topics where I clearly have the upper hand as far as logic dictates, so of course you aren't going to get me to come around.

 

[Further]

I disagree. You go into most arguments with no intention to change your mind. I haven't noticed you changing anything substantial.

you are right, i was wrong, i never change my mind.

 

[magnifier661]

It depends on what you mean by substantial. You are correct that I am not going to start believing in God because you say something pithy. But there have been many times where I have been shown that my argument does not hold water or some aspect of my worldview is off, and I have reconsidered. But usually you and I argue on topics where I clearly have the upper hand as far as logic dictates, so of course you aren't going to get me to come around.

If you think I am only referring to religious debates; you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Further]

If you think I am only referring to religious debates; you are sadly mistaken.

Well aside from the religious threads, I have shifted my stances more than almost anyone. On guns for example. But i don't change that often because my natural state in life is that of a correct person.

 

[magnifier661]

Well aside from the religious threads, I have shifted my stances more than almost anyone. On guns for example. But i don't change that often because my natural state in life is that of a correct person.

Most of us act in that way. The thing that pisses me off is when people think they are really open.