|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
extro...*
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:31 pm Post subject: 761 |
 |
|
Here's why it's a straw man argument.
A straw man argument is where you set up a "straw man" - an easily refutable argument you claim is your opponents - and then proceed to refute it. In this case, he reads a long argument against gay rights, then says "oops, wrong notes" ... they're actually quotes of preachers from the 50s and 60s regarding equal racial rights ... and then claims they "sound similar" to present day opposition to gay rights. No examination of actual present day arguments, just the claim that they "sound similar" to this straw man, set up so that it doesn't even need refutation.
| Quote: |
| I suppose it can be called a straw man setup, since he is cherry picking quotes. |
Quotes having nothing to do with the opposing argument. They just, allegedly, to him, he claims, "sound similar".
| Quote: |
| Calling something straw man is often a straw man itself ... |
Please explain how so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
novice
No harm. Pun intended!
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:48 pm Post subject: 762 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Calling something straw man is often a straw man itself ... |
Please explain how so. |
I phrased that wrongly. I was thinking of debates where you see people picking the parts of the oppositions arguments that they can refute as rhetoric, and ignoring the rest. Both sides do it and the debate goes on forever unproductively. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bgg1996
BeeGees are awesome!
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:25 am Post subject: 763 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| A straw man argument is where you set up a "straw man" - an easily refutable argument you claim is your opponents - and then proceed to refute it. |
If the arguments you claim are made by your opponents are, in fact, made by your opponents, it isn't a straw man argument.
_________________
The one member below 18 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:54 am Post subject: 764 |
|
|
| bgg1996 wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
| A straw man argument is where you set up a "straw man" - an easily refutable argument you claim is your opponents - and then proceed to refute it. |
If the arguments you claim are made by your opponents are, in fact, made by your opponents, it isn't a straw man argument. |
Of course. In the case above, he takes arguments from the 50s and 60s regarding racism, replaces the words regarding race with words regarding sexual orientation, then claims they "sound like" his opponents arguments. Why go to the 50s and 60s and replace words to get something that "sounds like" your opponents arguments, rather than actually addressing your opponents actual arguments? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:25 am Post subject: 765 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| Of course. In the case above, he takes arguments from the 50s and 60s regarding racism, replaces the words regarding race with words regarding sexual orientation, then claims they "sound like" his opponents arguments. Why go to the 50s and 60s and replace words to get something that "sounds like" your opponents arguments, rather than actually addressing your opponents actual arguments? |
I think you've missed the point. His point is that these are the exact same arguments being made today, against gay marriage, that were made against interracial marriage 50 years ago. He's hoping that people who were nodding along, agreeing with him at first will then look again at their own words and realize that they are just repeating an old evil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:05 am Post subject: 766 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| I think you've missed the point. His point is that these are the exact same arguments being made today, ... |
Didn't I say that?
| Quote: |
| ... quotes of preachers from the 50s and 60s regarding equal racial rights ... and then claims they "sound similar" to present day opposition to gay rights. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 10:58 am Post subject: 767 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| Didn't I say that? |
Well, no, because otherwise we wouldn't be jumping on you. 
As usual, this is a definition argument. You started out by seeming to be arguing that because he says they "sound like" modern arguments, he is making a straw man by not actually addressing the modern arguments, whereas I (and others apparently) understood him to mean that they "sound like" modern arguments because they are the modern arguments! (And that he is therefore addressing them head-on.)
I don't think you can now claim to be using the second definition when you initially began by using the first... I may have misunderstood you, but I think that is at least a part of the confusion here.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:51 pm Post subject: 768 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| You started out by seeming to be arguing that because he says they "sound like" modern arguments, he is making a straw man by not actually addressing the modern arguments, whereas I (and others apparently) understood him to mean that they "sound like" modern arguments because they are the modern arguments! |
So you actually believe those are the modern arguments in their entirety? No need to actually examine any modern arguments, merely pull some stuff from the 50s, replace words, and claim these in their entirety are those in their entirety. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:07 pm Post subject: 769 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| No need to actually examine any modern arguments, merely pull some stuff from the 50s, replace words, and claim these in their entirety are those in their entirety. |
Yes, there's a need to do that. Yes, I've done it. I don't find the modern arguments to have any new content or value at all.
In any case, you continue to miss my point. The argument was directed at those people who were nodding their heads, agreeing with the man, until he revealed his secret. And there were plenty such people.
Of course, people who are willing to base a legal argument on the Bible are, IMHO, not capable of being taught anything by a lesson as subtle as that, anyway. If you don't understand why basing a U.S. legal argument on the Bible is simply wrong, then there is little hope for your ability to stand outside your own prejudices, anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:43 pm Post subject: 770 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| If you don't understand why basing a U.S. legal argument on the Bible is simply wrong, then there is little hope for your ability to stand outside your own prejudices, anyway. |
If you don't understand I never remotely suggested basing any kind of argument on the Bible, then you need to at least briefly remove your head from your ass and examine your own prejudices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 10:30 pm Post subject: 771 |
|
|
I don't think that last paragraph was directed at you, extro...
In any case, I would agree with Zag about the legal argument/Bible connection, though we can at least admit they have the same position on quite a number of things.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 10:35 pm Post subject: 772 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Zag wrote: |
| If you don't understand why basing a U.S. legal argument on the Bible is simply wrong, then there is little hope for your ability to stand outside your own prejudices, anyway. |
If you don't understand I never remotely suggested basing any kind of argument on the Bible, then you need to at least briefly remove your head from your ass and examine your own prejudices. |
As Jedo said, I did not direct that at you, but at the generic "you" -- those people who were nodding along with the minister's argument at first. (And I'm not accusing you, extro, of being one of them, either.) Sorry that this wasn't clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jadesmar
Bad Puppy
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 5:10 am Post subject: 773 |
|
|
What do you make of this:
End times?
If not, maybe we could use this and the comet fly-by scheduled for December to make some dollars off foolish people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
