Misusing the names of fallacies.

[cantata]

Guys, I’ve seen a lot of people yelling “STRAWMAN” and then running away lately, but a lot of the time, the term is being applied incorrectly.

Someone commits the straw man fallacy when (and only when) they set up an obviously weak argument and falsely ascribe it to their opponent. The person committing the fallacy then usually debunks the weak argument they have set up and claims victory, despite not having addressed the actual argument being presented by their opponent.

Any old weak argument does not constitute an example of the straw man fallacy. I recently saw someone say that someone who claimed that the purpose of marriage is procreation alone was committing the straw man fallacy. They were not. They were arguably making a factual error, but they were not committing the straw man fallacy because they were not falsely ascribing a weak argument to their opponent.

As a matter of common courtesy, by the way, I think it is generally rather rude to consider yelling “STRAWMAN” to be an adequate, reasoned response to someone else’s post. If you are going to accuse someone of a logical fallacy, it is best to explain in what sense you think they have committed it, and, in the case of straw man fallacies, to reassert your case in clear terms so that the distinction between the false, weak argument and your true position can be discerned.

/pedantry

 

[b&wpac4]

Guys, I’ve seen a lot of people yelling “STRAWMAN” and then running away lately, but a lot of the time, the term is being applied incorrectly.

Someone commits the straw man fallacy when (and only when) they set up an obviously weak argument and falsely ascribe it to their opponent. The person committing the fallacy then usually debunks the weak argument they have set up and claims victory, despite not having addressed the actual argument being presented by their opponent.

Any old weak argument does not constitute an example of the straw man fallacy. I recently saw someone say that someone who claimed that the purpose of marriage is procreation alone was committing the straw man fallacy. They were not. They were arguably making a factual error, but they were not committing the straw man fallacy because they were not falsely ascribing a weak argument to their opponent.

As a matter of common courtesy, by the way, I think it is generally rather rude to consider yelling “STRAWMAN” to be an adequate, reasoned response to someone else’s post. If you are going to accuse someone of a logical fallacy, it is best to explain in what sense you think they have committed it, and, in the case of straw man fallacies, to reassert your case in clear terms so that the distinction between the false, weak argument and your true position can be discerned.

/pedantry

You and your anti-strawman strawman posts!

 

[sidhe]

This is clearly an nomine patri fallacy in the OP, combined with the rare tu coq au vin ploy.

Seriously.

 

[mpok1519]

most people dont know the rules of making valid syllogisms, therefore, they use the word strawman because it incites the idea of a brainless scarecrow from the wizard of oz, as if that was its first meaning.

 

[Belk]

Guys, I’ve seen a lot of people yelling “STRAWMAN” and then running away lately, but a lot of the time, the term is being applied incorrectly.

Someone commits the straw man fallacy when (and only when) they set up an obviously weak argument and falsely ascribe it to their opponent. The person committing the fallacy then usually debunks the weak argument they have set up and claims victory, despite not having addressed the actual argument being presented by their opponent.

Any old weak argument does not constitute an example of the straw man fallacy. I recently saw someone say that someone who claimed that the purpose of marriage is procreation alone was committing the straw man fallacy. They were not. They were arguably making a factual error, but they were not committing the straw man fallacy because they were not falsely ascribing a weak argument to their opponent.

As a matter of common courtesy, by the way, I think it is generally rather rude to consider yelling “STRAWMAN” to be an adequate, reasoned response to someone else’s post. If you are going to accuse someone of a logical fallacy, it is best to explain in what sense you think they have committed it, and, in the case of straw man fallacies, to reassert your case in clear terms so that the distinction between the false, weak argument and your true position can be discerned.

/pedantry

Not too mention the misuse of the Ad Homonim label. Drives me nuts as well Cantata, but then I might be just a bit pedantic myself.

 

[sidhe]

Not too mention the misuse of the Ad Homonim label. Drives me nuts as well Cantata, but then I might be just a bit pedantic myself.

ad hominem.

Use it correctly, spell it correctly.

An ad homonim would be confusing two words that are spelled the same, but have different meanings, and using it as a basis for attacking an argument.

"Vail are the race for rogue players in Shaiya."
"How can a city in Colorado be a race in a MMORPG, idiot?"

/pedantry

 

[Belk]

ad hominem.

Use it correctly, spell it correctly.

An ad homonim would be confusing two words that are spelled the same, but have different meanings, and using it as a basis for attacking an argument.

"Vail are the race for rogue players in Shaiya."
"How can a city in Colorado be a race in a MMORPG, idiot?"

/pedantry

Hey, I'm fully willing to admit my spelling is atrocious.

 

[Chesterton]

My favorite tactic is to combine ad hominem with a red herring (the ad herring attack) - I distract and perplex the opponent by suddenly insulting a fish.

 

[Belk]

My favorite tactic is to combine ad hominem with a red herring (the ad herring attack) - I distract and perplex the opponent by suddenly insulting a fish.

Much more useful then the Red Hominem (thanks Sidhe) attack, accussing a random person of being a communist.

 

[sidhe]

Me, I go for argumentum ad Broadway, and begin posting the lyrics to show tunes.

 

[Axioma]

The Ad Nauseam is a very powerful tactic, wherein one reiterates the same points so long that your opponent gets sick of it and leaves, thereby granting you victory by virtue of backing out of the fight.

 

[Andreusz]

^ Similar to the argumentum ad snarkum ("If I say a thing often enough, it makes it true"). Not to be confused with the argumentum contra snarkum ("If you say a thing several times, that makes it false.")

 

[sidhe]

I really think the tu coq au vin is particularly powerful, as you reject your opponent's position on the basis of them being a delicious French chicken dish.

A: *lengthy, well-supported argument on the virtues of James Earl Jones*
B: What would a French chicken dish know of acting?

 

[Andreusz]

 

[Rebekka]

The Ad Nauseam is a very powerful tactic, wherein one reiterates the same points so long that your opponent gets sick of it and leaves, thereby granting you victory by virtue of backing out of the fight.

Oh, I'm very good at that one (in real life that is), just ask my husband.

 

[Maren]

Guys, I’ve seen a lot of people yelling “STRAWMAN” and then running away lately, but a lot of the time, the term is being applied incorrectly.

Someone commits the straw man fallacy when (and only when) they set up an obviously weak argument and falsely ascribe it to their opponent. The person committing the fallacy then usually debunks the weak argument they have set up and claims victory, despite not having addressed the actual argument being presented by their opponent.

Any old weak argument does not constitute an example of the straw man fallacy. I recently saw someone say that someone who claimed that the purpose of marriage is procreation alone was committing the straw man fallacy. They were not. They were arguably making a factual error, but they were not committing the straw man fallacy because they were not falsely ascribing a weak argument to their opponent.

As a matter of common courtesy, by the way, I think it is generally rather rude to consider yelling “STRAWMAN” to be an adequate, reasoned response to someone else’s post. If you are going to accuse someone of a logical fallacy, it is best to explain in what sense you think they have committed it, and, in the case of straw man fallacies, to reassert your case in clear terms so that the distinction between the false, weak argument and your true position can be discerned.

/pedantry

I'm going to disagree with you slightly. While I agree that straw man claims are overused here and often wrongly applied, I don't think this is always the case in the example you mention.

There are at least two people here that claim that marriage is solely about procreation, therefore same-sex couples cannot marry since they cannot procreate -- thus creating the strawman, knocking it down, and claiming victory. And they do it over and over and over no matter how many times people show that, even using their own arguments, that marriage is not solely about procreation.

I'll agree when these arguments were first applied they were not a straw man. Just that when they continually ignore the evidence to the contrary (waving it away as "irrelevant" or "exceptions" or especially when they twist the argument) and repeatedly claim "procreation", "same sex couples can't procreate", "I win", I think it definitely becomes a straw man.

 

[Beanieboy]

I have to agree with Maren

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Examples

(Hypothetical) prohibition debate:
Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.
Person B: No - any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
(The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e. "unrestricted access to intoxicants").[1]
Political debate:
Person A: The war in Iraq is wrong!
Person B: You cannot convince me that liberty is a bad thing.
(B has equated A's opposition to the war as an opposition to liberty which is easier to defeat).
A beach debate:
Person A: Nude bathing is healthy and nude beaches should be permitted here.
Person B: No, that kind of free sex threatens the morality of society.
(B has misrepresented A's position as a call for sexual promiscuity).
Creation-evolution debate:
Person A: The theory of evolution must be taught in science class.
Person B: No, because the universe works too well to be here by pure random chance.
(B has misrepresented A's position and the theory of evolution as a cosmogony).
Person A: Life got here by creation.
Person B: No, the earth could not possibly have been created in six 24-hour days.
(B is representing A as a young-earth creationist, which is not the only creation theory).

Saying, "marriage is solely for procreation, and gay people can't reproduce, therefore, can't marry", is not a factual error, but substitution.

You don't say, "Madonna, will you have my future children?" You ask to marry the person.
Procreation is NOT the "sole reason" anyone marries, as you can procreate without marrying. That's obvious.
You marry because you love the person and want to spend your life with them. You can marry and never intend to have children. Old people can marry. Infertile couples can marry. "The purpose of marriage= procreation" equates the definition of "marriage" as to "procreation", which it isn't (do we not think someone married until they have children?), ignores all of the examples which negate that proof in heterosexual couples, and then claims to have answered the question or reason of why gay people can't marry that wasn't asked.

I know that I'm not going to get pregnant. I'm not arguing that I can. I'm not 6.
Procreation does not require marriage, and marriage does not require procreation.
So, saying that marriage is solely for procreation purposefully ignores the examples of straight couples who do not fit this category, disqualifying them as "married", or qualifying them as having a marriage without purpose, and "proves" only that same sex couples can't procreate, something that some, and not all, heterosexual couples do.

It doesn't prove why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, because no one is arguing, "I should be able to marry my partner because we can have kids." Straight people don't even argue that the sole reason they marry is to have children, and people ask if they have kids, not how many, as an assumption or requirement. It substitutes "Procreation" with "Marriage and Marriage rights" that are being argued, and thus, a strawman.

 

[Beanieboy]

Is it a strawman to use this reasoning:
A: Gays can't procreate, which is why people marry.
B: Procreation or marriage can be achieved and are achieved without the other.
A: But God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. That is God's will.
B: But you allow atheists to marry.
A: It will threaten the institution of marriage, and heterosexual marriages. And my marriage!
B: You've given me vague threats to a institution with a 50% failure rate. Isn't divorce the real threat to marriage, and yet there is no ban on that.
A: Well, gays can't procreate....

No one is arguing that gays can procreate.
No one is arguing that gays want a church wedding.
No one is arguing that everyone must divorce and marry someone of the same sex.
So, the "answer" is not the question that addresses one of equality and legal rights. That's it.

 

[Shane Roach]

Well, the example you are all using is a strawman, because the argument typically is not that marriage is solely for procreation. It's only slightly more nuanced, but even that slight bit of nuance is typically simply ignored in favor of repeated attempts to claim that since we can find a handful of applications of marriage where kids are not present, that marriage has nothing to do with child bearing or rearing at all.

On the other hand, I am really liking this whole tu coq au vin angle.... I actually looked that up and was like, "what in the devil???"

It's always fun to watch you all when you don't think anyone's watching. Heh...

Strawman. Guh.

 

[jayem]

I really think the tu coq au vin is particularly powerful, as you reject your opponent's position on the basis of them being a delicious French chicken dish.

Lets not forget the post coq, ergo propter coq fallacy. When you see a chicken and a pile of chicken[wash my mouth], it doesn't mean the cause of that pile is that chicken. This is extremely common around here, since many of the posts we read are chicken[wash my mouth].