Straw man epidemic

[InfiniteNow]

This likewise is done by people here on this very site all the time, particularly in the Theology forum. But no one ever finds a problem with it.

Bolded above intended to be a strawman, or did it happen w/o realization? :singer:

 

 

Cheers. :ud:

[Kriminal99]

My biggest issue isn't with people misrepresenting others views in debate (because at least they are having a debate) but on the other hand you do see that for example if I were to argue with many people on the same subject some of those people I will have to explain the same argument a hundred times to in order to get them to acknowledge it while others understand, respond seeking further qualification, defeat or accept the same argument after hearing it once. The people you have to keep explaining it to obviously aren't listening to what you are saying and probably have straw man versions of your argument motivating such behavior. However this is still better than acting upon you according to their beleif set and their straw man of your views.

[sebbysteiny]

My biggest issue isn't ...

 

I have an issue with this line of enquiry.

 

I'm not convinced you mean that. Yes it's your thread, but you don't have to have 'an issue' with something to question it. Maybe, after this thread, you might develop 'an issue', but it is enough for you to have an idea that you don't 100% agree with but you think is worth the study.

 

I got annoyed when I was questioning the use of philosophy in another thread when people started accusing me of 'having an issue' with it.

 

And besides, whether or not you have a personal issue with something doesn't really make a difference. It's the arguments you present that matters and considering any other factors is ad hominem.

 

for example if I were to argue with many people on the same subject some of those people I will have to explain the same argument a hundred times to in order to get them to acknowledge it while others understand, respond seeking further qualification, defeat or accept the same argument after hearing it once.

 

Yes, this is very frustrating. I have had this experience too. I personally like to admit when I find something pursasive or at least try and put their argument in my own words for them to confirm just incase I misunderstood what they were saying.

 

Unfortunately many people do not do this and seem to think that simply because they listen to the words, they have heard it.

 

I think the problem here is pride. You don't want to be the idiot who was wrong, but the leader who is right.

 

However, I think that refusing to listen in that way actually displays inferior social status and makes you less convincing and less of a leader, not more.

 

And as evidence for the consensus building approach to pursasion being superior to confrontation, I point to a master at it, Tony Blair. He has been one of the longest and most pursasive prime ministers of UK ever.

 

And besides, if you are wrong, which everybody is from time to time, you get to listen, understand, and be pursuaded yourself.

 

The only question I would ask to your point is, is it a strawman?

 

There is a difference between not listening to another's point of view and actively misrepresenting somebody else's arguments. I'm guessing that you will say, 'but they are misrepresting the other sides arguments to themselves'. If you do, then I'll make a new reply.

[Kriminal99]

If you want to misrepresent my arguments in your basement, by your little lonesome (not you as in you but as in anyone) I don't care.

 

But when you shoot at me based on your misrepresentation of my argument, or tell others that misrepresentation of my argument etc then I care.

 

At least people debating are debating rather than shooting.

 

The problem is that you can't easily identify someone's level of honesty in a debate. Someone can have honest intentions but constantly straw man responses. I think you straw man my responses alot in the other thread, but I don't think you are dishonest I think you just lack the self-skepticism to look more into what I might mean. But then you might think the same of me. On the other hand some people have no intention of making any concession whatsoever.

 

The only way to better debate is to have an active and objective referee who calls debate fouls.

 

Regarding your first paragraph, I meant have an issue with in the sense that it I think it is not logical. I agree that you need not consider motivations when you can just consider arguments instead, although you might consider motivations when there are a lack of arguments or when the opponent uses dishonest tactics frequently.

[sebbysteiny]

I agree that you need not consider motivations when you can just consider arguments instead, although you might consider motivations when there are a lack of arguments or when the opponent uses dishonest tactics frequently.

 

On reflection, I think you're right that motivation is important. I'm not so convinced it hinges on 'dishonest tactics' as this may depend heavily on style. Instead, I think it matters when considering the magnitude of any concession.

 

Eg, if the Anti War coallition were to say 'the war in Iraq was a complete disaster and a waste of human life', it would and should be treated very differently than if George Bush were to make the same statement.

 

I guess in a perfect world, it shouldn't really matter, but since we only have access to and can digest so much information, the knowledge of a concession by one side strongly indicates vaste amounts of evidence not yet published or known that suggests against the side making the concession.

[cwes99_03]

Unfortunately many people do not do this and seem to think that simply because they listen to the words, they have heard it.

 

I think the problem here is pride. You don't want to be the idiot who was wrong, but the leader who is right.

 

However, I think that refusing to listen in that way actually displays inferior social status and makes you less convincing and less of a leader, not more.

 

And besides, if you are wrong, which everybody is from time to time, you get to listen, understand, and be pursuaded yourself.

 

There is a difference between not listening to another's point of view and actively misrepresenting somebody else's arguments. I'm guessing that you will say, 'but they are misrepresting the other sides arguments to themselves'. If you do, then I'll make a new reply.

 

This is actually quite a common problem. Some of it stems from ego/pride, some of it stems from not understanding the other side because of poor penmanship (writing/typing), and some of it stems from simple mistakes in reading/understanding.

Of course for something to be a strawman, it must be intentional. The other side may identify it as a strawman, even when it was not an intentional misrepresentation.

 

Bolded above intended to be a strawman, or did it happen w/o realization? :D

Cheers. :evil:

 

It did in fact happen without realization, though I don't think it is a misrepresentation either from my own standpoint. I do think it goes overlooked constantly, and I do believe it is intentionally overlooked by some because they don't care about the misrepresentation. Thus, while I said none and should have used almost none, the point is generally accepted to be 'so few that virtually none'.

 

On reflection, I think you're right that motivation is important. I'm not so convinced it hinges on 'dishonest tactics' as this may depend heavily on style. Instead, I think it matters when considering the magnitude of any concession.

 

Eg, if the Anti War coallition were to say 'the war in Iraq was a complete disaster and a waste of human life', it would and should be treated very differently than if George Bush were to make the same statement.

 

I guess in a perfect world, it shouldn't really matter, but since we only have access to and can digest so much information, the knowledge of a concession by one side strongly indicates vaste amounts of evidence not yet published or known that suggests against the side making the concession.

 

Thank you for saying such........ ;) Is this a form of dishonest tactic? Some use it often, and even I have used it when I wished to show that they supported my idea without even realizing it.

[IDMclean]

To this:

I guess in a perfect world, it shouldn't really matter, but since we only have access to and can digest so much information, the knowledge of a concession by one side strongly indicates vaste amounts of evidence not yet published or known that suggests against the side making the concession.

 

All I need to say is this:

Nick Naylor: I speak on behalf of cigarettes.

Kid #3: My Mommy says smoking kills.

Nick Naylor: Oh, is your Mommy a doctor?

Kid #3: No.

Nick Naylor: A scientific researcher of some kind?

Kid #3: No.

Nick Naylor: Well then she's hardly a credible expert, is she?

 

and this:

[Nick Naylor and his son arguing about Ice cream]

Joey: So, what happens when you're wrong?.

Nick: Well,Joey, I'm never wrong.

Joey: But you can't always be right.

Nick: Well, if it's your job to be right, then you're never wrong.

Joey: But what if you are wrong?.

Nick: Okay, let's say that you're defending chocolate and I'm defending vanilla. Now, if l were to say to you "Vanilla's the best flavor ice cream," you'd say...?.

Joey: "No, chocolate is."

Nick: Exactly. But you can't win that argument. So, I'll ask you. So you think chocolate is the end-all and be-all of ice cream, do you?.

Joey: It's the best ice cream; I wouldn't order any other.

Nick: Oh. So it's all chocolate for you, is it?.

Joey: Yes, chocolate is all I need.

Nick: Well, I need more than chocolate. And for that matter, I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that,Joey Naylor,that is the definition of liberty.

Joey: But that's not what we're talking about.

Nick: Ah, but that's what I'm talking about.

Joey: But... you didn't prove that vanilla's the best.

Nick: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong and if you're wrong, I'm right.

Joey: But you still didn't convince me.

Nick: Because I'm not after you. I'm after them.