|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
veistran 
We don't listen to people that don't like us.
Group: Members
Posts: 967
Joined: May 2000
|
 |
Posted on: May 23 2002,07:54 |
|
   |
So, I've been re-reading all these debate threads and what do I see but everyone's favourite argument the strawman used time and again. Here we have CK using the strawman pretty effectively, and then we have DSL using the strawman like a fucking spinmaster. Want to get a word in edgewise? Want to have an intelligent conversation? Too damn bad, one or the other will invade with the strawman argument and then your thread will degenerate from there. Three exceptional examples of the strawman come to us c/o DSL.
strawmen quoted.. comments below.
| Quote | | Unfortunately Veistran et. al have decided to shut down the debate because... well, because they don't LIKE debate, and they're not interested in discovering the truth. They want everyone to think just like them, and they think they have every right to jump and scream stupid shit until the real participants get tired of their antics and leave. |
This type of strawman is really common(I wonder why?), accuse them of not wanting to know the "truth" or the "facts" or not wanting the people to know the "truth" or the "facts." Especially good when someone tells you to stop using strawmen.
| Quote | | 6. They can never admit thier mistakes, even when they have been bitchslapped so hard they see stars (think "the personal income tax is unconstitutional!" - huh?) |
Here we have the first rule of good strawman arguments brilliantly illustrated. When out of on-topic strawmen, bring in a really easily refuted one to get attention. No topic is too inane, this strawman is a great multipurpose one, but must be followed with another.
| Quote | | 8. The people who claim they are the ONLY ones who stand for freedom and democracy are the same people who gave us Richard Nixon and Joe McCarthy. |
Knowing that he must follow up with another strawman DSL picks a real winner. Managing to try and imply that anyone that disagrees with him should be associated with Richard Nixon and Joe McCarthy.
| Quote | | 10. Conservative Muslims blow up our favorite buildings, Conservative Jews think it's cool to shoot unarmed civilians if they're not Jewish, Conservative Christians want to make sure that the only thing we can see on TV is the 700 Club... do you really think that Conservative Americans == the people who want to defend your freedom? Just because someone claims something doesn't mean they are telling the truth... |
Everyone's farvourite, an oldie but a goodie the: Accuse them of being religious fanatics and/or not wanting the "truth" to get out --especially useful whenever it looks like your cover is blown-- strawman. This one is used all over the internet, print media, and even on TV.
---------------
Another pair of awesome strawman tactics are illustrated to us by CK
| Quote | | why does no one answer my questions? |
Don't like what you're hearing? Deny that they actually said anything in response to you. Accuse them of skirting the issue no matter how direct the reply.
| Quote | | not all societies are morally correct. the nazi's tried to exterminate all non-aryans. aztec's slaughterd thousands for religious (possibly economical) reasons. |
Bring up Hitler, the Nazis or the Aztecs whenever your discussion is on morality. They'll be good for proving whatever point you want.
These five strawman arguments only scratch the surface of the use of the strawman here and everywhere. Now that I've taken the time to point out why the strawman is bad, I do hope everyone(yes, this includes me) will be less indulgant in using it. Further I hope this has been fun an educational for everyone.
Disclaimer: Yes I know I've indulged in the strawman here (for greater satirical effect, I hope) and in general(I'm bad, I shouldn't do it, but it's easy to be an asshole).
P.S. DSL, why are you suddenly so indulgant in the strawman? You've been by far the worst abuser in the past week and a half, and that's saying something. I mean we all take CK's use of it for granted, but you've been besting him at his own game. (yes, that was also a strawman)
P.P.S. This is a work of satire.
--------------
V|-
"Headed down the hard way
Concrete battleground
Urban monkey warfare
Sabotage underground camouflage"
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Vigilante
Unrequited Lover
Group: Members
Posts: 719
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: May 23 2002,09:49 |
|
 |
It would be better if you didn't say "strawman" so many times. 
--------------
He says turn the other cheek, but that seems kind of weak
I just want to beat up, beat up the meek
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
damien_s_lucifer
Emperor of Detnet
Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: Jan. 1970
|
|
Posted on: May 23 2002,10:52 |
|
|
it might be more interesting if I actually made straw man attacks, which are attacks on an intentionally distorted (and therefore weakened) version of the opposition's argument.
CK does this, to be sure, and so do you.
let's note for the record that all of your examples are drawn from a post in which I said :
"I'd like to debate with Kuru more, of course, because she's actually doing something interesting and discussing the law and the balance of powers rather than jumping up and down and calling me a stupid hippy."
I then proceeded to attack you directly, because you were fucking up the debate.
however, I'll address your points briefly :
The first quote was a genuine complaint about your tactics, which are not conducive to debate. That's not a straw man argument - it's telling you to shut up because you're being inflammatory and irrelevant.
The remainder of your quotes came from a list of my own observations and questions regarding Conservative tactics, and more specifically the tactics they use to stifle debate - observations which I felt were entirely relevant at that point, given that you were using them pretty blatantly.
You don't even bother to attack my quotes directly. You just cry "straw man!" over and over and then proceed to demolish my arguments on those grounds.
Can anybody tell me what sort of argument that is?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
Wolfguard
Flyswatter of the Apocalypse
Group: Members
Posts: 1696
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: May 23 2002,15:37 |
|
|
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 23 May 2002,05:52) | | Can anybody tell me what sort of argument that is? |
Childish?
--------------
Fucknuggets flamed while you wait.
[url=http://www.teamwolfguard.com]TeamWolfguard.com[/url]
"screw the fireball spells...i got a case of WP grenades and a case of teddy bears!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Necromancer
Ace Rimmer
Group: Members
Posts: 419
Joined: Feb. 2002
|
|
Posted on: May 23 2002,16:51 |
|
|
claiming your "strawman" arguements are for satirical purposes to deflect their meaning. 
--------------
There'll be time for explanations later... and hopefully, some sex
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
veistran
We don't listen to people that don't like us.
Group: Members
Posts: 967
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: May 23 2002,17:07 |
|
|
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 23 May 2002,04:52) | it might be more interesting if I actually made straw man attacks, which are attacks on an intentionally distorted (and therefore weakened) version of the opposition's argument.
CK does this, to be sure, and so do you.
let's note for the record that all of your examples are drawn from a post in which I said :
"I'd like to debate with Kuru more, of course, because she's actually doing something interesting and discussing the law and the balance of powers rather than jumping up and down and calling me a stupid hippy."
I then proceeded to attack you directly, because you were fucking up the debate.
however, I'll address your points briefly :
The first quote was a genuine complaint about your tactics, which are not conducive to debate. That's not a straw man argument - it's telling you to shut up because you're being inflammatory and irrelevant.
The remainder of your quotes came from a list of my own observations and questions regarding Conservative tactics, and more specifically the tactics they use to stifle debate - observations which I felt were entirely relevant at that point, given that you were using them pretty blatantly.
You don't even bother to attack my quotes directly. You just cry "straw man!" over and over and then proceed to demolish my arguments on those grounds.
Can anybody tell me what sort of argument that is? |
A strawman is an argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated. This does NOT have anything to do with whether or not it's actually your opponents stance that you're refuting, any old argument'll do if you can make it sound like it's theirs. Again, I offer you accolades for your mastery of this tactic.
As far as not bothering to attack what you said directly. You need to get something I like to call reading comprehension. It allows you to actually understand what you're reading instead of what you're currently doing, which is as far as I can tell taking shots in the dark as to it's meaning. I attacked the whole basis of your arguments as having been irrelavent, weak arguments brought up by you solely because they were easily refuted. I attacked that your arguments have nothing to do with what was at hand nor what was said either by me or others on the thread. You seem to have a hard time grasping that this is more than just a direct attack on one or more posts, it's a direct attack on the fact that you have no real arguments to raise, they're all just little tiny strawmen for you to beat down.
To sum it all up from both my posts, since you seemed to miss it: 1) stop using the strawman, 2) no really, stop, 3) strawman arguments are crap, 4) I know you have reading comprehension, and you're just pretending to be thick, 5) you need to try and actually stop using the strawman.
necro, I used my strawmen, I hoped, to prove my point about how easy they are to use to prove any point if you're willing to irrelavent enough. I also admitted that I've done it in the past and that it's bad. At least I was honest, eh?
--------------
V|-
"Headed down the hard way
Concrete battleground
Urban monkey warfare
Sabotage underground camouflage"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
damien_s_lucifer
Emperor of Detnet
Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: Jan. 1970
|
|
Posted on: May 23 2002,19:54 |
|
|
| Quote (Wolfguard @ 23 May 2002,07:37) | | Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 23 May 2002,05:52) | | Can anybody tell me what sort of argument that is? |
Childish? |
you made Sprite foam out of my nose 
This is hilarious... I can't believe someone is actually trying to lecture me on reading comprehension and basic critical thinking.
Hey, are you going to teach math to CatKnight too?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
veistran
We don't listen to people that don't like us.
Group: Members
Posts: 967
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: May 24 2002,01:53 |
|
|
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 23 May 2002,13:54) | | Quote (Wolfguard @ 23 May 2002,07:37) | | [quote=damien_s_lucifer,23 May 2002,05:52]Can anybody tell me what sort of argument that is? |
Childish?[/quote]
you made Sprite foam out of my nose
This is hilarious... I can't believe someone is actually trying to lecture me on reading comprehension and basic critical thinking.
Hey, are you going to teach math to CatKnight too? |
So, are you going to actually going to stop using strawmen?  Afterall, that was the point of this thread... and the reading comprehension was more me making fun of your ignoring the point. But you knew that since you have excellent reading comprehension that I dare not question.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
damien_s_lucifer
Emperor of Detnet
Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: Jan. 1970
|
|
Posted on: May 24 2002,03:30 |
|
|
As I've already pointed out, I don't think I'm using the straw man attack, so it's pretty hard to say "yeah, I'll stop."
As for questioning my reading comprehension - of course you have the right to question it. It's amusing because you sound like you're either taking or just completed Critical Thinking 101. I, too, fancied myself the Slayer of Foul Arguments for awhile after that class.
I'm glad you're interested in it, since many people are clueless when it comes to logic.
However, I think if you go back and reread my arguments, you'll find that I'm much more interested in discourse than winning some point I made at the outset. I often revise my arguments and switch my direction of attack several times in any given thread.
Interesting thing about me is that I don't believe myself to be objective, nor to I claim to be. This means I don't have to be right or even rational all the time. It also allows me to rabidly pursue the truth, rather than wasting my time defending some argument I made that turned out to be little more than a nice try 
addendum : A good site about fallacies.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
veistran
We don't listen to people that don't like us.
Group: Members
Posts: 967
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: May 24 2002,08:05 |
|
|
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 23 May 2002,21:30) | | It's amusing because you sound like you're either taking or just completed Critical Thinking 101. I, too, fancied myself the Slayer of Foul Arguments for awhile after that class. |
nope, haven't gotten around to that bit of curricula.
--------------
V|-
"Headed down the hard way
Concrete battleground
Urban monkey warfare
Sabotage underground camouflage"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
