Straw man arguments...

[Hayteria]

Recently, in the Respect for Marriage Act thread, someone questioned the idea that gay marriage doesn't affect those not directly involved, using a hypothetical scenario in which a gay marriage was part of a chain of events in a drunk driving case. People were insisting that said person was using that as an argument against gay marriage, despite said person insisting it's not about gay marriage but about that particular argument.

Later in that thread, the same person questioned the extent of discrimination in civil unions that are similar aside from the name, and someone else jumped in with "So bible boy. Why so hung up on the words of marriage and wedding?" but I have yet to see the person that's being said to express bible-centric rhetoric, let alone claim to be "hung up" on opposing changing the definition.

Anyway, I'm using that thread as an example of a much broader problem on this forum, and the Internet in general; why do people so often insist on misrepresenting others' arguments? I suppose sometimes they may genuinely misunderstand others' arguments (not sure if it qualifies as a straw man in that case) but if they do, shouldn't they be open to the idea that they misunderstood, rather than insisting that they knew what said person is saying?

Also, is deliberate misrepresentation of others' arguments any more wrong than jumping to genuine conclusions? Why or why not?

[Town of Mojo]

I suppose random mentally disabled redneck hunter has a more educated opinion than British foreign policy strategists. Correct?

That is correct, Jimmy. I, Town of Mojo - Pray for Mojo - have used a strawman, according to Anticommunist States. Let woe beseige us all in mourning of this untimely passing of Liberal Social Democratic refusal to use thee cursed strawman!

[Ifreann]

The basis of the strawman is to attack something other than what the other guy said because you know you can beat it. Most people who resort to strawman arguments are doing so because they know they'll "win" against it. Other times people are just jaded and cynical, and having seen a million arguments against(for example) gay marriage boil down to "gawd sez we mussn't do it in the butt", assume this one will be the same and argue against this argument as though it were the ones that went before.

[Rigbyland]

Anyway, I'm using that thread as an example of a much broader problem on this forum, and the Internet in general; why do people so often insist on misrepresenting others' arguments?

Perhaps it's because much of the discussion on NS is about politics, a touchy subject for many, but too many of the users on NationStates do that sort of thing, as well as flaming, trolling, etc.

[Ashmoria]

to be fair...

sometimes a poster is conveniently honestly assuming that the strawman is the other persons actual agenda so they are cutting through the BS to get to the heart of the issue.

sometimes they are doing what radio talk show hosts do all the time with great success (its much easier to float a strawman argument when no one is allowed to call you out on it. that makes it very disappointing here.)

and sometimes, as ifreann said, they are just wanting to win so they pretend that they are addressing a much easier argument to defeat.

[GetBert]

Wasn't the Strawman a friend of Dorothy?

[Town of Mojo]

Wasn't the Strawman a friend of Dorothy?

As in Alaska's Dorothy? Ja.

[Ifreann]

Wasn't the Strawman a friend of Dorothy?

He was her token retarded friend.

[Hayteria]

The basis of the strawman is to attack something other than what the other guy said because you know you can beat it. Most people who resort to strawman arguments are doing so because they know they'll "win" against it. Other times people are just jaded and cynical, and having seen a million arguments against(for example) gay marriage boil down to "gawd sez we mussn't do it in the butt", assume this one will be the same and argue against this argument as though it were the ones that went before.

Doesn't it still mean that they're misrepresenting the particular argument they're responding to, whether they intend to or not? And if they jump to conclusions, isn't that THEIR problem in the first place?

For what it's worth, I guess the initial post could use some slight modifications, to address the "really thought they meant it" scenario; I had actually meant to work that in, didn't realize it wasn't addressed.

[Cannot think of a name]

The concept of logical fallacies gets completely abused on the internet, to the point that it's left bloodied and beaten on the side of the road gasping for help.

Every English 1A or equivalent drop out falls all over themselves to quickly sputter out whatever fallacy they can remember to accuse their opponent of instead of just dealing with the faulty argument. Like the equally abused "Godwin" and other battered 'memes' the game has become a race to who can say it first rather than to actually engage. What results is human beings who have surrendered their wit to memes and a half understood concept of fallacies to the point that they themselves start to fail the Turing Test.

Like this-

I suppose random mentally disabled redneck hunter has a more educated opinion than British foreign policy strategists. Correct?

That is correct, Jimmy. I, Town of Mojo - Pray for Mojo - have used a strawman, according to Anticommunist States. Let woe beseige us all in mourning of this untimely passing of Liberal Social Democratic refusal to use thee cursed strawman!

-is actually a appeal to authority. And annoying because NSG posts are not 'in character.' And does it fucking matter? Argue why it's not relevant. Quibbling over what 'kind' of argument it is is like bitching over a part of a sentence is a gerund or a preposition instead of realizing it's timely advice about getting away from the charging tiger.

My advice is to stop flexing your half understood concept of fallacies like it's a flash card test and deal with the arguments. They're fallacies for a reason, they don't work not because they have a name that you can race the other keyboards to typing out like a Zork version of Jeopardy, they don't work because they're faulty logic. If you have to go after the low hanging fruit (and NSG is nothing if not a bunch of people clamoring for the low hanging fruit) just beat the argument and quit trying to convince your first year argument teacher that you were paying attention.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

The concept of logical fallacies gets completely abused on the internet, to the point that it's left bloodied and beaten on the side of the road gasping for help.

Every English 1A or equivalent drop out falls all over themselves to quickly sputter out whatever fallacy they can remember to accuse their opponent of instead of just dealing with the faulty argument. Like the equally abused "Godwin" and other battered 'memes' the game has become a race to who can say it first rather than to actually engage. What results is human beings who have surrendered their wit to memes and a half understood concept of fallacies to the point that they themselves start to fail the Turing Test.

Like this-

I suppose random mentally disabled redneck hunter has a more educated opinion than British foreign policy strategists. Correct?

That is correct, Jimmy. I, Town of Mojo - Pray for Mojo - have used a strawman, according to Anticommunist States. Let woe beseige us all in mourning of this untimely passing of Liberal Social Democratic refusal to use thee cursed strawman!

-is actually a appeal to authority. And annoying because NSG posts are not 'in character.' And does it fucking matter? Argue why it's not relevant. Quibbling over what 'kind' of argument it is is like bitching over a part of a sentence is a gerund or a preposition instead of realizing it's timely advice about getting away from the charging tiger.

My advice is to stop flexing your half understood concept of fallacies like it's a flash card test and deal with the arguments. They're fallacies for a reason, they don't work not because they have a name that you can race the other keyboards to typing out like a Zork version of Jeopardy, they don't work because they're faulty logic. If you have to go after the low hanging fruit (and NSG is nothing if not a bunch of people clamoring for the low hanging fruit) just beat the argument and quit trying to convince your first year argument teacher that you were paying attention.

How could you confuse a gerund and a preposition?

[Kashindahar]

How could you confuse a gerund and a preposition?

[Lacadaemon]

Wasn't the Strawman a friend of Dorothy?

This is also quite LOL.

This is the 2nd LOL thing I have seen on NSG in as many days. Standards must be slipping.

[Muravyets]

I often fall into the trap of anticipating the real foundation of a person's platform of arguments and cutting straight to it, which technically does misrepresent what they actually said, but in those cases, it is my contention that they are presenting a false argument anyway as a front for their real position. I try to be careful to state that very clearly, but it's often just too easy to go for the sucker punch, especially if I'm tired of the fight.

Frankly, there are very few ways to expose a "front" that don't come off as pissy-bitchy, no matter how careful and transparent you are about it, so I say what the hell -- go for it. I'll take that rap if I can expose another poster as dishonest.

[Dyakovo]

Recently, in the Respect for Marriage Act thread, someone questioned the idea that gay marriage doesn't affect those not directly involved, using a hypothetical scenario in which a gay marriage was part of a chain of events in a drunk driving case. People were insisting that said person was using that as an argument against gay marriage, despite said person insisting it's not about gay marriage but about that particular argument.

Later in that thread, the same person questioned the extent of discrimination in civil unions that are similar aside from the name, and someone else jumped in with "So bible boy. Why so hung up on the words of marriage and wedding?" but I have yet to see the person that's being said to express bible-centric rhetoric, let alone claim to be "hung up" on opposing changing the definition.
Anyway, I'm using that thread as an example of a much broader problem on this forum, and the Internet in general; why do people so often insist on misrepresenting others' arguments? I suppose sometimes they may genuinely misunderstand others' arguments (not sure if it qualifies as a straw man in that case) but if they do, shouldn't they be open to the idea that they misunderstood, rather than insisting that they knew what said person is saying?

Also, is deliberate misrepresentation of others' arguments any more wrong than jumping to genuine conclusions? Why or why not?

Considering the fact that in the example thread the only person who engaged Kash in the discussion who said that Kash was arguing against gay marriage was the one who said: "So bible boy. Why so hung up on the words of marriage and wedding?" I have to ask you something. Why do you insist on misrepresenting others' arguments?

[Anticommunist States]

The concept of logical fallacies gets completely abused on the internet, to the point that it's left bloodied and beaten on the side of the road gasping for help.

Every English 1A or equivalent drop out falls all over themselves to quickly sputter out whatever fallacy they can remember to accuse their opponent of instead of just dealing with the faulty argument. Like the equally abused "Godwin" and other battered 'memes' the game has become a race to who can say it first rather than to actually engage. What results is human beings who have surrendered their wit to memes and a half understood concept of fallacies to the point that they themselves start to fail the Turing Test.

Like this-

I suppose random mentally disabled redneck hunter has a more educated opinion than British foreign policy strategists. Correct?

That is correct, Jimmy. I, Town of Mojo - Pray for Mojo - have used a strawman, according to Anticommunist States. Let woe beseige us all in mourning of this untimely passing of Liberal Social Democratic refusal to use thee cursed strawman!

-is actually a appeal to authority. And annoying because NSG posts are not 'in character.' And does it fucking matter? Argue why it's not relevant. Quibbling over what 'kind' of argument it is is like bitching over a part of a sentence is a gerund or a preposition instead of realizing it's timely advice about getting away from the charging tiger.

My advice is to stop flexing your half understood concept of fallacies like it's a flash card test and deal with the arguments. They're fallacies for a reason, they don't work not because they have a name that you can race the other keyboards to typing out like a Zork version of Jeopardy, they don't work because they're faulty logic. If you have to go after the low hanging fruit (and NSG is nothing if not a bunch of people clamoring for the low hanging fruit) just beat the argument and quit trying to convince your first year argument teacher that you were paying attention.

I actually agree whole-heartedly with you - the instance Town of Mojo cited was a complicated one, in which they made repeated half-assed remarks, which included calling me and a couple of others xenophobes. But the matter had been settled peaceably in the end. I have been myself the victim of such argumental fallacy retorts from those who don't agree my actual points. This ends up in a proverbial penis-showing match that takes the thread way off topic on a tangent from hell.

[Melkor Unchained]

to be fair...

sometimes a poster is conveniently honestly assuming that the strawman is the other persons actual agenda so they are cutting through the BS to get to the heart of the issue.

This.

Something I've noticed around here (and this isn't anything new) is that folks will often prefer to make vague statements and implications rather than explicitly stating their position/opinion. This gives the poster wiggle room later, and often grants license to accuse others of strawmannery if someone interprets their post differently. I think there's an occasional tendency to avoid direct statements because it's easier to get called on those than it is for vague hints and intonations, and a lot of the misrepresentation that I've seen has at least something to do with this. For my part, I try to avoid beating around the bush, but since so many other people do it often backfires, and I'm accused of "putting words" in peoples' mouths or for coming to "unfounded" conclusions.

But the OP mentions something I've complained to my brother about on many occasions; very often I'll make an argument and cite an example, only to have my opponent(s) argue the validity/pertinence of the example rather than the argument. They'll say "that doesn't apply" or "that's apples and oranges," and even assuming they're correct, shooting down the example does not equate shooting down the argument. If someone thinks it doesn't fit that's fine, but nitpicking the example doesn't defeat the points as they were made.

[Intangelon]

The concept of logical fallacies gets completely abused on the internet, to the point that it's left bloodied and beaten on the side of the road gasping for help.

Every English 1A or equivalent drop out falls all over themselves to quickly sputter out whatever fallacy they can remember to accuse their opponent of instead of just dealing with the faulty argument. Like the equally abused "Godwin" and other battered 'memes' the game has become a race to who can say it first rather than to actually engage. What results is human beings who have surrendered their wit to memes and a half understood concept of fallacies to the point that they themselves start to fail the Turing Test.

Like this-

I suppose random mentally disabled redneck hunter has a more educated opinion than British foreign policy strategists. Correct?

That is correct, Jimmy. I, Town of Mojo - Pray for Mojo - have used a strawman, according to Anticommunist States. Let woe beseige us all in mourning of this untimely passing of Liberal Social Democratic refusal to use thee cursed strawman!

-is actually a appeal to authority. And annoying because NSG posts are not 'in character.' And does it fucking matter? Argue why it's not relevant. Quibbling over what 'kind' of argument it is is like bitching over a part of a sentence is a gerund or a preposition instead of realizing it's timely advice about getting away from the charging tiger.

My advice is to stop flexing your half understood concept of fallacies like it's a flash card test and deal with the arguments. They're fallacies for a reason, they don't work not because they have a name that you can race the other keyboards to typing out like a Zork version of Jeopardy, they don't work because they're faulty logic. If you have to go after the low hanging fruit (and NSG is nothing if not a bunch of people clamoring for the low hanging fruit) just beat the argument and quit trying to convince your first year argument teacher that you were paying attention.

Holy anal chatter, THIS. ^

THANK you, sir.

[Neu Leonstein]

For my part, I try to avoid beating around the bush, but since so many other people do it often backfires, and I'm accused of "putting words" in peoples' mouths or for coming to "unfounded" conclusions.

Same here.

I'm rarely interested in the actual immediate issue that is being debated. I prefer to try and get at the underlying attitudes, opinions and beliefs of the other side. Personally, I think showing that whatever you're advocating actually conflicts with other things you support is a much more effective way of changing someone's mind.

The problem is that firstly, I can misinterpret the messages people send. But more often, people don't actually sit down and build an internally consistent system of thought from which opinions stem. More often, it's the opinion that comes first, with little connection to anything else the person may support or oppose. In that case, I generally get accused of strawmen and the like.

[Ashmoria]

But the OP mentions something I've complained to my brother about on many occasions; very often I'll make an argument and cite an example, only to have my opponent(s) argue the validity/pertinence of the example rather than the argument. They'll say "that doesn't apply" or "that's apples and oranges," and even assuming they're correct, shooting down the example does not equate shooting down the argument. If someone thinks it doesn't fit that's fine, but nitpicking the example doesn't defeat the points as they were made.

this is one of the most annoying avoidances of addressing a killer argument (the worst being outright trolling where they will never accept any argument no matter how conclusive because that is not their reason for aguing).

examples are metaphors and no metaphor is perfect. arguing that it isnt a good enough example is tedious at best and dishonest at worst.

[Hydesland]

why do people so often insist on misrepresenting others' arguments?

I don't know, why do you in your OP insist on asserting that all Japanese people are paedophiles, you bigot?

[Drachmar]

For my part, I try to avoid beating around the bush, but since so many other people do it often backfires, and I'm accused of "putting words" in peoples' mouths or for coming to "unfounded" conclusions.

Same here.

I'm rarely interested in the actual immediate issue that is being debated. I prefer to try and get at the underlying attitudes, opinions and beliefs of the other side. Personally, I think showing that whatever you're advocating actually conflicts with other things you support is a much more effective way of changing someone's mind.

The problem is that firstly, I can misinterpret the messages people send. But more often, people don't actually sit down and build an internally consistent system of thought from which opinions stem. More often, it's the opinion that comes first, with little connection to anything else the person may support or oppose. In that case, I generally get accused of strawmen and the like.

I agree. I have often found with my conservative co-workers and friends, that finding common ground, and continuing the discussion from there is the best means to communicate your ideas/ideals.

I read most that discussion, and it was downright ridiculous. I mean, please. Argue the constitutionality of an issue, or get down to it and say, "the Bible tells me so." Getting to the heart of a situation is not a bad thing (even utilizing a strawman). But...you have to be tactful. Something I don't see much of here.

Granted, you are going to run across people who will not budge, or get to the point where winning the debate is more important than actually "talking" about it. Then it's just time to shut up. Most people dig themselves a proverbial hole by this time anyways.

[Barzan]

To the OP:

Dude, illogic, lack of relevance, lack of education and knowledge, strawmen...these are problems that transcend this forum. Do you ever watch television in the States? God forbid should one of those places have higher standards than a free forum on the internet...

[Hayteria]

I often fall into the trap of anticipating the real foundation of a person's platform of arguments and cutting straight to it, which technically does misrepresent what they actually said, but in those cases, it is my contention that they are presenting a false argument anyway as a front for their real position. I try to be careful to state that very clearly, but it's often just too easy to go for the sucker punch, especially if I'm tired of the fight.

Frankly, there are very few ways to expose a "front" that don't come off as pissy-bitchy, no matter how careful and transparent you are about it, so I say what the hell -- go for it. I'll take that rap if I can expose another poster as dishonest.

Who are you to claim to know what another person's "real position" is, based on a few posts on a webforum? No one can read minds (unless you count neuroscientists' brain-scanning technologies, which "read" brains in a different sense) and something just sounds arrogant about claiming to know what someone's "real" opinions are over the Internet. Seeing as how this is a pseudonym-centric webforum, on the Internet, I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that we aren't responding to people, but to the characters they are playing.

[Allbeama]

Wasn't the Strawman a friend of Dorothy?

A scarecrow so I guess yeah. But were back in Kansas now, Toto