CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4814
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:30 pm
 


Yeah I know there are American members on the site but I suppose there aren't too many who want to be attached to that label anymore after the Bush Era. My point was to highlight some of the more common uses of the straw man of which they have been frequent perpetrators i.e:

Speaker 1: We need to go into Iraq they have WMD's
Speaker 2: I think we should wait until the inspections are finished.
Speaker 1: I can't believe you could support terror like that.

To be fair it's used by people of all political stripes:

Speaker 1: This global warming thing is serious, we need to reduce our CO2 emissions by 50% within 5 years.
Speaker 2: That would cripple our economy and throw us into a depression.
Speaker 1: I can't believe you want to see our planet burned to a crisp like that.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 18770
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:25 am
 


WTF is wrong with Society all over the world. I really don't give a rats ass what religion you are. Shoving someone to the ground, spitting on them, beating the crap out of somone, lynch mobs ect... all because you don't like their religion is disgusting.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 New York Rangers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11240
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:27 am
 


stratos stratos:
WTF is wrong with Society all over the world. I really don't give a rats ass what religion you are. Shoving someone to the ground, spitting on them, beating the crap out of somone, lynch mobs ect... all because you don't like their religion is disgusting.

I agree. I agree with the idea of a secular society however that does not include bullying people on the streets.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 53469
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:11 am
 


N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Pet Peeve: Some people have to learn what a straw man is.

Saying a claim lacks support is not a straw man argument. The anecdotal claims by the CBC are unsupported.

That's not a straw man. This link below is a straw man...(and a good one :wink: )

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... llege.html

See the difference DD? If English is a second language with you I apologize, but it's not just you. A lot of people irritate by not understanding basic definitions of terms.


$1:
Straw Man
Intentionally caricaturing a person's argument with the aim of attacking the caricature rather than the actual argument is what is meant by “putting up a straw man.” Misrepresenting, misquoting, misconstruing and oversimplifying are all means by which one commits this fallacy. A straw man argument is usually one that is more absurd than the actual argument, making it an easier target to attack and possibly luring a person towards defending the more ridiculous argument rather than the original one.

https://bookofbadarguments.com/?view=allpages


So if I used the bit of the story that deals with Muslim head dress laws, and created a caricature of Muslim government workers as thieves to be represented as the argument (as I illustrated with the link) I would create a straw man, would I not, but if I challenge the credibility of anecdotal evidence as I originally did that is not a straw man argument. Correct?


Creating the caricature then attacking it is the 'straw man'. Challenging 'evidence' as hearsay isn't a logical argument if the person presented the 'evidence' as their opinion. Opinions are never right or wrong, they are the premise of the argument and what the writer is trying to prove or disprove.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Now if I had tried to turn the argument into the fact the confrontation with the old lady was three on one, or the only one actually injured in the story was the old lady that might be a straw man. But that wasn't my point. My point was the story was anecdotal, unsupported, and the actual verifiable facts of the story don't necessarily lead us to the conclusion she or he is trying to draw us to.


Correct. You took the evidence apart and exposed an underlying fallicy in the news report 'appeal from authority', ie: "We are the media, and this is what we say happened."

Someone else may see it differently, but you provided your opinion and why you believe it so.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
In fact trying to suggest my argument was only about how the old lady was mistreated would be a straw man, would it not? I mean that's what we could be arguing about right now if I had fallen for it, right?


No, that would simply be the point of debate. As above, someone else sees a different scenario, and gives their opinion on the matter. You can go on agruing how each of you sees things different, or you can concede that neither will convince the other they are correct and move on.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
(OK, I did force the facts a bit, to provide that link of the thieving school board worker who only wore a burqa when it was convenient, but it's a good story. Sue me ;))


Again, saying the old lady was attacked or not is your opinion until you back it up with fact. You might be right, you might be wrong. I think you are right to ask why CBC didn't interview the old lady, because then we'd have a better picture of the whole story and it points to a flaw in the news story that supports your position.

But, saying because one worker wanted to cover her face so as to not be identified is the same as three people attacking an old woman is called 'false equivalence'. They are two unrelated events. Each might lead to a pattern of behaviour you are trying to establish, but only if they are carried out by the same people.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13404
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:53 am
 


$1:
There's no neo-cons here, pal. Just Canadian conservatives, and that's a world apart from the unhinged gong show going on down in the US these days.



... except for some of the old Reform fringe in the West who fancied themselves as wanna-be Republicans. Libertarianism is marginal, at best, in Canada.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:33 am
 


GreenTiger GreenTiger:
stratos stratos:
WTF is wrong with Society all over the world. I really don't give a rats ass what religion you are. Shoving someone to the ground, spitting on them, beating the crap out of somone, lynch mobs ect... all because you don't like their religion is disgusting.

I agree. I agree with the idea of a secular society however that does not include bullying people on the streets.


Maybe it's not bullying. Maybe it's just concern for the well-being of muslim women:

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2013/0 ... rqa_1.html


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21611
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:23 am
 


:|


Last edited by Public_Domain on Sun Feb 23, 2025 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4814
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:05 pm
 


I thought it was interesting after looking into this story that the charter of values aimed to remove turbans from government workplaces but made no mention of the bindi mark that is worn by Hindu women on occasion. There are 3 times as many Hindu residents in Quebec and the Bindi in my view is an equally distinguishing religious symbol. Then I remembered that the Catholic majority also wears a cross of ash on their forehead albeit only for a day. I guess it would be hard to make an argument for the removal of these type of symbols without pissing off a whole lot of their own supporters. Seems a little too selective to be a coincidence in my view.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:13 pm
 


@ DR Caleb: You're right on almost everything, of course. I offered that stupid link, then tried to excuse it. To be honest I was just looking for a place to jam it in, and lied to myself saying exaggerating the point was a humorous way of pointing out the problem.

It's unfortunate, because it destroyed a valid point. However, it's made me rethink what really bugs me about the way, what I call Progs, and activists, throw around the term "Straw Man". I noticed something new, and that's a good thing.

I thought they just didn't know what the term meant, but now I don't think that's it. I think what they do is somebody introduces a straw man argument, then if you get sucked into dealing with it, they recognize it as straw man and start screaming accusations that it's your creation.

Here for example, the actual CBC non-story is a straw man. What the CBC hack really wants you to believe is you should oppose the head dress law in Quebec. He finds somebody with an anecdote and centers the story about suggested but unverified racism.

Has anybody ever made a racist comment to a Muslim in a scarf? Of course. Is that what the issue is necessarily, or only about? Is that particular story verified, or are there other possible interpretations. No, and yes. So the CBC hack created a caricature of racism as the only issue from an unverified story to attack as the issue concerning head dress laws.

OK, so I notice that, and call attention to the story's deficits. The guy who wants everything to be about racism so he can present his side as victim (even though his ideology is not an actual race) notices I'm no longer discrediting the head dress laws with the straw man, bad journalism, anecdote of proposed racism. Racism could be a point to support the argument, but they've tricked you into believing it's the only point with the straw man. They want you to call "racist" every time you hear something, like "Hey, maybe I don't want that strange lady in the burqa issuing me my drivers license. It's unprofessional and feels off somehow." I noticed the fallacy in their argument, so they call, "Straw Man", even though what I'm actually doing is addressing a straw man argument myself. Not only that but as he makes his straw man accusation, he tries to create another straw man by trying to offer up a minor supporting argument as the argument, and attacking the proposal of the unquestioned old lady's possible point that she was knocked to the ground for no reason (which is just as unverified as the CBC's point) as ridiculous. See what I mean? Happens all the time. Happens with exaggerated claims of racism as the only problem in particular.


Last edited by N_Fiddledog on Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 33561
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:30 pm
 


The fun part of Quebec's neo-fascist behaviour is that the law, which isn't even passed yet, is supposed to chase religious symbols out of the government/public sector only; hey, Jew-at-the-DMV, take that stupid beanie off your head while you're processing my driver's license, I'm a delicate Marxist-Quebec flower and I find it offensive!. Yet here we have some busybody going out of her way to harass some stranger who isn't even a government worker over her religion. Nice to see that the Nazis can still get all sorts of little douchebags to volunteer to do the dirty work for them.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 53469
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:38 pm
 


N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
So the CBC hack created a caricature of racism from an unverified story to attack as the issue concerning head dress laws.

OK, so I notice that, and call attention to the story's deficits.


BINGO! It may well be a true story about racism, but the reporter didn't follow the tenents of Journalism and get the whole story.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
The guy who wants everything to be about racism so he can present his side as victim notices I'm no longer discrediting the head dress laws with the straw man, bad journalism, anecdote of proposed racism.


Go back to my earlier post. You can't attack a person's opinion. That in itself is a fallacy. They hold that opinion, and that is the way it is. Someone might percieve this story is about racism, and it might actually be. It might also be a misunderstanding that someone decided to make about race in order to cover their own misconduct, but we'll not know that without all the facts.

But focusing your argument on the facts is the correct way to go about supporting your opinion and logically debating the subject. Take the emotional component (racism) out of the equation, and debate about what we know not what we assume.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Racism could be a point to support the argument, but they've tricked you into believing it's the only point with the straw man. They want you to call "racist" every time you hear something, like "Hey, maybe I don't want that strange lady in the burqa issuing me my drivers license. It's unprofessional and feels off somehow." I noticed the fallacy in their argument, so they call, "Straw Man", even though what I'm actually doing is addressing a straw man argument myself. See what I mean? Happens all the time.


The Formal Logic courses I took in University were a great way to have things like this jump out at me like they were naked with flashing lights all aroung them. Once you get good at Debate, you'll see the error in things like 9/11 conspiracies and 'Freemen of the land' bullshit. It's like virus scanning for the brain.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21665
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:43 pm
 


Nyar, I took me piratin' courses instead. I'll keelhaul ya, ya scuvy blighter.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 53469
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 1:43 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Nyar, I took me piratin' courses instead. I'll keelhaul ya, ya scuvy blighter.


Arrr ye bilge rat! You and which Scurvy dogs?!


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.