Is it appropriate to use straw man arguments on this integral forum?
- I don’t know
- I don’t want to give my opinion
The reason I write this post is that I want this forum to be open and inclusive and civilized, exactly as outlined in the community road rules. For some reason I have gotten no response from the moderators in 16 days since I flagged a post and asking the moderators for some feedback. After waiting for about 8 days I even e-mailed the moderators directly to their public e-mail addresses. I have not contacted the administrator of the forum because I know he is very busy and he has delegated the moderating function. And because I know myself enough to expect that I will be upset if he also gave no response.
So another option is to turn to the wisdom of the crowd. I think readers here are individually already very wise (yes I also mean you ), but perhaps you find it easier to vote in an anonymous poll than to give your opinion directly.
I am clearly not targeting any individual, I am only addressing a certain kind of behavior. If someone wants to argue that a certain interaction is not a straw man, or something else unrelated to this poll, I respectfully ask that this is done on another topic. You can probably agree that this current question is more important. Other comments, for example why you answered in a certain way are off course welcome.
I will end by giving a description of what a straw man argument is, quoted from Wikipedia:
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
- Person 1 asserts proposition X .
- Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y , falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X .
This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.
- Quoting an opponent’s words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent’s intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).
- Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person’s arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
- Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
- Exaggerating (sometimes grossly exaggerating) an opponent’s argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.