Is it appropriate to use straw man arguments on this integral forum?

[raybennett]

Here is a short definition of the straw man fallacy that doesn’t include intentionality:

" The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition’s best argument. "

Yet, there are several implied intentionalities.
The intention to attack
The intention to argue
The intention to be weaker or stronger
The intention to have an opposition

If one side never had any of these intentions, then this entire exercise falls under the logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

• False Dilemma - Reducing responses to complex issues to an either/or choice. (Whether someone follows 1:1 debate rules in a discussion involving 10 people and 10 complex, multifaceted open-ended topics is completely irrelevant).

A false dilemma is in the category of logical fallacies “Unwarranted Assumptions”
Just for fun, here are a few other unwarranted assumptions I’ve seen in this polling topic:

• Inappropriate Appeal to Authority - Using an alleged authority as evidence in an argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. (Trying to use the Community Road rules selectively to enforce action that is the OPPOSITE of their intention.)

• Loaded Question - when a question is asked that assumes a particular answer to another unasked question. (The Poll question infers a few things about IL community dynamics)

[FermentedAgave]

Great discussion here on critical thinking, concise dialog, authority, and integral discourse!

[WillE]

Titanium man.

[FermentedAgave]

Love the Titanium Man :-).

I’ll pile on the Hypothesis vs Theory vs Fact vs Law reminder for us. LOL

[Drieske]

Here is a short definition of the straw man fallacy that doesn’t include intentionality:

" The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition’s best argument. "

Yet, there are several implied intentionalities.
The intention to attack
The intention to argue
The intention to be weaker or stronger
The intention to have an opposition

You are quite right, very little of what we do is done without any intention. Do you really think I meant that? Let me clarify: just like Enopio I was referring to the intention to actually make a straw man argument.

If one side never had any of these intentions, then this entire exercise falls under the logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

I think you maybe taking these words too literally. For example for me “attacking” an argument just involves doing anything to question it in some way, which is not at all uncommon.

• False Dilemma - Reducing responses to complex issues to an either/or choice. (Whether someone follows 1:1 debate rules in a discussion involving 10 people and 10 complex, multifaceted open-ended topics is completely irrelevant).

There is some truth in this last claim, in the sense that such a discussion has an entirely different dynamic. But I do not agree that all debate rules become completely irrelevant. Since the only thing being discussed on this topic resembling a debate rule is “Thou shalt not use straw man arguments”, you are implying here that straw man arguments are OK in these other kinds of discussions. Why not just write this openly? Under what circumstances are straw man arguments appropriate for you? Is it some “the ends justify the means” thing?

I think you do the same thing by implying that the question “Is it appropriate to use straw man arguments on this integral forum?” is a false dilemma. Maybe it is, but nobody here has proposed a third option in the subsequent discussion, except you in a very roundabout way.

A false dilemma is in the category of logical fallacies “Unwarranted Assumptions”
Just for fun, here are a few other unwarranted assumptions I’ve seen in this polling topic:

• Inappropriate Appeal to Authority - Using an alleged authority as evidence in an argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. (Trying to use the Community Road rules selectively to enforce action that is the OPPOSITE of their intention.)

You are making a weak analogy here. (*When an analogy is used to prove or disprove an argument, but the analogy is too dissimilar to be effective, that is, it is unlike the argument more than it is like the argument*) If you want to prove that someone here used an alleged authority as evidence in an argument just show it.

* Loaded Question - when a question is asked that assumes a particular answer to another unasked question. (The Poll question infers a few things about IL community dynamics)

So what is such an unasked question that the poll question assumes a particular answer for? That there exists such a thing as appropriate behaviour for this forum?

As they say in my language “Wie A zegt moet ook B zeggen”

[Drieske]

Thanks WillE, titanium manning looks like a really good integral practice both individually and collectively. That was also a good definition of straw manning: “A distorted misrepresentation of one’s argument or position, which often involves oversimplifying it. When one attacks a strawman instead of one’s actual argument, this is called the “strawman fallacy.””

Welcome too, FermentedAgave, and thanks for the reminder to use the right terms.
I think I need to give some background information to help understand where some of raybennets and my personal remarks come form. Like I mentioned at the beginning of this topic, It started with an interaction on another topic, here is a link to that topic

Insurrection, Censorship, and Madness

No, that is not Domestic terrorism.
Being “funded” does not make an organization terrorist. Millions of organizations and charities could not exist without funding. Charities are not terrorist, either.
Having “foreign” associations also does not make an organization terrorist. Obviously the International Olympic Committee “was formed by foreigners” - but the Olympics is not a terrorist organization.

So the answer is No.

Eastern European Countries are not Anarchist. If they were, they would not be counties, because Anarchy means no Government. Anarchy is also the complete opposite of Communism, which was the form of Government most common in Eastern Europe prior to the current Democratic Governments.

So again, No.

This was a direct reply tot the previous post:

Insurrection, Censorship, and Madness

What do you mean by “domestic terrorism”??? Antifa and BLM Organizations???
As far as I learned, both of those are funded–they are getting paid for what they have been doing to this Country and American people. Also, as far as I know, Antifa is formed by foreigners from eastern European countries which are anarchist.

Sooo, is that domestic terrorism??? or is that what the media calls it???

With only a bit titanium or even steel manning we can see that Alexa is very concerned about the actions of BLM and Antifa. I think the question she is asking is whether they are deliberately using violence for political aims, and can therefore by many definitions be considered a terrorist organization.

But the 3 claims that raybennett chose to react to are :

• Antifa and BLM Organizations are terrorist organisations because here are funded

• Antifa and BLM Organizations are terrorist organisations because they have foreign associations

• Eastern European countries are anarchist

The first two are extremely weak arguments, not made by Alexa. The last claim is actually made by his opponent but in the way it is stated here, it is not even an argument. According to the last definition I posted, at least the first two are straw man arguments. I pointed this out to him, and informed that I flagged some of his posts.

At the start of this topic I wrote the following:
“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.”

This was to avoid the discussion to be steered in a certain direction, there are other topics where this could be done. But since raybennett is now defending his behaviour in a more indirect way, by questioning the definition of a straw man and its relevancy in discussions on his forum I think it is better to lift this restriction. Please help raybennett and me to titanium man his arguments and try to argue that these are not straw man arguments (after you have stated which definition you prefer to use).

[FermentedAgave]

I personally voted for IL authorities to allow Straw Man Arguments. Last thing I would want to see is lively discourse getting “shut down” based on semantics or styles.

And having said this, we each have a personal responsibility to try to “forward the conversations”, as opposed to “bringing them down”.

About the only thing I personally would consider flagging is a direct ad hominem attack. Anything else could be considered “spirited discussion”.

[raybennett]

The first two are extremely weak arguments, not made by Alexa. The last claim is actually made by his opponent but in the way it is stated here, it is not even an argument. According to the last definition I posted, at least the first two are straw man arguments. I pointed this out to him, and informed that I flagged some of his posts.

LOL - I replied to literally what she wrote.
She said it in such chop-suey poorly constructed sentences / questions that it’s hard to reasonably conclude exactly what her real intent was. You are using your extra special ESP powers to divine her intent behind what she said. Also throughout the three months since, you have tried to show ESP powers to magically know my intent. You’ve been off the mark with trying to figure out my intent, so I don’t give credence to your ability to know anyone else’s intent. You are right that her their point wasn’t even an argument - nothing in her post was actually a cohesive argument.
So therefore any response can not be a straw man argument, because there is no defined proposition A in the first place.

When I say “ESP”, it’s facetiously. I can’t be bothered at this point to look up the Latin name for basing an argument on thinking you know what is going on in someone else’s head.

So keeping with this issue of straw man …

Can a straw man argument be made against A when it isn’t even clear what the original argument A is?
No.
In order to be a straw man argument “B”, the original argument “A” has to be clear. A has to be an actual argument, not just a bunch of random wild thoughts.

Moreover, the discussion topic was the Insurrection.
The Topic of BLM and Antifa was the straw man, if anything. It’s a very insidious segway the right uses quite frequently to deflect discussion away from topics they don’t want to light shined on. We were discussing the Insurrection and the straw man of the right is “What about BLM”?

The author (Alexis) attacked an argument (BLM and Antifa) which was different from the “opposition’s” best argument (that the causes of the insurrection are very complex and multifaceted with a very long history and are not equivocal to BLM).

How much credence should I give to being accused of straw manning an argument that is itself a straw man? I chose to give it zero.

Now, if I had been accused of appeal to ridicule or appeal to absurdity THAT would have ben more accurate. It’s completely unnecessary to redirect a discussion away from ridiculous points. It’s much more revealing to show them in all their glory. What I did was decipher to the best of my ability what she was saying and offer what I believed were literal answers to her questions as I could perceive them.
I suppose you can make another poll if that is acceptable behavior.
But it isn’t straw manning.

Now that the OP has provided a link to the discussion that originated this poll … yeah … go and read it in all it’s glory and determine for yourselves if I was straw manning.

I’m disappointed but also find it a bit funny that the OP has brought this discussion back to being about me personally despite at the outset writing:

I am clearly not targeting any individual

That is what this is all about.
The Poll isn’t just about if straw man arguments are appropriate in general - but was also motivated by the OP’s strong belief that someone (specifically me) did make a straw man argument. Having established in his mind conclusively that a person did make a straw man argument, he decided some kind of intervention was appropriate by moderators. When that intervention did not occur, he started this poll.

[Drieske]

The Poll isn’t just about if straw man arguments are appropriate in general - but was also motivated by the OP’s strong belief that someone (specifically me) did make a straw man argument. Having established in his mind conclusively that a person did make a straw man argument, he decided some kind of intervention was appropriate by moderators. When that intervention did not occur, he started this poll.

This part is true, but if you put it like that it could appear that I tried to hide this or was myself unaware and that you had to “uncover” this. I was honest from the start, let me show this with another quote somewhat earlier than the one you picked:

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.

And now based on something I wrote almost 3 months later you think you have proof that “targeting you” was “what it is all about” and that I have contradicted myself. If I wanted to target you I don’t needed to do it in such a roundabout way. I could just start a topic with your name in the title. I think what I quoted and wrote in my previous comment and your response to it helped readers, including myself to understand your previous reactions better.

I notice that you don’t make it clear what definition of straw man you are using, while it is clear you want a different one than the three already mentioned here. That is OK but if you want me to respond to your “defense” that will be necessary. I leave it up to you.

[raybennett]

And now based on something I wrote almost 3 months later you think you have proof that “targeting you” was “what it is all about” and that I have contradicted myself. If I wanted to target you I don’t needed to do it in such a roundabout way. I could just start a topic with your name in the title. I think what I quoted and wrote in my previous comment and your response to it helped readers, including myself to understand your previous reactions better.

You really should give up attempting ESP. You really suck at it.
Several times you’ve projected your own shadows onto me.
You have this whole persecutor-victim thing going on where you project onto me the role of a persecutor, then follow up with projecting onto me a victim role.
You are projecting a whole situation, lol.

I don’t feel targeted, lmao. Stop with the delusions.
You have this whole victim-persecutor thing you have repeatedly tried to project onto me.
And all I have to say is you are full of shit.
Yes, you are probably completely aware of this and in our private messages you asked me not to venture into your shadows and instead allow you to work through it yourself, and I agreed.
But enough already.
Your whole victim-persecutor-savior projections are all your own imagination.
Throughout this whole discussion I have tried to keep it on the topics being discussed, but you keep hallucinating that there is something else that you know I am thinking.

You dragged the “Insurrection” discussion off topic with your dysfunctional desire to rescue Alexis from a straw man argument. Rather than dealing with the actual topic of the Insurrection, you diverted it. That’s what shadows do. Rather than actually face a topic that triggers them, they divert.

If you had any emotions through any of that discussion or this discussion - they have nothing to do with me. They are all your own self-created fantasies.

I would have really liked to deal with the insurrection topic and all the shadows it brought out in people, and the only emotion I have about that whole discussion is disappointment (sadness) that we didn’t get to do that.
Because I feel that the insurrection put on display our completely worst shadows out in the open.
And not just in the USA - you have to look at what happened in the US insurrection as it probably applies to your country.

With this discussion on straw man - I was debating the topic and you still don’t understand what my point is even though I’ve rephrased it several times. Take whatever definition you want, you still apparently didn’t understand my point on the topic - and again diverted it to some kind of thing about me personally. I was discussing the topic and I even tried to keep others as well as you on-topic in the discussion you created, lol.
Do you see how funny this is - you made a topic and made rules for discussing this topic - then you fucked your own discussion by dragging it off-topic, lol. But you never really wanted to know what other people were thinking, I suppose. You just made some kind of topic to perpetuate some kind of delusions you had going on in your mind. Earlier in the discussion I might have been curious what your real motives were in creating this discussion (it obviously isn’t as first stated). I really can’t even begin to guess what reason you had for making the poll - but at this point I’ll just leave you to your own internal storyline and exit stage left.

(Don’t read too much into me cursing, by the way. I’m just talking plainly now and uncensored).

[excecutive]

Should we interpret the left exit as you’ve finally conceded to your shadows or will this inspiring discussion be revived again? Both you and Drieske are pretty articulate. Reading through these discussions has been very informative. Thank You!

[raybennett]

Should we interpret the left exit as you’ve finally conceded to your shadows or will this inspiring discussion be revived again? Both you and Drieske are pretty articulate. Reading through these discussions has been very informative. Thank You!

Haha!
Yes - I did have a screen to be projected upon.
But even with that it’s important to distinguish the screen is not the source of the projection.

By exiting stage left, you might say I’m rolling up my screen. Just on this straw man topic and individual.

On the original topics of BLM and the insurrection there is still a lot to unpack.

[Drieske]

Should we interpret the left exit as you’ve finally conceded to your shadows or will this inspiring discussion be revived again? Both you and Drieske are pretty articulate. Reading through these discussions has been very informative. Thank You!

Welcome excecutive and thanks for the compliment. I am a bit surprised that you find this inspiring and informative. But since sarcasm doesn’t work well online and you read until the end, I will take your word for it. I am interested if you could share something that you learned.

I hope your comment hasn’t brought raybennett back permanently to the stage after his exit earlier. It is probably like in the end of a horror movie (Cape Fear comes to mind) where the psychopath comes back one more time before staying dead.

He has really crossed a line for me by revealing information from what I wrote in a private conversation.
As was often the case he is using this information to paint a partial picture of me. As often, I feel the need to make the picture more complete.

So here is what I wrote to him on february 9:

"Once a day is great. I really appreciate that you are willing to spend some time on this. I will try to keep it short and to the point.
I do have something going on within myself. I think this is going to work only if you let me figure out this myself. If you feel I am projecting things on you please just refute it and don’t redirect it at me or try to analyze me. You [can] however also let me know how it makes you feel.

I like to think that it is not just about me but also about this forum that I care about. Your contribution on the forum is relevant to that so that is why I feel I have to bring this up in our private communication.
Having said this, my most pressing question to you is this. Do you
1)refute the following or
2) are just OK with it or
3) something else
:that you are using straw man arguments on this integral forum.
…
"

I want to learn more about my shadows but at that time I already had noticed that raybennett was either very bad at detecting my shadows and analyzing me or was just using it as a strategy. So I wanted to avoid that. This has not improved.

Why would I want to project for example the persecutor on him? As you can see, I really “own” this role, I am really good at it and I even enjoy it sometimes, I can say without shame. Why would I project this aspect of myself on someone who is so pathetic at it, someone who can’t even “man” up to admit he is doing it?

I am no psychologist, but I don’t think this is how this works. If I do project something on raybennett, I would expect it more likely to be something like these:

• the part of myself that wants to shut people up that don’t disagree with me
• the part of me that wants to be able to judge people by their altitude based on reading a few words written in an emotional state
• the part of me that wants to use logical fallacies as an easy way to win an argument
• the part of me that hopes it can get away with lying and distorting the truth on an integral forum
• the part of me that wants to attack people when they show that I have not followed the road rules
• the part of me that wants to blame people instead of taking responsibility for my own actions
• the part of me that wants me to look smart and integral by using fancy terms I do not even have to understand
• the part of me that doesn’t want to admit that I don’t understand something a person is saying and just lets my bias decide
• the part of me that finds it safer to use very vague accusations
• the part of me that wants to insult people and then ask people to not read too much into it

…there is just too much choice

In my language, transactional analysts refer to the persecutor as “aanklager” which translates as “prosecutor”. So let me continue my prosecution.

His defense regarding the straw man accusations is that he didn’t understood what arguments the other person made and that he thought that she was herself straw manning. And that he tried to decipher her to the best of his ability and answer her questions.

I think he is lying.

From his answer “No, that is not Domestic terrorism.” it Is clear that the question he was answering was “Sooo, is that domestic terrorism???”
Is that so hard to decipher? So the statement they were discussing was clear to both. The term “that” obviously referred to Antifa and BLM organizations, there was also no misunderstanding about that.

He could have just left his answer that way. But he chose to make it appear that he was making logical conclusions. By fabricating arguments from something that he calls “a bunch of random wild thoughts”. And then providing an example to show these constructed arguments are wrong.

That is straw manning.

[excecutive]

Drieske, thank you for touching me here in the forum. To answer your request, I found this string informative and entertaining. Watching the debate styles and arguments develop in real time as I read over the two conversation strings. I was impressed with you’re powerful reasoning skills and rational arguments and how they were skillfully pulled apart and rebutted by raybennett.

I am not here to make an argument or take sides, only the two of you together could bring such a sharp focus to the discussion, together you both helped me to understand. There was a degree of sarcasm on the “exit left” reference because Ray clearly is not Integral with his ability to hide his bias nor is he as concerned with others as You seem to be. I.E, The way he addressed You, Alexa and Isabel who dared to provide a counterbalance to his passionate left leaning point of view.

It certainly is very clear to me that you are both highly intelligent and that I would fall flat on my face in any discussion with either of you. Drieske I find you much more Integral with your approach and arguments which were clear and rational. I would prefer you in any courtroom as the rational voice of reason. Ray is the entertainer and flamboyant artist to keep the show going.

I would encourage you to keep being Integral. Know that through reading these dialogues Ray may appear to win more battles but to me you are the obvious winner of the Integral Life. I do thank you both for being the voices for those of us who could not do what you do. ~ Peace

[Drieske]

excecutive, thank you for so much praise! I am just a vessel for wherever these ideas come from, I am often amazed myself that I wrote them. I am glad the message got through to you.

I found your comment “as you’ve conceded to your shadows” also very much on the mark, the way I interpreted it. And you are the first person in 3 months that was able to give a detailed opinion on the debate, that also speaks for you.

If I currently had to guess what I am projecting on raybennett, it would be something involving fear. I am not very friendly with my fears. I learned to think you had to choose between love and fear. Yesterday I learned in an integral workshop by Winnie Winters titled “Shake your shadow” that that is a biased comparison, just like comparing caring and selfish. Because you compare the healthy version of one quality (love) with the distortion (exaggeration) of another quality like alertness. Or in the second case the healthy version of care for others with the distortion of selfcare. The idea is that you embrace both qualities and balance one of the pair with the other. Peace to you too.

[excecutive]

Drieske You are amazing and right on point I truly do “hear you” in a positive and connective way!

I’ll share my own riddle here for you. … “Fear is the doorway to mastery. The faster you open those scary doors the faster and farther you will travel along the path of wisdom … to overcoming all darkness and fear …because soon you will KNOW you are the source of light.” ~ Peace

[Drieske]

Thank you, that is excellent advice.
During the conference there was a workshop about the “heroes journey” and the “monsters journey”. As you all probably know, after slaying the monster, with some help, it is the heroes task to bring back the wisdom that he gained to his village.
Here is something I learned about recognizing strawmanning in the last part of the discussion. We saw raybennett (or if you want, this innocent blank screen I am projecting my shadows on), in order to try to justify his actions accusing others of strawmanning.

He was clearly only using the second definition of the three I mentioned: “The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition’s best argument.” because his argumentation is the following “The author (Alexis) attacked an argument (BLM and Antifa) which was different from the “opposition’s” best argument (that the causes of the insurrection are very complex and multifaceted with a very long history and are not equivocal to BLM)”

I leave it up to you to decide if this makes sense. I think that even amongst honest debaters, and people who use some effort to understand what the other person is saying, it can be unclear or subjective what the strongest arguments are. So I think that this second definition I gave taken on its own is only useful to evaluate your own arguments. And even then there are still many valid reasons why you could choose to respond to an argument that is not the strongest.

So on this topic I would prefer to use the definition from the page about titanium man.

“A distorted misrepresentation of one’s argument or position, which often involves oversimplifying it. When one attacks a strawman instead of one’s actual argument, this is called the “strawman fallacy.”

At this moment, of the 7 people who voted on the topic question 6 voted no and 1 yes. Here I propose one way to act on it that I think also respects the concern of the person who voted yes.

Imagine that you see that someone may have used a strawman argument on this forum and you find it important enough to bring attention to it. But you don’t want to discuss it (further) on that particular topic. You can post a link to that particular comment right here in this topic. If you do that there will also be a link automatically added under the post that you found concerning showing the title of this topic. The author can easily miss this so I would notice him privately.

I am curious how all this will evolve.

[FermentedAgave]

Of the 7 voters, I seem to have been the solitary “yes” vote. As I stated earlier, my “yes” vote was against what I considered a very basic authoritarian policing request.
Now having said this, use of a Strawman Fallacy doesn’t have a place for high level share/listen discourse. But then likewise one person’s quest to understand or be understood might be seen as regressive and perhaps one of the egregious strawmen to someone else.

Being new to the community, my observation is that this is an extremely small community given the scope of the internet. Reality is that there just aren’t many people to get “Integral” with here. Are rules on how to be integral really “being” all that integral?

[Drieske]

I hear you, FermentedAgave. I respect that you stand for your ideas even if it seems a minority view. But perhaps there is not so much disagreement. I would argue anyone’s quest to understand or be understood might just as well work without straw manning (or lying, for that matter).

Here are some other thoughts that came up:

• One reason it is a small community is perhaps that a lot of “integral people” don’t find a forum the most suitable medium to interact with other people. This occurred to me after having more “live” interactions the last couple of days, even if it was through zoom, I had more sense of connection amongst other things.

• Maximizing freedom and rules (or guidelines) for how to behave are not contradictions is one of the lessons I learned. I am not saying that is exactly what you are saying. But you seem to be saying that less rules would make more people welcome?

• While I focus here on the straw man arguments, these themselves were not really what started the discussion. It was because the way I saw it, these were being used to censor new members.

• The guy who was doing it fears that the forum will be taken over by “red” or “amber”. I think, based on experience, that if any color is taking over this forum it is most likely the unhealthy version of green

[raybennett]

The guy who was doing it fears that the forum will be taken over by “red” or “amber”. I think, based on experience, that if any color is taking over this forum it is most likely the unhealthy version of green

For fuck’s sake, this is getting really tedious.
Enough of trying to guess my motivations and using that as a reason for anyone to do anything.