Ignorance and Racism Leads to 3 Deaths

[realibrad]

Keep dancing. He built the straw man but he didn't knock it down. He still built the straw man. Often, the straw man is so obviously flawed that it doesn't have to be explicitly knocked down.

Who is dancing. I pointed out that technically he did not build a straw man because he did not. For it to be a straw man it would have to have been a similar proposition. The proposition built was not similar because it was mutually exclusive. What was originally said could not have been what was said after by the other person.

Here is an example from wikipedia.

Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:

A: We should relax the laws on beer.
B: 'No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
The original proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has misconstrued/misrepresented this proposal by responding to it as if it had been something like "(we should have...) unrestricted access to intoxicants". It is a logical fallacy because Person A never advocated allowing said unrestricted access to intoxicants.

Note that the straw man built is not what he did. If I say I like blue, and he says I said I like green and only stupid people like green, then its not a straw man. Either its a lie or a mistake, but not a straw man.

As for what else? You were also wrong about his misrepresentation being mutually exclusive.

What he said and what was claimed to be said ARE mutually exclusive. If something is sometimes, it cannot be always. If something is always, it cannot only be sometimes.

Definition of mutually exclusive.

related in such a way that each thing makes the other thing impossible : not able to be true at the same time or to exist together

So no, not wrong. Most is mutually exclusive to ONLY.

 

[jackstar7]

Unrelated to the thread...

http://youarenotsosmart.libsyn.com/067-the-fallacy-fallacy

 

[dank69]

Who is dancing. I pointed out that technically he did not build a straw man because he did not. For it to be a straw man it would have to have been a similar proposition. The proposition built was not similar because it was mutually exclusive. What was originally said could not have been what was said after by the other person.

Wrong. There is nothing in the definition that requires the straw man to be "similar."

Here is an example from wikipedia.


Note that the straw man built is not what he did. If I say I like blue, and he says I said I like green and only stupid people like green, then its not a straw man. Either its a lie or a mistake, but not a straw man.

Wrong. That is most certainly would be a straw man if green was easier to knock down than blue for the purposes of the discussion. Any misrepresentation of someone else's argument is a straw man if it makes their argument easier to knock down. It is easier to disprove an "all" claim than it is to disprove a "most" claim. It was a textbook straw man. Let me know when you are ready to admit your mistake.

What he said and what was claimed to be said ARE mutually exclusive. If something is sometimes, it cannot be always. If something is always, it cannot only be sometimes.

Definition of mutually exclusive.


So no, not wrong. Most is mutually exclusive to ONLY.

He didn't say "sometimes." He said most. If all of <x> do something, it is still perfectly acceptable to say most of <x> do that thing. The only type of person that would take issue with this would be some sort of pedant trying desperately to score a point, maybe to avoid admitting some other errors. Sorry, you are still wrong. By all means, keep dancing. It's quite entertaining.

 

[realibrad]

Wrong. There is nothing in the definition that requires the straw man to be "similar."

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.

Wrong. That is most certainly would be a straw man if green was easier to knock down than blue for the purposes of the discussion. Any misrepresentation of someone else's argument is a straw man if it makes their argument easier to knock down. It is easier to disprove an "all" claim than it is to disprove a "most" claim. It was a textbook straw man. Let me know when you are ready to admit your mistake.

But his position is mutually exclusive. Unless he has established the 2nd half of the straw man, all he did was incorrectly represent his statement. You are trying to say that any misrepresentation or lie is a straw man, and its not. Because he never argued against Y to disprove X, its not a straw man argument. You are trying to say that he was setting up the straw man, but its not a straw man if you dont finish it, its just a lie or misrepresentation.

He didn't say "sometimes." He said most. If all of <x> do something, it is still perfectly acceptable to say most of <x> do that thing. The only type of person that would take issue with this would be some sort of pedant trying desperately to score a point, maybe to avoid admitting some other errors. Sorry, you are still wrong. By all means, keep dancing. It's quite entertaining.

That is not what happened. The original person said that most of the times you hear about group X, its because they shoot up schools. That means without a doubt that they do not always do it, but that is mostly what they do when you hear about them.

What the response was did not have that message. The response said mockingly that group X only shoots up schools.

The initial comment means X does something more than 50% but less than 100%. The 2nd comment said X does something no less than 100%. If the first comment is R=50% &#8804; but >100%. The 2nd comment is R=100%.

If the 2nd comment excludes anything other than 100%, then they are mutually exclusive. The first comment also excludes the 2nd comment, because most inherently cannot be all. Either way, they are mutually exclusive.

Also, just because you say I am dancing around being wrong does not make you look like you are giving a valid argument. I'm sure you use that rhetoric to try and give your self the feeling if being right, but you should realize its wrong.

 

[dank69]

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.



But his position is mutually exclusive. Unless he has established the 2nd half of the straw man, all he did was incorrectly represent his statement. You are trying to say that any misrepresentation or lie is a straw man, and its not. Because he never argued against Y to disprove X, its not a straw man argument. You are trying to say that he was setting up the straw man, but its not a straw man if you dont finish it, its just a lie or misrepresentation.

Haha, we've already been over this. Why is it so hard for you to admit you were wrong? I already explained that you can build a straw man without explicitly knocking it down. It happens all the time.

That is not what happened. The original person said that most of the times you hear about group X, its because they shoot up schools. That means without a doubt that they do not always do it, but that is mostly what they do when you hear about them.

What the response was did not have that message. The response said mockingly that group X only shoots up schools.

The initial comment means X does something more than 50% but less than 100%. The 2nd comment said X does something no less than 100%. If the first comment is R=50% &#8804; but >100%. The 2nd comment is R=100%.

If the 2nd comment excludes anything other than 100%, then they are mutually exclusive. The first comment also excludes the 2nd comment, because most inherently cannot be all. Either way, they are mutually exclusive.

Also, just because you say I am dancing around being wrong does not make you look like you are giving a valid argument. I'm sure you use that rhetoric to try and give your self the feeling if being right, but you should realize its wrong.

100% still qualifies as most to anyone that isn't being pedantic. Give it a fucking rest. Maybe you can be right next time.

EDIT: Here, take a look at this page, specifically the section about the extreme man subfallacy of the straw man. It covers this exact case:

A common straw man is an extreme man. Extreme positions are more difficult to defend because they make fewer allowances for exceptions, or counter-examples. Consider the statement forms:

All P are Q.
Most P are Q.
Many P are Q.
Some P are Q.
Some P are not Q.
Many P are not Q.
Most P are not Q.
No P are Q.
The extremes are "All P are Q" and "No P are Q". These are easiest to refute, since all it takes is a single counter-example to refute a universal proposition. Moreover, the world being such as it is, unless P and Q are connected definitionally, such propositions are usually false. The other propositions are progressively harder to refute until you get to the middle two: "Some P are Q" and "Some P are not Q". To refute these requires one to prove the extremes: "No P are Q" or "All P are Q", respectively.

 

[realibrad]

Haha, we've already been over this. Why is it so hard for you to admit you were wrong? I already explained that you can build a straw man without explicitly knocking it down. It happens all the time.

So, you know the difference between a lie and a straw man because...? By your definition, all lies and misrepresentations are straw men built just never knocked down.

100% still qualifies as most to anyone that isn't being pedantic. Give it a fucking rest. Maybe you can be right next time.

This like of discussion started because of a technicality, so yes, its going to dive into details.

Also no. To most people there is a big difference between most and 100%. You are trying to make the argument because you feel they are the same or close enough.

EDIT: Here, take a look at this page, specifically the section about the extreme man subfallacy of the straw man. It covers this exact case:

You create a straw man because its easier to disprove than the original argument. In doing so you make it seem like you have disproved the original argument as they are similar. If you make the straw man mutually exclusive to the original argument its not a straw man. A straw man must seem to be logically similar. That is the format of a straw man.

You logic is that any misrepresentation or lie qualifies as a straw man. Its inherent to what the purpose is. The purpose is part of what defines a straw man.

I know you will go in circles forever while claiming that its everyone else who does not understand, but you will still be wrong. There is a pretty straightforward definition of a straw man and how it can be used to qualify under its definition. It was not met.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Holy thread derailment, Batman! You two need to get a room.

And for the record, I record the comment that the guy made as: white people that do mass shootings are labeled as mentally ill. He threw in school shootings which seemed to derail the whole conversation. Any time white people do mass shootings, they usually are labeled as mentally f'ed up and not terrorists.

 

[dank69]

So, you know the difference between a lie and a straw man because...? By your definition, all lies and misrepresentations are straw men built just never knocked down.

A lie becomes a straw man the moment you treat it like it is the opposition's actual argument. The end. Whether or not it is ever explicitly knocked down makes zero difference, a straw man has still been built.

This like of discussion started because of a technicality, so yes, its going to dive into details.

Also no. To most people there is a big difference between most and 100%. You are trying to make the argument because you feel they are the same or close enough.

There is a difference, that's why it is a straw man. The original position has been exaggerated. The sad part is that even if these things were mutually exclusive as you claim, it would still be a straw man if it was represented as the original position.

You create a straw man because its easier to disprove than the original argument. In doing so you make it seem like you have disproved the original argument as they are similar. If you make the straw man mutually exclusive to the original argument its not a straw man. A straw man must seem to be logically similar. That is the format of a straw man.

You logic is that any misrepresentation or lie qualifies as a straw man. Its inherent to what the purpose is. The purpose is part of what defines a straw man.

Wrong. Any misrepresentation of your opponent's position to make that position weaker is a straw man. Period. The "all p are q" argument is easier to defeat than the "most p are q" argument.

I know you will go in circles forever while claiming that its everyone else who does not understand, but you will still be wrong. There is a pretty straightforward definition of a straw man and how it can be used to qualify under its definition. It was not met.

It is logically similar. The only difference is degree. One is 100% and the other is 50%-100%.

Who is this "everyone else" you are referring to? Are we adding an appeal to the majority to your bag of tricks? A majority that does not exist?