General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUnderstanding the Straw Man or "Aunt Sally" Attack, the Internet's most common debate failure.
Last edited Wed Sep 10, 2014, 06:28 PM - Edit history (3)
"A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.
To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man" and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man" instead of the original proposition.
This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.
In the United Kingdom the argument is also known as an Aunt Sally, after the pub game of the same name where patrons throw sticks or battens at a model of an old woman's head."
.....................
Recognize it and ignore it, the straw man creator can not then play with himself.
Since the target audience is the original author, that would be you, who should be aware of the fallacy, why would you bother?
Illustrated example of senile old man and ex not too bad actor using an empty metal chair as the straw man before an audience of right wing idiots that applaud logical fallacies because, well, they are idiots:
Gothmog
(144,951 posts)The conservatives on that board are true idiots and can not deal with even simple arguments.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Gothmog
(144,951 posts)Most DUers agree on 95% of the issues and the remaining differences do not interest me. The conservatives on Discussionist are idiots and true believes who can deal with facts or someone disagreeing with their talking points.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Gun control.
Supporting our President absolutely by default until proven otherwise.
Failing to understand propaganda and role of mass media and it's insidious influence (though NBC and the NFL are ripping that a good one lately).
Lots of stuff.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)KG
(28,751 posts)point out the obvious to the willfully obtuse
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)If I'm not mistaken, I just created Godwin's Strawman.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Guilt by Association
Guilt by association is discrediting an argument for proposing an idea that is shared by some socially demonized individual or group. For example, My opponent is calling for a healthcare system that would resemble that of socialist countries. Clearly, that would be unacceptable. Whether or not the proposed healthcare system resembles that of socialist countries has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is good or bad; it is a complete non sequitur.
Another type of argument, which has been repeated ad nauseam in some societies, is this: We cannot let women drive cars because people in godless countries let their women drive cars. Essentially, what this and previous examples try to argue is that some group of people is absolutely and categorically bad. Hence, sharing even a single attribute with said group would make one a member of it, which would then bestow on one all the evils associated with that group.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I was referring to your good recommendation not to feed the strawman trolls. I turned your good recommendation into an accusation of you stifling free speech, thus the strawman.