The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.
Emphasis mine. As per Tresopax's incredibly inane examples, I shall put it into the ways this is used with the homosexual marriage argument:
If homosexuals should be able to marry, then so should polygamists. This tactic also employs the liberal use of slippery slopes on top of straw man, because not only is the arguer saying that if a sequence of events brings about A that B (which is unrelated to A) is justified, but that the sequence of events that bring about A mus, under all circumstances, bring about B, despite their being unrelated. This is used most often by those of a faith which has had polygamy in its history (Islam, LDS, Judaism).
Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because polygamists cannot marry. The argument for polygamy not only has social precedence (with polyamourous relationships), but has religious precedence (different faiths with histories of polygamy), giving it more (ecumenical) ammunition in its favor. And the conclusion that is drawn is that since this obviously (to the arguer) "stronger" argument is not allowed, then the percieved weaker one should not be. This is used most often by those not affiliated with a faith that previously had polygamy (Protestants, Catholics, etc.).
If homosexuality should be allowed, shouldn't polygamy be allowed as well? This argument implies that if A, then B. However, it totally disregards that A does not equal B, and implies a causal relationship where there is none (which uses a bit of slippery slope). Still, it uses a separate condition to argue a completely unrelated condition as if they were one in the same. This has been used regularly here at Hatrack, and is indeed what Tresopax himself has used at least once.
And I fully expect the slew of "That's not right!" posts, and a bunch of hemming and hawing about how that's not what one was implying, that they were implying what Tresopax was saying in his thread. Suffice to say I do not believe you, but since I sincerely hope your self-worth is not dependent on my believing you, it shouldn't be a problem. After all, I've been disbelieved quite a bit more regularly, with more words used in-between the "I," the "don't," the "believe," and the "you." If I can survive it, so can you.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, no one was attacking an argument that was different from, and weaker than, what you were proposing. They were taking general prinicples which you had stated in support of your position and applying them to another situation.
Specifically, it's not right because none of those examples attack an argument that is different from the one the opposition is giving. In your explanations of why they are wrong, you never once mention any way in which the argument is misrepresenting the other side or attacking something the opposition doesn't really believe in. Instead you attack them for being fallacious, or for having wrong premises, or for comparing two "unrelated" things - which may make them bad arguments, but does not make them Strawman arguments by your definition or mine.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comparing two unrelated things to attack an argument given by the opposition is not the same thing as attacking an argument unrelated to the opposition's argument.
I really wish you people would learn to spell. Its spelled "add homonym" and it means to add a word that means the opposite.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Polygamy is an argument unrelated to homosexual marriage, Tres. Seriously, you're really reaching here.
Yes, but they aren't attacking polygamy.
They are attacking the argument that gay marriage should be legalized because there is no "good" (non-religious, rational, etc.) reason for it to not be legalized, by arguing that there is no better justification for banning polygamy. Since proponents of gay marriage do, in fact, argue gay marriage should be legalized because there is no good reason to ban it, this is attacking an actual view of the opposition - not an unrelated view.
quote:As is racist legislation and the problem of rampant divorce among heterosexuals.
Bigoted legislation isn't, and divorce rate is applicable to the claims of "preserving marriage," not homosexuality itself. Considering I used both in those contexts, and made it clear for each one, your insistence that I have done otherwise means you either haven't read what I've repeatedly said, or you don't care what I actually say, just what you feel I say.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Considering I used both in those contexts, and made it clear for each one, your insistence that I have done otherwise means you either haven't read what I've repeatedly said, or you don't care what I actually say, just what you feel I say.
Ditto.
And I seem to remember the divorce argument being something like "heterosexuals are screwing up marriage with the high divorce rate, so they have no room to argue about homosexuals destroying marriage." Isn't that a prime example of ad hominem tu quoque?Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your memory is bad. It was "if people are so determined to preserve marriage, why is the divorce rate around fifty percent?"
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is an equally worthless argument. The obvious answer is that some people want to preserve marriage, while others aren't trying or don't care.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's too bad that one person can get several divorces and they are all counted in the statistics. I think a better statistic would be how many divorces occur in a year, per the number of marriages.
posted
Well, I agree, except with regard to the preservation of marriage. After all, is it less of a failure after you've done it more than once?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think pooka's point is that counting multiple divorces for the same person makes it appear that a smaller percentage of people who marry stay married than is actually the case, thus understating the percentage of people who believe in the sanctity of marriage.
By the way, if you add the word "Pepsi" to the above it becomes a perfect example of an "add homonym to Coke" argument.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, I'm afraid your examples aren't very good ones. The "homosexual marriage will lead to polygamy" is a logical fallacy, but it's NOT a straw man; it's a slippery slope argument.
"Homosexuals want to destroy marriage" is an example of a straw man, as is "homosexuals just want the insurance benefits of marriage." In this case, you're making up elements of your opponent's argument so that you can argue against what is, in fact, not their actual position. Most homosexuals seeking marriage are not solely interested in financial benefit and do NOT want to destroy marriage, but you'll see people arguing against THOSE points regularly.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
<Would comment on the difference between an antonym and a homonym, but is staying out of this thread.>
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:John, I'm afraid your examples aren't very good ones. The "homosexual marriage will lead to polygamy" is a logical fallacy, but it's NOT a straw man; it's a slippery slope argument.
And I included that in two of the examples as being used along side the straw man arguments. Did you even read what I wrote? Not everyone uses the "one will lead to the other" argument when they bring up polygamy.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But not everyone can agree that it's not a sound argument. That's part of the problem. Even here, people still make it.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is an actually example of a Strawman from another thread
I said
quote:We should replace the legal institution of marriage, with an "Adult Domestic Partnership". Any two (or more) consenting adults who wished to accept the legal responsibilities associated with such a partnership, would be granted the rights of such a partnership. Marriage would then be left as a purely religious institution. Every religion would be free to decide what types of marriages they would endorse but their endorsement would have only moral standing, not legal standing.
Occasional then said
quote: on the othe hand I don't see the government getting out of it because of legal and financial issues marriages (and I consider any partnerships for sexual reasons as still marriage, even when you change the name) create.
Farmgirl then said
quote:If the government tried to step totally out of the marriage picture altogther, and allow an "anything goes" mentality -- then people could put down their favorite dog as their spouse, etc. After all, there would be no definition of marriage at all to prohibit that. Then said dog could get benefits...
Farmgirl and Occasionals responses are both Strawmen, (Please don't take offense, it may be my fault for inadequately communicating my ideas) because the ideas they are attacking are such simplified versions of my proposal that their objection are irrelevant.
[ March 09, 2004, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, several people repeatedly stated that they were bringing up polygamy to show you that your own reasoning for supporting homosexual marriage was flawed. Taking a certain line of reasoning and applying it to a different situation is not a straw man argument. It's an analogy.Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't think you can use polygamy to discredit John's arguments re homosexual marriage.
John has admitted that he sees nothing inherently wrong polygamy. So on a theoretical basis, John would accept polygamy just as he would accept homosexual marriages.
It is on the practical level that John sees a difference. John believes that historically, polygamy has been a tool used to oppress women. The same argument cannot be made against homosexual marriages, since I do not know of any evidence, historic or otherwise, showing any systemic negative effects of gay marriage.
I apologize if I have misrepresented your views John, but that is the impression I got from your arguments on the multiple threads.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a reasonable analogy when they are completely unrelated.
And funny thing: I recall no flaws being pointed out, and a whole lot of intentional twisting of what I said into what I did not, along with making a case for polygamy. Like I said close to the end of my posting there, I don't think the theory of polygamy is what should be banned (just every implementation that has existed thus far), though I am positive there is nothing I can do to stop people from thinking otherwise.
But like I said, making excuses for using a poor argument. Thanks, guys.
No, vwiggin, you had it pretty good. Danke.
[ March 09, 2004, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So what is ad hominem(sic)? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really wish you people would learn to spell. Its spelled "add homonym" and it means to add a word that means the opposite.
I support Dobbie's view on hominy.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I agree with you on your claim that homosexual marriage and polygamous marriage are totally unrelated. After all, they are both marriages that currently aren't legal and that some religious groups don't endorse.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're missing the point Nato - they're completely unrelated because John says they're unrelated...
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, you don't understand. The bestiality comment is not a straw man because bestiality is mentioned; that's just a slippery slope.
It's a straw man because you never proposed that, as Farmgirl put it, "the government ... step totally out of the marriage picture altogther, and allow an 'anything goes' mentality."
The argument that homosexual marriage will lead to a legal position which would eventually grant polygamous and/or bestial marriages is a slippery slope argument. Saying that you want government to let anyone marry anybody else, however, is a straw man argument.
There's a subtle difference, but it's an important one. Specifically, they're using the straw man to try to justify the slippery slope, when the reality of your argument -- that you think marriage SHOULD have restrictions of some kind, but just not the ones it currently has -- makes that slippery slope less likely.
The other major distinction, of course, is that straw man arguments are inherently flawed, whereas slippery slope arguments are NOT. The reason this is important is that there IS a legitimate argument to be made against homosexual marriage on a slippery slope basis, since there IS a logical reason to point out that the restrictions you're leaving on marriage -- that it be between two people, for example -- are in some ways as arbitrary as the restictions that you are proposing to lift.
quote:It's not a reasonable analogy when they are completely unrelated.
1) That just makes them poor analogies - not strawmen.
2) The people giving the argument do not see them as unrelated to gay marriage. I, for one, think both are related to certain arguments given for gay marriage, and not related for others.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Starla, the problem here is that marriage is CURRENTLY defined by the law as "a legal bond between a consenting man and woman."
Homosexual marriage removes the "man and a woman," replacing it with "two consenting people."
Polygamous marriage removes the "two."
Me, I happen to think the essential element of marriage is the consent, and believe that it cannot be removed without cheapening the definition of marriage. Other people believe that the "two" is important. Other people believe that the "man and woman" bit is important.
Consequently, people who think the "man and woman" bit is important can't understand why people who support THAT removal don't think that the word "two" could just as easily be removed.
But I guess it's because I think of marriage between 2 people. It works nicer that way---more than 2 I think causes emotional problems, jealously and selfishness on the male partner's end.
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But your argument that it "works nicer" is the EXACT SAME argument used by people who think marriage "works nicer" with a man and woman.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
