Straw man? Wasn't he the guy who was afraid of fire and wanted the Wizard to give him a brain? Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Oh you're so cute!
*pinches Darrell's cheeks*
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
>_<
my 2-yr old has been watching that movie endlessly. thanks for bringing it up here for me to read about at work too...
>_<
*sings* we're off to see the wizard....
Posted by whiskysunrise (Member # 6819) on :
But gnixing, you aren't here to see it everytime she watches it.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: Oh you're so cute!
*pinches Darrell's cheeks*
I love you, Telp!
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Reasoning fallacies:
Hasty generalization Drawing a conclusion on too little evidence. "A child I know is being home schooled and can't read or write on grade level. Home schooling does not work."
False Cause claiming that because an event follows another, the first caused the second. If you did well on a test you didn't study for, and then claimed that you did well because you didn't study, that's false cause.
Slippery slope the claim that one action will begin a chain of events inevitably leading to a certain result. "If we restrict the purchase of handguns by imposing a waiting period, next we'll be outlawing hunting rifles and soon you can just toss the constitution out the window."
either-or fallacy the argument that there are only two alternatives, when in fact othesr may exist "We can raise local sales tax or close the local library."
Straw man already discussed, but it's weakening the opposing position by misrepresenting it in some way then attacking the weaker (straw man) position. When X advocates a seven day waiting period for buying handguns, and Y argues against it by saying it is our constitutional right to bear arms, Y is attacking a straw man. X didn't advocate abolishing gun ownership, just a waiting period, but instead of attacking the argument for a waiting period, Y attacked the constitutional straw man instead.
Bandwagon - because something is popular it's good or desirable. "Violent video games are really popular so they can't be bad for kids to play."
Appeal to tradition the way things are is simply because that's the way they've always been. "Year round school isn't going to work because we've always given kids the summer off."
Red Herring use of irrelevant evidence or arguments to divert attention from the real issue "Some people say marijuana should remain illegal because people die as a result of harm done to them by others who are high. But if that's the case we should outlaw alcohol too, because it causes far more deaths."
ad hominem attacking your opponents character rather than the argument (this one doesn't need an example, just look around)
non sequitur - conclusion doesn't follow from the evidence or an argument is supported with irrelevant evidence "If Chewbacca is a wookie, you must acquit." Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Y argues against it by saying it is our constitutional right to bear arms, Y is attacking a straw man.
I'm not sure I buy this as a straw man. Licensing printing presses is not allowed because of the constitutional freedom of the press. Certain burdens, including time limitations, on certain methods of exercising free speech aren't allowed because of the constitutional right to free speech.
While it may be reasonable to say that gun ownership, due to their lethal nature, can be restricted more than other constitutional rights, it is not a straw man to say that the constitutional right to bear arms is a reason not to have a waiting period. Anymore than it is a straw man to cite the first amendment when opposing "free speech zones."
Dagonee
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
South Park reference! *on a south park kick* Now I must find a way to avoid using those kind of arguments, or, to simply not argue at all as it is burning me out.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Good point Dag. I should point out that not all those are my examples, most came from my textbook on speaking in the chapter on persuasive strategies. That was their example on straw man. Johnny Cochran's Chewbacca defense was my example, however.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
[ April 24, 2005, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I didn't used to know what a strawman was either. Now I just don't care.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
There are a few more to add to the list:
(great list by the way, Belle).
Reductio ad absurdum (reducing to ridiculous extremes -- actually self-contracdictory) This is taking a person's basic argument and extrapolating it out the point of obvious falsehood -- but then stating THAT as if the person had stated it as their position. It's a lot like strawman, but with the added element of ludicrous extremes thrown in. "If privatizing will save Social Security, then we can cure cancer by whacking people over the head with rubber mallets"
Subtler version: "If Privatizing will save social security, then we should privatize the entire Federal Bureacracy and let people "invest" in the agencies/programs they think are most worthwhile."
Appeal to Authority: It's a lot like "appeal to tradition" but it comes with the fun of quoting someone to make your point, whether or not they should be believed on this issue or not. "We should do this because the President says so and we should always support the President." Or "as the Bible says 'one sows, another reaps' and that's why I'm in favor of inheritance taxes"
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Political convention speeches are havens for strawman arguments.
Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
That's what I thought...kind of like a scarecrow, but naked.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
South Park reference! *on a south park kick*