Which Would You Rather Have?

[deleted126335]

---

Members don't see this ad.

...says the man with the Little Boy avatar.

Actually it is FAT MAN.

 

[Bertelman]

Actually it is FAT MAN.

Damn. Fail.

 

[chocomorsel]

That's fine, we can agree to disagree.

Except your side really isn't agreeing to disagree, because you insist on attempting to pass laws to regulate and limit my right to do those things.


You have quite a knack for creating strawmen. You argue as if WE want to force you to own a gun (we don't), when the truth is that YOU are the ones who are doing your level best to prevent us from doing so.

I am not exactly sure what you mean by creating strawment. However, where did I insist that I wanted to pass laws to restrict your gun ownership? I said, I really don't know what the solution is currently if you can read my post.

 

[Gern Blansten]

I am not exactly sure what you mean by creating strawment. However, where did I insist that I wanted to pass laws to restrict your gun ownership? I said, I really don't know what the solution is currently if you can read my post.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
Examples

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

Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.
Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., "unrestricted access to intoxicants".[1] It is a logical fallacy because Person A never made that claim. This example is also a slippery slope fallacy.

Another example:

Person A: Our society should spend more money helping the poor.
Person B: Studies show that handouts don't work; they just create more poverty and humiliate the recipients. That money could be better spent.

In this case, Person B has transformed Person A's position from "more money" to "more handouts", which is easier for Person B to defeat.

 

[Bertelman]

That sounds like basically any argument on SDN.

 

[periopdoc]

Interesting. Although we disagree on the first part of this statement, Fox, Levin, and I agree on the second...

Gun control is a good crime-prevention measure but not for mass murder

- pod

 

[periopdoc]

YAKIMA, Wash. -- The wounded man was down, screaming for help, and the man with the gun looked like he might not be done shooting.

That's when Andrew Schilperoort, who had just pulled into the parking lot of the Safeway store on Yakima's North Fifth Avenue, put his pistol and concealed-weapons permit to good use

...As far as she was concerned, Schilperoort saved the wounded man's life. She's convinced the gunman was going to shoot the victim again. Police said the wounded man was not armed.

-pod

 

[loveoforganic]

Bummer, I know one of the Yakima reporters, was hoping she covered it