3 ms·
A: no one should believe any statement from any politician ever B: don't demand that politicians meet standards Your argument (not mine): A -> B Then you arg
by supportlocal4h 6y ago
A: no one should believe any statement from any politician ever
B: don't demand that politicians meet standards
Your argument (not mine): A -> B
Then you argue that B is dysfunctional so A leads to dysfunction.
Can you not imagine some C such as
C: demand that politicians live up to some standard
Wherein A->C makes everything better?
The fact that you concocted B to discredit A is a logical fallacy called "strawman".
Either you already understood this, but hoped for an audience that did not, or you didn't even realize what you had done. I point it out here for your possible benefit and for the possible benefit of anyone else who doesn't understand this flawed reasoning. I apologize to everyone who recognized it immediately and has then suffered through this response.
- LordDragonfang 6y agoYou seemed to have missed the context that you're arguing the "against" position in a thread about social media fact-checking, i.e. a "demand that politicians live up to some standard [of truth]" Language has implied meaning, it's one of the maxims of conversation in the field of linguistics, of the Cooperative principle [1]. If you're going to immediately jump to technical dissection of a conversation, you should probably consider the relevant field first. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle#Maxim_of_relation_(or_relevance) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle#Maxim_of...
- bananabreakfast 6y agoYour "strawman" was very clearly directly implied by what you said. And the fact that you just attacked the argument instead of just responding like a normal person does not help your case.