4 ms·

No, not a word of what you said holds. You're flat out wrong, and it's clear that you don't understand what a strawman is. It is more than just 'misrepresenti

No, not a word of what you said holds. You're flat out wrong, and it's clear that you don't understand what a strawman is. It is more than just 'misrepresenting' your opponent's argument, which in any case I didn't do. A straw man is where you present a weakened form of your opponent's argument in order to more easily defeat it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man As you have now acknowledged, I did not present any form of my opponent's argument at any time, let alone argue against it. What I did was to ask a question to put his statements into context.

olalonde 15y ago
> Don't you think that decades of isolationist Maoism had more influence on the rural poverty in China than US and British protectionism? This sentence implies that your opponent's position is: "US and British protectionism didn't have more influence on the rural poverty in China than decades of isolationist Maoism." Perhaps you are not a native English speaker and didn't know the implications of using a negative form question. Regardless, you were attempting to use this misrepresented position to win an argument as you later demonstrated in the thread. All conditions are met to qualify your comment as a straw man fallacy.
- rbarooah 15y ago
  That's the second time you've failed to comprehend the use of a negative. I suggest you reread what you've written. The rest of the thread doesn't show me attempting to win any argument. I suggest rereading that too. Whichever way my interlocutor responded to my question would neither invalidate his own position, nor 'win' an argument for me. You are mistaking this form of discussion for a straw man because you are seeing things in black and white, when instead the question was intended to provide context. Sometimes people ask provocative questions in order to better understand where other people are coming from. Dialog consists of more than just direct argument. Not every exchange is about gaining rhetorical advantage. If you try playing back the comments in your head as if they are being spoken by a collegial group involved in a discussion, you'll see what I mean. Your judgement is incorrect because you have misidentified the nature of the conversation. You are imagining there to be an argument where instead there is actually a discussion. And on this note, do you really think it's helpful to throw comments like "straw man" into conversations you aren't constructively participating in?
  - olalonde 15y ago
    > That's the second time you've failed to comprehend the use of a negative. I suggest you reread what you've written. You are right, thanks for correcting me, I'm a bit tired. Luckily, it was just an example and not central to my point. The key point here is that this way of formulating a question attributes an opinion to your opponent that he may or may not have. Fixed it: "Decades of isolationist Maoism didn't have more influence on the rural poverty in China than US and British protectionism." > The rest of the thread doesn't show me attempting to win any argument. I suggest rereading that too. At this point, there's nothing I can do but question your intellectual honesty. The least I can say is that you come across as someone who disagrees with your interlocutor's opinion. If you are not willing to admit that, I will call this conversation over. > And on this note, do you really think it's helpful to throw comments like "straw man" into conversations you aren't constructively participating in? Yes. Fallacies are subtle and it's important to highlight them.
    - rbarooah 15y ago
      The least I can say is that you come across as someone who disagrees with your interlocutor's opinion. If you are not willing to admit that, I will call this conversation over. I don't think that the relatively emotive statement that the interlocutor made paints a particularly complete picture. That's why I asked the question. I don't know enough of his opinion to disagree with it or not because he didn't answer. If you reread what my interlocutor wrote you'll see that he introduces a number of different ideas which don't add up to a single coherent argument to agree or disagree with. Typically when someone presents me with this sort of communication and I find it interesting, I don't consider it an argument. Instead I try to find out more. You say 'all you can do is to question my intellectual honesty', but if you really thought I tried to win an argument using a strawman, you would be able to point out where I did that and yet you can't. If you won't acknowledge the possibility that you have perceived an argument in what was actually a discussion, then I have to, in return, question your intellectual honesty. It's counterproductive to the cause of rooting out fallacies to make drive-by comments out of context.
- ktizo 15y ago
  Just to interject, but the us and british protectionism started a long time before maoism, or even marxism. Surely since there are two different periods here is it not sensible to suggest that the two are not directly comparable in effect, although both have contributed to the history of the country. One important question in this could well be whether imperial attitudes by the uk and us might partially be responsible for the development of maoism in the first place, and on reflection it seems more than obvious that they must be to at least some degree.
  - rbarooah 15y ago
    Agreed, it's not just Maoism, it's the broader history of China's economic development. Also, if protectionism, which is notably bidirectional, isn't the root cause of rural poverty in China, do we have any reason for believing that unilaterally abandoning it would alleviate the poverty?
    - ktizo 15y ago
      Opium and cannon. There was a reason the sun didn't set on the British Empire. God doesn't trust the British in the dark.
      - rbarooah 15y ago
        So basically war.
        ktizo 15y ago
        I think that is one of the root causes, both internal and external. Also I think that europe was extraordinarily lucky in retaining its lead once it got it. [edit] and it is very difficult to separate war from protectionism as they are all on a sliding scale of policy.
        rbarooah 15y ago
        and it is very difficult to separate war from protectionism as they are all on a sliding scale of policy. Why isn't protectionism just part of the terms that nations negotiate when they trade?

olalonde 15y ago

> Don't you think that decades of isolationist Maoism had more influence on the rural poverty in China than US and British protectionism? This sentence implies that your opponent's position is: "US and British protectionism didn't have more influence on the rural poverty in China than decades of isolationist Maoism." Perhaps you are not a native English speaker and didn't know the implications of using a negative form question. Regardless, you were attempting to use this misrepresented position to win an argument as you later demonstrated in the thread. All conditions are met to qualify your comment as a straw man fallacy.

rbarooah 15y ago
That's the second time you've failed to comprehend the use of a negative. I suggest you reread what you've written. The rest of the thread doesn't show me attempting to win any argument. I suggest rereading that too. Whichever way my interlocutor responded to my question would neither invalidate his own position, nor 'win' an argument for me. You are mistaking this form of discussion for a straw man because you are seeing things in black and white, when instead the question was intended to provide context. Sometimes people ask provocative questions in order to better understand where other people are coming from. Dialog consists of more than just direct argument. Not every exchange is about gaining rhetorical advantage. If you try playing back the comments in your head as if they are being spoken by a collegial group involved in a discussion, you'll see what I mean. Your judgement is incorrect because you have misidentified the nature of the conversation. You are imagining there to be an argument where instead there is actually a discussion. And on this note, do you really think it's helpful to throw comments like "straw man" into conversations you aren't constructively participating in?
- olalonde 15y ago
  > That's the second time you've failed to comprehend the use of a negative. I suggest you reread what you've written. You are right, thanks for correcting me, I'm a bit tired. Luckily, it was just an example and not central to my point. The key point here is that this way of formulating a question attributes an opinion to your opponent that he may or may not have. Fixed it: "Decades of isolationist Maoism didn't have more influence on the rural poverty in China than US and British protectionism." > The rest of the thread doesn't show me attempting to win any argument. I suggest rereading that too. At this point, there's nothing I can do but question your intellectual honesty. The least I can say is that you come across as someone who disagrees with your interlocutor's opinion. If you are not willing to admit that, I will call this conversation over. > And on this note, do you really think it's helpful to throw comments like "straw man" into conversations you aren't constructively participating in? Yes. Fallacies are subtle and it's important to highlight them.
  - rbarooah 15y ago
    The least I can say is that you come across as someone who disagrees with your interlocutor's opinion. If you are not willing to admit that, I will call this conversation over. I don't think that the relatively emotive statement that the interlocutor made paints a particularly complete picture. That's why I asked the question. I don't know enough of his opinion to disagree with it or not because he didn't answer. If you reread what my interlocutor wrote you'll see that he introduces a number of different ideas which don't add up to a single coherent argument to agree or disagree with. Typically when someone presents me with this sort of communication and I find it interesting, I don't consider it an argument. Instead I try to find out more. You say 'all you can do is to question my intellectual honesty', but if you really thought I tried to win an argument using a strawman, you would be able to point out where I did that and yet you can't. If you won't acknowledge the possibility that you have perceived an argument in what was actually a discussion, then I have to, in return, question your intellectual honesty. It's counterproductive to the cause of rooting out fallacies to make drive-by comments out of context.
ktizo 15y ago
Just to interject, but the us and british protectionism started a long time before maoism, or even marxism. Surely since there are two different periods here is it not sensible to suggest that the two are not directly comparable in effect, although both have contributed to the history of the country. One important question in this could well be whether imperial attitudes by the uk and us might partially be responsible for the development of maoism in the first place, and on reflection it seems more than obvious that they must be to at least some degree.
- rbarooah 15y ago
  Agreed, it's not just Maoism, it's the broader history of China's economic development. Also, if protectionism, which is notably bidirectional, isn't the root cause of rural poverty in China, do we have any reason for believing that unilaterally abandoning it would alleviate the poverty?
  - ktizo 15y ago
    Opium and cannon. There was a reason the sun didn't set on the British Empire. God doesn't trust the British in the dark.
    - rbarooah 15y ago
      So basically war.
      - ktizo 15y ago
        I think that is one of the root causes, both internal and external. Also I think that europe was extraordinarily lucky in retaining its lead once it got it. [edit] and it is very difficult to separate war from protectionism as they are all on a sliding scale of policy.
        rbarooah 15y ago
        and it is very difficult to separate war from protectionism as they are all on a sliding scale of policy. Why isn't protectionism just part of the terms that nations negotiate when they trade?