Vendor-Lazarus said:
CrystalShadow said:
I could add a whole heap of things about logical fallacies, and 'unethical discuscusion techneques, but I already see where this thread is going.
Besides, everyone loves using unethical discussion techniques. Often without even realising that's what they are doing...
And of course, the beloved strawman argument. In which you construct an extreme argument that is easy to mock, attribute it to the other party, then claim victory, even though you 'beat' an entirely imaginary argument that has nothing to do with what anyone said.
These techniques and fallacies should really be taught in school, along with critical thinking.
I'm the first to admit that I don't have a clue what all the fallacies are and that most threads that devolve into longer and longer posts really makes me irritated with their snark and very hostile attitude.
Yet, I have no way to contribute since everyone could basically roll over me unhindered despite any good will from my part.
It does not help to attract more people or make them engage in topics..
Lastly, thank you for that incredibly clear cut description of the straw man.
If one constructed such a fallacy but did not "beat" it, and only used it to point out what one fears will happen and give examples of ones outlook, is it still a fallacy?
I don't know anywhere near enough about unfair discussion techniques to really pick up on them properly, but it helps to at least be aware of the concept, and how manipulative it gets. Unsurprisingly, politicians love to use them on purpose. (While many people use some of them without realising).
Logical fallacies are something I have more experience with, though still nowhere near enough. They can be hard to spot at times.
As for the strawman thing... Well, it largely comes down to taking something to an absurd extreme.
It's a fallacy because you can use it to make someone else look bad, because what you said sounds
similar enough to what they said that you can easily mislead an audience with it, and make the person you are having a discussion with look like an extremist lunatic.
It can't really be a fallacy unless you are attributing it to someone. Whether an individual, or a group.
At least, that's required to call it a strawman. Doesn't strictly speaking matter if you 'beat' the argument you've created or not, the key point is attributing something extreme or ridiculous to some person or group that isn't at all what they said.
If I were to say something like, cars cause a lot of pollution,
then you come along and reply: What do you mean cars are destroying the planet!? That's absurd. They're nowhere near as bad as you're making it out to be...
That is a strawman.
Now I wish I could give a proper example of what you're trying to describe, but I'm kind of drawing a blank. XD
(Oh, and while we are talking fallacies, the 'no true scotsman' one is quite common too.
It goes something like:
A: All scotsmen love whisky.
B: Well, I'm a scotsman, and I hate it.
A: All
true scotsmen...
Then of course there's the good old ad hominem.
Don't even touch the actual subject a person is talking about, instead attack them directly (insults, questioning their abilities, mocking them, their personal habits, private life, etc.)
You don't at any point say anything about the topic at hand, nor the argument presented, you just have a go at the person themselves. (Pretty much every political 'discussion' I see involves these...)
Anyway, there's many more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
