Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda
I didn't assume anything. You posted; I responded. Sorry you got so offended but your response came off as a strawman to me.
|
I never suggested that I was offended. I simply offered advice on how to present an argument more effectively since I didn't find the way you presented yours to be very effective.
Part of the problem is that you you don't seem to know what the term "strawman argument" actually refers to. The jargon of argumentation techniques including terms for various logical fallacies has started to flood the common lexicon and unfortunately this has watered down their meaning to the point that they're often used haphazardly. But originally a strawman argument was a term describing a counter argument that rebuts something similar to what an opponent said rather than the opponent's' actual argument, thereby burning their argument in effigy (like someone burning a straw man made in the image of a real person). In reality, the actual argument if left unscathed, but the technique can sometimes trick the audience into thinking otherwise.
As an example, if someone makes the argument that "Poor people don't get around Manhattan by driving" and someone responds by saying "It isn't only rich people who drive in Manhattan" this would be a strawman argument since it refutes something similar sounding but totally different than the original assertion (car usage by a minority of people vs the vast majority of people). On the other hand, if for instance someone suggests that a congestion tax in Manhattan would price out the poor and someone responds by challenging the idea that the poor get around Manhattan by driving, that wouldn't be a strawman argument since it addresses the original assertion (that the tax would negatively affect the poor) rather than an argument similar to it but different.
Anyway, I hope that helps and i'm sorry if I gave the impression I was offended.
