The "Strawman Argument"
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
The "Strawman Argument"
I am debating on another board about Gay Marriage (In support) and a person put forth that "It is not traditional"
I put forth that at one time that it was not traditional for people of other races to marry each other and that it was once traditional to put witches to death.
Is that a "Strawman Argument." To be honest, I never accuse anyone of using the "Strawman Argument" because I consider it ill defined and an argument of weakness.
I put forth that at one time that it was not traditional for people of other races to marry each other and that it was once traditional to put witches to death.
Is that a "Strawman Argument." To be honest, I never accuse anyone of using the "Strawman Argument" because I consider it ill defined and an argument of weakness.
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Thomas Paine
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."
Ecclesiastes 9:5 (KJV)
Thomas Paine
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."
Ecclesiastes 9:5 (KJV)
Re: The "Strawman Argument"
No it is not a strawman, it shows why appeal to tradition is a fallacy.Kitsune wrote:I am debating on another board about Gay Marriage (In support) and a person put forth that "It is not traditional"
I put forth that at one time that it was not traditional for people of other races to marry each other and that it was once traditional to put witches to death.
Is that a "Strawman Argument." To be honest, I never accuse anyone of using the "Strawman Argument" because I consider it ill defined and an argument of weakness.
Thanks, Wiki also has a small article of "Appeal to Tradition"
The only thing I see which comes close to "Strawman" is that I stated that if lived around 1967, he might have stated "Blacks have the right to marry anyone they want as long as they are black."
The only thing I see which comes close to "Strawman" is that I stated that if lived around 1967, he might have stated "Blacks have the right to marry anyone they want as long as they are black."
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Thomas Paine
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."
Ecclesiastes 9:5 (KJV)
Thomas Paine
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."
Ecclesiastes 9:5 (KJV)
He has stated multiple times something like this:
"Gays have the same rights as heterosexuals...they can marry anyone of the opposite sex which they wish"
I stated that it is likely that before Loving vs Virginia that he would have stated:
"Blacks have the same rights as Whites....they can marry anyone of the same race they are."
"Gays have the same rights as heterosexuals...they can marry anyone of the opposite sex which they wish"
I stated that it is likely that before Loving vs Virginia that he would have stated:
"Blacks have the same rights as Whites....they can marry anyone of the same race they are."
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Thomas Paine
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."
Ecclesiastes 9:5 (KJV)
Thomas Paine
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."
Ecclesiastes 9:5 (KJV)
- Darth Wong
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 70028
- Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
Henry Ford once said that you could order the Model T in any colour you wanted, as long as it was black.Kitsune wrote:He has stated multiple times something like this:
"Gays have the same rights as heterosexuals...they can marry anyone of the opposite sex which they wish"
I stated that it is likely that before Loving vs Virginia that he would have stated:
"Blacks have the same rights as Whites....they can marry anyone of the same race they are."
Saying that you have the freedom to make an artificially narrowed choice is a word-play, not a legitimate argument. At least Ford knew he was just being facetious when he said it. Anyone who thinks it's a legitimate argument is an idiot.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
The issue is that for gays, the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is insufficient, for the same reason that, if reversed, the right of heterosexuals to marry individuals of the same sex would be insufficient. Make him debate that, in stead of playing analogy tag.Kitsune wrote:He has stated multiple times something like this:
"Gays have the same rights as heterosexuals...they can marry anyone of the opposite sex which they wish"
I stated that it is likely that before Loving vs Virginia that he would have stated:
"Blacks have the same rights as Whites....they can marry anyone of the same race they are."
That does not really fight the "It is traditional" argument, no matter how silly it might beFeil wrote:The issue is that for gays, the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is insufficient, for the same reason that, if reversed, the right of heterosexuals to marry individuals of the same sex would be insufficient. Make him debate that, in stead of playing analogy tag.
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Thomas Paine
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."
Ecclesiastes 9:5 (KJV)
Thomas Paine
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."
Ecclesiastes 9:5 (KJV)
-
- Padawan Learner
- Posts: 401
- Joined: 2007-10-09 11:20pm
But the 'it is traditional argument' is bullshit in its own right! And for all the reasons you've already laid out. Heck - it even has its own fallacy named after it (the "appeal to tradition" fallacy).
If you want to make him painfully aware of how the appeal to tradition fallacy is a problem then show him the logical equivalency between justifying anti-Gay laws on account of tradition and justifying modern laws mandating the following (since each are rooted in now-defunct tradition):
*) In ancient Arabia, it was a tradition to bury your first daughter alive (while she was still a baby). After that it was still considered 'honorable' to bury your daughters though obviously not everyone did it.
*) In ancient Egypt it was traditional to dress a beautiful girl up and throw her into the Nile as a sacrifice to ensure the river would flood.
*) In ancient Egypt, it was traditional that the ruler (Pharoah) be entombed with all his wives, several servants, and provisions for his glorious trip to the next life.
*) In ye-good-ole-days here in America, we had another interesting traditional ideal known as the "Salem Witch Trials".
And the list goes on.
-AHMAD
If you want to make him painfully aware of how the appeal to tradition fallacy is a problem then show him the logical equivalency between justifying anti-Gay laws on account of tradition and justifying modern laws mandating the following (since each are rooted in now-defunct tradition):
*) In ancient Arabia, it was a tradition to bury your first daughter alive (while she was still a baby). After that it was still considered 'honorable' to bury your daughters though obviously not everyone did it.
*) In ancient Egypt it was traditional to dress a beautiful girl up and throw her into the Nile as a sacrifice to ensure the river would flood.
*) In ancient Egypt, it was traditional that the ruler (Pharoah) be entombed with all his wives, several servants, and provisions for his glorious trip to the next life.
*) In ye-good-ole-days here in America, we had another interesting traditional ideal known as the "Salem Witch Trials".
And the list goes on.
-AHMAD
"Wallahu a'lam"
- Darth Wong
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 70028
- Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
Traditionally, people didn't marry for love. Is marriage for love also a violation of tradition and should be banned? Traditionally, people married to create families. Does this mean that the modern development of elderly retired people marrying is also a violation of tradition and should be banned?
Their argument relies on two pillars:
1) A false premise: the assumption that modern heterosexual marriage is based on thousands of years of tradition. In fact, the tradition of marriage has changed many times in many ways. Marriage for love, marriage with pre-nuptial agreements, quickie Las Vegas marriages, marriage with a no-fault divorce option, marriage of the elderly, and marriage against the wishes of the parents are all parts of modern marriage, but not parts of the "thousands of years of tradition". So what makes this latest change to the tradition any more troublesome than the others?
2) A logical fallacy: the assumption that if you can prove something is a change to a longstanding tradition, then you have proven that it should be outlawed. This fallacy is a leap in logic; there is no reason why a change to social tradition should automatically be outlawed. You need a better reason than that.
Their argument relies on two pillars:
1) A false premise: the assumption that modern heterosexual marriage is based on thousands of years of tradition. In fact, the tradition of marriage has changed many times in many ways. Marriage for love, marriage with pre-nuptial agreements, quickie Las Vegas marriages, marriage with a no-fault divorce option, marriage of the elderly, and marriage against the wishes of the parents are all parts of modern marriage, but not parts of the "thousands of years of tradition". So what makes this latest change to the tradition any more troublesome than the others?
2) A logical fallacy: the assumption that if you can prove something is a change to a longstanding tradition, then you have proven that it should be outlawed. This fallacy is a leap in logic; there is no reason why a change to social tradition should automatically be outlawed. You need a better reason than that.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
- Justforfun000
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 2503
- Joined: 2002-08-19 01:44pm
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
"Saying that you have the freedom to make an artificially narrowed choice is a word-play, not a legitimate argument. At least Ford knew he was just being facetious when he said it. Anyone who thinks it's a legitimate argument is an idiot."
The so called "equal rights" choice is the same as Hobson's choice. Accept what is offered, or nothing at all.
I would love to bitch slap idiots who say such stupid things. They are just being deliberately assholish. They know damn well that's not a "choice" to begin with.
The so called "equal rights" choice is the same as Hobson's choice. Accept what is offered, or nothing at all.
I would love to bitch slap idiots who say such stupid things. They are just being deliberately assholish. They know damn well that's not a "choice" to begin with.
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong
"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
- Justforfun000
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 2503
- Joined: 2002-08-19 01:44pm
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
Another good thing to say to these people is "oh, so you think that we shouldn't progress any further in life? We should just stop right here and do nothing different in society for the rest of our lives and successive generations because keeping things the same out of tradition is more important then progress?"But the 'it is traditional argument' is bullshit in its own right! And for all the reasons you've already laid out. Heck - it even has its own fallacy named after it (the "appeal to tradition" fallacy).
Lets see them come up with an explanation to that one.
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong
"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."