The "Strawman Argument"

[Kitsune]

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.

[Grog]

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.

No it is not a strawman, it shows why appeal to tradition is a fallacy.

[Kitsune]

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."

[Feil]

If it's an accurate analogy, it's not a fallacy.

[Kitsune]

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."

[Darth Wong]

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."

Henry Ford once said that you could order the Model T in any colour you wanted, as long as it was black.

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.

[Feil]

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."

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]

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.

That does not really fight the "It is traditional" argument, no matter how silly it might be

[BountyHunterSAx]

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

[Darth Wong]

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.

[Justforfun000]

"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.

[Justforfun000]

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).

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?"

Lets see them come up with an explanation to that one.