A short end-of-year lesson: "What is a strawman?"

[tpfkaw]

Short disclaimer:  I'll bet good money that this thread will not achieve its intended goal, and that it will actually be posted itself in the "strawman thread," with a 90% probability that the culprit will be you know who.

A quick review of the "strawman thread" (otherwise known as "Xahar and BRTD complain about right-wingers' amusing statements") reveals that strawman fallacies are almost nowhere to be found.  In fact, you have to go back three pages and several months before you can find a single one (well, I'm being charitable - if it's true it's by definition not a strawman fallacy, but I'll go with it).  Given that, it seems that there is a need for a bit of education as to what, exactly, a "strawman" is.

Here's a hypothetical quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Liberals have a form of Tourettes syndrome when it comes to guns.  You say a phrase involving the word "gun," and liberals start yelling "Ban it!  Ban it!  Ban all guns!  Ban all guns!"[/quote]

There is no strawman fallacy in this post.  In fact, there is no fallacy at all.  A logical fallacy requires that there be an argument in which the fallacy is used.  Annoying Conservative has not made an argument, therefore there is no fallacy.  His post may be untrue or unfair, but it does not contain any fallacies, including strawmen.

On the other hand:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Liberals have a form of Tourettes syndrome when it comes to guns.  You say a phrase involving the word "gun," and liberals start yelling "Ban it!  Ban it!  Ban all guns!  Ban all guns!"  Of course, if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.[/quote]

This post is a strawman fallacy.  Instead of making an argument against the suggestion advanced by Annoying Liberal (there should be background checks at gun show sales), Annoying Conservative is arguing against a strawman - banning all guns.

However:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Liberals have a form of Tourettes syndrome when it comes to guns.  You say a phrase involving the word "gun," and liberals start yelling "Ban it!  Ban it!  Ban all guns!"  That's why they argue ridiculous things, like that guns in the inner city come from rural white-people fests.[/quote]

This post is not a strawman fallacy, because although Annoying Conservative creates a strawman (banning all guns), he does not argue against the strawman, but instead against Annoying Liberal's suggestion (background checks at gun show sales).

And:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Liberals have a form of Tourettes syndrome when it comes to guns.  You say a phrase involving the word "gun," and liberals start yelling "Ban it!  Ban it!  Ban all guns!  Ban all guns!"  Of course, if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.[/quote]

This post is not a strawman fallacy, as Annoying Conservative has merely rephrased Annoying Liberal 2's suggestion.  You may argue that it's an unfair or uncivil characterization, but it is not a strawman fallacy.

Thank you, for your time, and attention.

[Sewer]

then what is it called

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

tl;dr

[Alcon]

You're not quite right on what a strawman fallacy is, either.  It's:

Someguy forwards x.
Strawmanner attacks and defeats y.
Strawmanner claims he has defeated x.

Your strawman example is:

Someguy forwards x.
Strawmanner attacks and defeats y.
Strawmanner claims he has defeated y.

Which is not a logical fallacy, just missing the point.  (Even if one argues there is an implicit rejection present, I think there is an implicit argument in your first example, but you treat it formally [as if it only means what it literally says] so you can't really assume an implicit message elsewhere.)

[Torie]

You're not quite right on what a strawman fallacy is, either.  It's:

Someguy forwards x.
Strawmanner attacks and defeats y.
Strawmanner claims he has defeated x.

Your strawman example is:

Someguy forwards x.
Strawmanner attacks and defeats y.
Strawmanner claims he has defeated y.

Which is not a logical fallacy, just missing the point.  (Even if one argues there is an implicit rejection present, I think there is an implicit argument in your first example, but you treat it formally [as if it only means what it literally says] so you can't really assume an implicit message elsewhere.)

Just how do you explain the origins of your extremely logical mind, Alcon?  Have you considered becoming a philosophy major?  You just might be good enough to get one of those handful of tenured professorial positions in academia. 

[memphis]

You're not quite right on what a strawman fallacy is, either.  It's:

Someguy forwards x.
Strawmanner attacks and defeats y.
Strawmanner claims he has defeated x.

Your strawman example is:

Someguy forwards x.
Strawmanner attacks and defeats y.
Strawmanner claims he has defeated y.

Which is not a logical fallacy, just missing the point.  (Even if one argues there is an implicit rejection present, I think there is an implicit argument in your first example, but you treat it formally [as if it only means what it literally says] so you can't really assume an implicit message elsewhere.)

Ownage