Dante v Yurt: Slippery Slope/Straw Man Logical/Informal Fallacies

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante v Yurt: Slippery Slope/Straw Man Logical/Informal Fallacies

Slippery Slope

Straw Man

History/Timeline

1 More Same-Sex/Gay Marriage Thread in the Politics Forum

Why not? What do you think about the politics of Same-Sex/Gay Marriage?

Should we have Civil Unions for same-sex couples and Marriage for opposite-sex couples? Should we have separate but equal?

Demand Pink Crow Laws Now!

plural marriage, polygamy will be next - multi sex, multi partner or muti partner same sex ... a solid solution for overpopulation.

plural marriage, polygamy will be next - multi sex, multi partner or muti partner same sex ... a solid solution for overpopulation.

Straw Man argument

An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition. For example:

Politician A: "We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch and further worsen the obesity epidemic by doing so."
Politician B: "What, do you want our children to starve?"

you're an idiot. he did not present a straw man argument. he never claimed anyone said polygamy would be next. he made that statement, thus, it was not a straw man. at best you could say it is the slippery slope argument.

it actually is a good point.

...

Politician A: "We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch and further worsen the obesity epidemic by doing so."
Politician B: "What, do you want our children to starve?"

A) Same-Sex/Gay Marriage: "Should we have Civil Unions for same-sex couples and Marriage for opposite-sex couples? Should we have separate but equal?"

B) polygamy will be next

------

Using a straw man argument in conjunction with other logical fallacies such as a slippery slope argument does not negate anything. Framing the argument as 'allowing same-sex marriages will open the door to polygamy' (slippery slope), Except:

Gay Marriages exist and Polygamy has already been ruled on in America (We fought that battle). The purpose some people have in introducing polygamy into a discussion about same-sex marriages is to do what straw man arguments are meant to do: knock down the arguments that same-sex marriages are about equality between two consenting adults of the same sex.

The two consenting adults argument is about equality or separate but equal. Introducing polygamy re-frames the debate so one side can be easily knocked down as absurd: Introducing an absurdity to make the whole argument appear absurd.

In the context I framed the conversation, introducing polygamy, child brides/grooms, and immediate family into the discussion is the use of a straw man

The Challenge: To convince that a straw man argument was set up by insertion of a slippery slope, but only after first ignoring the full context of the argument. That this tactic allows the set up for the knock down of the straw man: that same-sex marriage is about opening the door to marriage outside of two consenting adults as a couple.

Argument A: When it comes to state recognition of marriage, same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples should be treated equally.

Argument B: The state should or should not recognize marriages regardless of ages involved, regardless of relationships to each other, regardless of monogamy, regardless of species.

Yurt has to ignore the multiple meanings and forms of straw man arguments. All this in order to validate his premise that something is a slippery slope argument and not a straw man argument. Yurt needs to ignore the full context of the argument in order to defend the re-framing of an arguments

Dante

dD

 

[Yurt]

is there a face palm smilie?

this quite simply is the dumbest argument ever made dante. we are dealing with TWO distinct logical fallacies. one is a straw man, the other is the slippery slope.

you want to combine them for some unknown reason. they are not the same at all. the straw man attempts to create a position of <-- pay attention -- your opponent that the opponent never created. the slippery slope attempts to create the all things will to go H E double hockey sticks argument. the slippery slope does not claim that the opponent made such a claim, rather, the slippery slope creates the argument on 'its' own.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

When people misrepresent the argument in favor of the state recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples being treated as equal to the marriages of opposite-sex couples, as being about opening the door to marriages outside of couples, it is a classic set up for a straw man argument.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

example used:
Straw Man argument

An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition. For example:

Politician A: "We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch and further worsen the obesity epidemic by doing so."

Politician B: "What, do you want our children to starve?"

--- ---- ---- --

Politician A: "We should allow recognition of marriages between same-sex couples as equal to opposite-sex couples"

Politician B: "What, do you want polygamist marriages to be treated equal to marriages of couples?"

 

[Yurt]

When people misrepresent the argument in favor of the state recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples being treated as equal to the marriages of opposite-sex couples, as being about opening the door to marriages outside of couples, it is a classic set up for a straw man argument.

thank you for admitting it was not a straw man argument, rather, just a set up for one.

i win, you lose.

LOL

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'll make it easy for you: To paraphrase somebody else "A straw man argument is also often used in conjunction with other logical fallacies, such as red herring, slippery slope, and ad hominem."

You have been stuck on gotcha silliness as you usually are. You wrongly assume because I used the phrase "straw man argument" that I do not know the differences between the logical fallacies, straw red herring, or slippery slope.

As I pointed out to you earlier, when you get stuck you get stuck. The set up allows the insertion of other fallacies in conjunction with the straw man one. But using other fallacies in conjunction does not change the set up that I got you to acknowledge. You admit the set up of a straw man argument.

The straw man argument in question ended up using other fallacies in conjunction, but that did not make the straw man argument, a non straw man argument as you've claimed. Unless of course you now see this BreezeWood character, through ignorance, probably set up a straw man argument not knowing he/she was doing so. Then it just makes it a bullshit argument to go along side yours that somehow people who do not agree with you must somehow not understand definitions.