Strawman arguments?

[Seth]

You simply cannot define what feminism is when arguing with someone that self-identifies as a feminist or is putting a feminist POV - or define anything else for that matter!

WTF are you talking about, of course he can. He can define "feminism" any way he likes as his initial premise which he uses to state his reasoning WHY that definition of feminism applies in the particular circumstances he is encompassing with his argument. You are free to disagree with his definition of feminism, and you are free to state another definition and defend that, but it is perfectly rational and reasonable for someone stating a premise of an argument, ie: "Feminists are all man-hating cunts," to use that definition as the basis for his argument proving (or disproving) that thesis.

Beginning a discussion by telling someone else what they think and believe is just about as strawmaniacal as you can get!

It's not a strawman, it's a set of premises upon which his argument is founded. For example:

P1 "Feminists have the following characteristics: (what follows is a list of particular characteristics of what he believes comprises feminists)"
P2 "Feminists with the above characteristics demonstrate a hatred of the male of the species."
C1 Therefore, feminists are man hating cunts.

According to the internal logic, this is a valid syllogism. Where you seem to disagree is with his description of feminists, which of course you are free to do. You may argue that not all feminists bear those characteristics, and therefore the syllogism fails on its first premise if you like, but it is not a strawman fallacy for him to claim that premise in his argument.

A strawman fallacy would be if you said that all feminists are tolerant, peaceful, man-loving individuals and his reply ignored, distorted or misstated your original premise. For example, if he replied "You just admitted that feminists are all cunts, and therefore blah, blah, blah" That is a strawman argument.

A strawman argument is a response to a premise stated by someone else that presents the original premise in a distorting, dishonest or misstated fashion. There is no such thing as a strawman premise.

It's much the same as accusing all christians of being YECs - deeply patronising and rightly dismissed out of hand by anyone with whom you are debating.

That may be, but it's a valid premise for an argument. In a reasonable debate, your duty is to deconstruct whatever argument he makes in support of that premise, not simply reject it by assuming a priori that his premise is false or faulty. The presumed insult you refer to is a function of you imposing an entirely one-sided definition of "feminist" as a scientific fact that cannot be disputed or challenged.

He says, "Feminists are man-haters"
You say, "You're making a strawman argument because feminists are not man-haters."

What you are doing is a classic example of the fallacy of begging the question.

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

The whole point of making a claim, or stating a premise, is to set the base conditions for a debate, which means that the burden is on him to provide arguments in support of his premise, and for you to rebut his arguments and offer counter arguments of your own showing why his premise is false.

Even if you can back up your definition with references and citations, you are still committing an "Argument from Authority" fallacy - which is often no better than a strawman, or, at best, only a marginal improvement.

Nonsense. the fallacy of appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority cited is not in fact an authority on the subject. "Joe Blow has proven that all feminists are man-hating cunts" can either be a valid evidential argument or it can be an appeal to authority fallacy. It depends entirely on what the CV of Joe happens to be and whether he's a recognized expert in identifying feminist cunts.

Saying "Richard Dawkins has demonstrated how the evolutionary process results in changes to species morphology over time" is an appeal to authority argument, but it is not necessarily a fallacious appeal.

Though you are just using an "Appeal To Purity" argument/fallacy. What you are saying is that I can never attack feminism because there is an arbitrary (pure) idea of feminism somewhere. No matter how complling the evidence is against feminism it can't be criticized ever. I don't think I can get on board with an idea being ring fenced. I also don't like the way it is claimed that to be against feminism is to be against women's rights. If I used the same argument against women's rights that I am using against feminism I will fall flat on my face. Women's (all) rights movements are issue specific and goal oriented. I have always believed in equal rights for everyone.

I agree with you. Criticizing feminism is the same thing as insulting Mohammed. In the eyes of feminists, their particular definition of feminism is inherently and indisputably correct, and any challenge cannot be based in reason or logic, but must instead come from bias and bigotry on the part of the questioner.

It's holy writ that feminists are always right, no matter how ridiculous and asinine their proclamations.

[Seth]

Dave : you should have stayed no matter how unpopular you would have become. I know that it can be hard and the two current members that are very unpopular have been taking years of abuse but they are still there. Now that you have decided to leave there are fewer alternative voices. It is already known that there was concerted effort to get rid of two undesirables and now you have gone also. I am an insider and so it does not really affect me though it is not about me any way. There should be a rule that undesirables are more protected so that the majority can not get rid of them just for being unpopular. To even things out a little all the undesirables should be made life members.

Does that include me?

[Seth]

ANOTHER FUCKING STRAWMAN!!111!!

Saying, "What you're saying..." when it clearly is NOT what I am saying is the very epitome of strawmanship!

Not necessarily. What he's doing is using your argument as the premise for his next argument. He doesn't literally mean "you said this..." as a direct attributable quote, which WOULD be a strawman. What he's saying, as I often do, is actually, "I'd like you to understand that your argument does not support your thesis and that the actual logical and rational result of your premise is...."

"What you're saying is..." is merely shorthand for "I don't think that what you think you said is what what you said actually means, and here's why it can be interpreted differently."

Where have I said that you can never attack feminism?

You didn't say it, what he's saying is that the necessary implication and result of what you did say is that attacking feminism is not permitted. In other words, he's interpreting what he holds to be the true meaning of your statement.

Or any of the other bullshit you just shovelled into my mouth? Jesus Fucking H Christ in a gaybar! I see why they think you're such a poor opponent now. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about, do you? You didn't read my measured response to your OP - you simply ASSUMED that it meant something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and went for the jugular - ending up with a mouthful of straw!

When I say to BG, "What you're saying when you claim that banning guns will reduce handgun murders is that you don't care about potential victims and their rights" I am not making a strawman fallacy, I'm stating an alternative interpretation of BG's statement that takes factors into account that he does not consider or mention in his statement.

He's using a rhetorical technique to reveal what he considers to be flaws in your argument by presenting an alternative interpretation of your words which may add unconsidered or unargued information to the debate, as in my opening of the subject of the rights of victims by reinterpreting BG's claims.

That's not a strawman. It can be a strawman fallacy depending on how exactly its stated, but it is not ipso facto a strawman argument.

[Seth]

Dave, yes, EVERY other ideology uses the same get-out-of-jail-free-card!

That is why you can't argue like that! Doing so makes you look stupid! There is no point arguing about creationism with a christian that is comfortable with evolution. There is no point arguing about Stalinism with a Trotskyist. There is no point arguing about Sunni Islam with a Shiite!

Whether there is a "point" to doing so is not really relevant. The point of doing so is to set up a competing premise and present an argument that supports your premise. Take Marxism and Socialism. My premise is that all Socialism is rooted in Marxism, an that Marxism in inherently evil, therefore Socialism is inherently evil:

P1 All socialism is rooted in Marxist ideology
P2 Marxist ideology is inherently evil
C1 Therefore, all socialism is inherently evil.

As it stands, this is a valid syllogism. But what it really is is a springboard for a discussion of Marxism and Socialism and (in my opinion) how all socialism is inextricably linked to Marxist ideology, and why both Marxism and Socialism are therefore inherently evil.

Your counter argument would be presumably that not all Socialism is inextricably linked to Marxist ideology and you would provide argumentation supporting your counter-premise.

You may choose not to debate religion with a Catholic because you believe that he will be immovably irrational and unwilling to engage in reasoned debate, but that doesn't mean there's no "point" in doing so. All that says is that YOU are so hidebound in your Atheistic dogma that there is no room left for debate, which is the hallmark of a closed mind. As Aristotle said, "The mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it."

In exactly the same way you cannot make a cogent argument against feminism by lumping them all together in one homogenous, one-size-fits-all mass! Don't you get that?

Of course he can. Your response to that premise, if you are being rational, is to make exactly the statement you just made as a rebuttal, and perhaps to support it with additional argumentation that moves the ball forward in the discussion.

You need to address each individual feminist on their own merits and discuss their concept of feminism. If your arguments have validity, that should be no problem. If they don't, well...

You're merely suggesting a divide and conquer strategy which amounts to arguing a biblical passage with a theist who says, "Well, that's not what I believe."

It's perfectly rational to lump together "man-hating radical feminists" when discussing man-hating radical feminists. This does not imply that ALL feminists are man-hating radicals, it means that he is discussing, in particular, those persons who self-identify as "feminists" who happen to be of the man-hating, radical Andrea Dworkin contingent of feminism. It's certainly overbroad to imply that all feminists are man-hating cunts, unless he's prepared to defend that position with evidence and argumentation. It is philosophically possible for anyone claiming allegiance to the concept of feminism to be classed as a "man-hating cunt."

Whether this claim can be rationally substantiated through argumentation and evidence is something else entirely. But it's just as evasive and intellectually bankrupt to evade a debate about feminism by rejecting the argument because his definition of feminists is over-inclusive. Insisting, as you just did, (here's that rhetorical device I referred to again) that there is no definition of feminism and that it's entirely subjective on the part of every individual does not forward the debate, it short-stops it by making it impossible to argue generalities or principles.

When I say "feminists are man-hating cunts" and you respond "you're wrong because not all feminists are man-hating cunts so you can't lump them all together like that" you are attempting to evade the essence of the debate. The intellectually honest thing to do is to restate (there's that rhetorical device again) his premise by saying "What you're really saying is that some radical feminists are man-hating cunts." If agreement can be reached on that revised premise, then discussion of the nature of man-hating radical feminists can proceed, moving the debate forward. But if you refuse to engage the debate by pettifogging the premise rather than clarifying it to some common agreement, then you are doing exactly what he said you are doing; you are making feminism immune from criticism or critique by making the definition of feminism so vague and subjective as to be useless.

[rainbow]

P1 All socialism is rooted in Marxist ideology
P2 Marxist ideology is inherently evil
C1 Therefore, all socialism is inherently evil.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Socialism predates Marx, and evil is a subjective idea created from ancient religious laws.

[pErvinalia]

And he's not entitled to that opinion why, exactly?

I never said he wasn't.

Oh, were you trying to show what a 'strawman' was by demonstration?

No, the tone of that comment was clearly derisive and dismissive of his opinion, and I called you out on it because that's exactly the sort of lame argument used to banish people from RatSkep. "Your opinion is stupid so we don't want to hear it and we're permabanning you because you refuse to stop stating your opinion."

Trust me, I know for a fact that is how the reasoning goes over there.

Lol. I've never supported banning anyone so you can fuck off with that armchair psychologist bullshit.

Well, I can't be sure of that, now can I? You say that, but you could just be making a self-serving statement to protect your ego.

An ethical person who objects to the practices over there would refuse to participate in any way in perpetuating the abuse and would leave. You support the practice by participating in the forum.

Says the sock puppeteer.

[pErvinalia]

Feminism is a man hating ideology and if you subscribe to that ideology you are a man hater by default.

Bullshit! Fucking strawman2!

Read my post above.

I wanted to reply to that bullshit as well, but it was too hard on crapatalk. I consider myself a feminist, and I don't hate myself. In fact, I'm Fucking awesome!

[Xamonas Chegwé]

[Seth]

P1 All socialism is rooted in Marxist ideology
P2 Marxist ideology is inherently evil
C1 Therefore, all socialism is inherently evil.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Socialism predates Marx, and evil is a subjective idea created from ancient religious laws.

Socialism may predate Marxism, but modern Socialism is deeply rooted in Marxist ideology, specifically the concept of forcible collectivism and devaluation of the individual and his rights or needs in favor of the needs or desires of the collective, as succinctly expressed by the Marxist maxim "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." As to "evil," I was presenting an example of a logical syllogism as a part of examining the issue of defining a strawman argument.

That being said, Libertarianism is quite socialist in how society functions under Libertarian principles, the primary difference being the lack of coercion of the individual to participate in collectivization so long as the individual does not fraudulently obtain benefits from the collective.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

By the way, Seth. This post earlier in the thread contains a clear personal attack. Next one gets you a holiday.

[Seth]

By the way, Seth. This post earlier in the thread contains a clear personal attack. Next one gets you a holiday.

Of course it is. It's a rebuttal to the personal attack quoted therein on behalf of the victim of that vicious ad hom. Somebody had to do it, since you were not willing to do your job.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

By the way, Seth. This post earlier in the thread contains a clear personal attack. Next one gets you a holiday.

Of course it is. It's a rebuttal to the personal attack quoted therein on behalf of the victim of that vicious ad hom. Somebody had to do it, since you were not willing to do your job.

The "personal attack" you refer to is regarding someone who is not even a member here as far as I know.

[DaveDodo007]

By the way, Seth. This post earlier in the thread contains a clear personal attack. Next one gets you a holiday.

This is unfair as the mistake was mine and I take full responsibility for it, Scott1328 and Seth where but bit players in it.

[piscator]

No. Seth was right about the intolerance and Scott being a snotty douche in the classic RatSkep mode. And Xam was right about the personal attack call, as Seth willfully chewed through his leash in that post.

[DaveDodo007]

Feminism is a man hating ideology and if you subscribe to that ideology you are a man hater by default.

Bullshit! Fucking strawman2!

Read my post above.

I wanted to reply to that bullshit as well, but it was too hard on crapatalk. I consider myself a feminist, and I don't hate myself. In fact, I'm Fucking awesome!

Ho noes, I'm trembling with fear. Do yourself a favour Rev and empty your sack into some Indian hookers. I even admit I'm poor at debating though even I will be able to blow out the water any arguments from a (so called) sceptic who follows an ideology. This is because all ideologies are simply an indefensible position to hold anyway. Also all male feminists are self loathing males so the misandric position still applies, so get yourself to an Internet cafe and have at it.