User Tag List

First 4121314

Results 131 to 140 of 140

  1. #131
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    You're right, as usual, but the search of fallacies isn't especially associated with INTPs.
    As a matter of fact, the vast majority of INTPs here don't even know what a real "strawman" fallacy is, they just use the term inappropriately and for every purpose. It's just a standard, pedantic (but ignorant) way to say they disagree with you. Epistemological figures aren't that easy to understand or master, unless, like you said, you had been professionally trained to recognize them.

    And if you ask them the difference between a deduction, an abduction, an induction or a transduction, most of them won't know how to answer it, unless they google it and try to mimick knowledge they don't really possess.

    Remember that most young INTPs are just posers.
    So it seems that the general conclusion of this thread is that anyone, including anyone who claims to be INTP, is annoying when they misuse fallacies. A lot of work for nothing, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blairvoyant View Post
    A strawman fallacy basically means 'missing the point and steaming way past it.' If you said "Abortion is wrong" and I went off on you about how you shouldn't be allowed to control my body and that taking away my rights is far more wrong than abortion, that would be a straw man, because although it's generally implied that people want to stop others from doing things they consider wrong, you never said anything to indicate that this is true for you.

    I find that people who accuse others of attacking straw men are generally correct in doing so; it's just that they are often guilty of the same problem, and the one so accused generally won't respond to the accusation by reframing their perceptions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    Your example was unclear, and I still feel that you remain confused about the fallacy as it is conventionally understood. Committing the straw man fallacy has little to do with either unwarranted assumptions per se or, "'missing the point and steaming way past it'". To commit it is to do something quite specific, viz. what I mentioned in my previous post, or else something closely akin to this.
    Helios is right. Your example is not a correct demonstration of a straw man fallacy. It's a red herring; the fallaciousness has more to do with irrelevance than it does with misrepresentation. It's kind of a "two wrongs make a right," which is a sub-fallacy in the red herring family.

    In your example you have:

    Person A: Abortion is wrong.
    Person B: Taking away the right to control one's own body is more wrong than abortion. Therefore abortion is not wrong.

    The argument is fallacious because it is irrelevant. Abortion could still be wrong even if it were legal. Furthermore, even if we accept that it is somehow more wrong to take away one's right to control their own body than it is to abort a fetus, that does not mean that the latter is not still wrong.

    A straw man argument, by contrast, happens when one debater reduces the argument of their opponent to a more simplistic (or extreme) version and then proceeds to argue against that version. In other words, a stronger argument is made into a weaker one and then attacked.

    If I were to reformulate your example into an actual straw man, it might go like this:

    Person A: While women have an undeniable right to control what goes on within(out) their own bodies, that does not mean that they have a right to kill other humans. Since a fetus is a human, abortion is wrong.
    Person B: Abortion is not wrong. The government has no right to control how women live their lives or use their bodies.

    The key distinction to be made here is that the straw man argument weakens the original argument in order to make it easier to attack, whereas the red herring derails the original argument in order to evade the direction in which it was headed.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  2. #132
    Energizer Bunny Resonance's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    The key distinction to be made here is that the straw man argument weakens the original argument in order to make it easier to attack, whereas the red herring derails the original argument in order to evade the direction in which it was headed.
    That seems pretty subjective to me.
    The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together. ~ rCoxI ~ INfj ~ 5w6 so/sp

  3. #133
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blairvoyant View Post
    That seems pretty subjective to me.
    What are you talking about?
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  4. #134
    Energizer Bunny Resonance's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    What are you talking about?
    I mean there's no clear distinction. The distinction is how 'thematically related' the two arguments (the imagined one and the intended one) are. That leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
    The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together. ~ rCoxI ~ INfj ~ 5w6 so/sp

  5. #135
    Senior Member BlueGray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    474

    Default

    That's not really what the distinction is. One deals with the other parties argument while the other introduces something with which to distract. Both or neither could be thematically related.
    Ne > Ti > Si >> Te > Se >> Fe > Fi > Ni
    5 so/sp
    Chaotic Neutral/Evil

  6. #136
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    67sx
    Posts
    89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrcockburn View Post
    1. Because there's too many words to expect everyone to know them all, do you not realize how many words exist in the English language, never mind the idioms etc. I only first heard of these obscure terms here on TypeC.

    2. How many times have you had to hear/use the term "strawman fallacy" in your professional/social life?

    3. Actually, I *am* learning a second language. Actually, I'm learning 3 at once. So the last thing on my agenda is to learn about .
    I can totally relate. I am tired too about people wanting to using fancy jargon for no apparent reason like.. you know, thumb... index... FINGERS... it would all be so much easier if they said it like it is, like, those pink meaty things on your hands... or... those pink meaty things on your hngs... or... the hmm on the hmmm... Really awful how people use fancy words like "tomorrow" and "yesterday" just to look like intellectual jerks when they could say ahahu (pointing at the sun and backwards) and uhuhe (pointing at the sun and forward). And they expect you to like know 1000 words and look s**t up and stuff... bah. ;-)

  7. #137
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blairvoyant View Post
    I mean there's no clear distinction. The distinction is how 'thematically related' the two arguments (the imagined one and the intended one) are. That leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
    This...

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueGray View Post
    That's not really what the distinction is. One deals with the other parties argument while the other introduces something with which to distract. Both or neither could be thematically related.
    ...is answered perfectly by this.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  8. #138
    Senior Member copperfish17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/so
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrcockburn View Post
    1. Because there's too many words to expect everyone to know them all, do you not realize how many words exist in the English language, never mind the idioms etc. I only first heard of these obscure terms here on TypeC.

    2. How many times have you had to hear/use the term "strawman fallacy" in your professional/social life?

    3. Actually, I *am* learning a second language. Actually, I'm learning 3 at once. So the last thing on my agenda is to learn about .
    I looked up/studied a huge list of fallacies, just for fun...

    I heard the term "strawman fallacy" quite often IRL. But that's probably because my best buds are mostly INTX's.

    Ooh, 3 foreign languages! Shake mah hand plz. I speakz 4 langy-wagez too.
    Enneagram: 5w4 5-9-2 (5w4 9w1 2w1) sp/so

    "Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience." - Greg King
    The worst mistake people make in political arguments is assuming that the other side is not trying to do the right thing. This simple oversight makes productive conversation nearly impossible.

  9. #139
    (☞゚∀゚)☞ The Decline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    780

    Default

    While I recognize this as essentially a troll thread, I'm going to have to side with the "google it" crowd. There's even simple.wikipedia.org now.
    "Stop it, you fuck. Give him some butter."
    Ti
    = Ne > Ni > Fi > Te > Se > Fe > Si INTP (I/PNT) 5w4

  10. #140
    Energizer Bunny Resonance's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueGray View Post
    That's not really what the distinction is. One deals with the other parties argument while the other introduces something with which to distract. Both or neither could be thematically related.
    No, neither one deals with the other party's argument.

    One introduces an 'exaggerated/etc' form of it, the other introduces something unrelated. Either way, the original argument is not addressed.
    The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together. ~ rCoxI ~ INfj ~ 5w6 so/sp

Similar Threads

  1. [INTP] Female INTPs-What do they look like?
    By TopherRed in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 225
    Last Post: 03-04-2017, 12:48 PM
  2. Why do they keep some commandments and not others?
    By Haphazard in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 10-20-2009, 09:01 PM
  3. [ENFP] Why Do you love ENFP's?
    By littledarling in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 399
    Last Post: 07-13-2009, 11:00 PM
  4. TypeC nee MBTIc -- Why Do I Love Thee?
    By CzeCze in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-22-2009, 03:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO