- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 05:23:15 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak 2009-02-02 05.05: > > On Feb 1, 2009, at 4:36 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > >> Lachlan Hunt 2009-02-01 03.30: >>> -public-html >>> +www-archive >>> Sam Ruby wrote: >>>> The third word is "strawman". It involves raising and addressing an >>>> issue that bears only a superficial resemblance to the topic being >>>> discussed. >>> That is not the definition of a strawman. A strawman is an argument >>> where one person misrepresents another's position so as to be easily >>> refuted. >> >> Avoiding the point(s), for the benefit of one's own point(s), but >> still making it seem as if one were on topic. That is a straw man. >> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man >>> Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >>>> Maciej Stachowiak 2009-01-31 22.55: >>>>> I don't think your description is in conflict with what I stated. >>>>> The one part I disagree with is that any raised issue that at least >>>>> three people agree is an issue must be flagged in Working Drafts. I >>>>> do think it is often a good idea to mark especially controversial >>>>> issues, or especially pervasive and clearly unresolved issues, but >>>>> I think doing this as a matter of course may create a lot of work. >>>>> I would say instead that we should exercise reasonable judgment >>>>> about when a flag in the draft is warranted. >>>> >>>> Stating his disagreement. (Conditionally permitted by Sam.) >>>> >>>>> P.S. I know you asked people not to state their agreement on the >>>>> list. But since your email was a reply to me, but since your email >>>>> was a reply to me and since I think it is helpful to the group to >>>>> see people coming to agreement, I chose to make an exception. >>>> >>>> Claiming to have stated his agreement. >>>> >>>> Sam: >>>>> Keep a watch out for these three, and call them out when you see them. >>>> >>>> I see a "strawman". >>> Sorry, that's not a strawman either. Maciej was just pointing that >>> the he largely agreed with what Sam wrote, except for one small part. >> >> You (and Majiej) make it sound as if there is any difference between >> saying >> >> "I disagree in point x." >> and >> "I agree, except in point x." > > Regardless, a strawman is misstating someone else's position. If I > misstated my own position, then that may be inconsistent, mistaken, or > positively deceptive on my part, but it is not a strawman argument. When I said "strawman", then I used the definitino we had been given - and which I happen to think was a good one as well. While it seems you had not just one, but two disagreements with Sam. (Second being the strawman definition.) > This is an example of why it is a terrible idea to encourage people to > accuse each other of fallacious arguments. We are now debating the > definition of "strawman" and what is and isn't a strawman argument, > instead of any point of substance. Third being that you don't like the idea that we should look out for strawmen arguments either. It is a logical fallacy to say that we land in a debate about what strawmen is - when the proof for that is yourself. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 04:23:59 UTC