W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Decision Policy [was: Intended Audience]

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 05:23:15 +0100
Message-ID: <49867533.2030805@malform.no>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:34 UTC