- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 03:13:25 -0800
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Feb 1, 2009, at 8:23 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > 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. Even by Sam's hasty definition, "It involves raising and addressing an issue that bears only a superficial resemblance to the topic being discussed," I do not see how my statement qualifies. It was most definitely about the topic being discussed, in a more than superficial way. Nontheless, using an incorrect definition of the term "strawman" as a basis for accusations is even less constructive. > While it seems you had not just one, but two disagreements with Sam. > (Second being the strawman definition.) I assume that was some hasty writing on Sam's part, and not a disagreement in substance. My experience is that he knows what a strawman argument is. I do wish he had explained it more clearly. However, this has nothing to do with the decision policy, which is what I largely agreed with. >> 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. Look out for? Sure. Politely point out when you believe your position has been misstated? Sure. Randomly accuse others without justification? That certainly seems like a bad idea, and when I first read Sam's message I did not think it would have this kind of effect. > It is a logical fallacy to say that we land in a debate about what > strawmen is - when the proof for that is yourself. I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence. You can clarify if you want, but I am also not sure we need to discuss this further. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 11:14:08 UTC