Re: Decision Policy [was: Intended Audience]

Maciej Stachowiak 2009-02-02 12.13:
> On Feb 1, 2009, at 8:23 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Maciej Stachowiak 2009-02-02 05.05:

>>>> 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.

>> 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.

Well, your definition is at the very least /not/ complete either. 
/Only/ to misrepresent someone's statement is not enough - because 
the fenomena called "error" can lead to the same thing.

«Superficial resemblance» and «superficial way» is not the same 
thing. Good points that are aside the main topic happen often.

>> 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.

If it is /my/ letter that has had "this kind of effect", then 
please say so. I, for one, did not reply to Sam - it was your 
letter that affected me.

The most important point in your letter for me to react on was 
where you expressed disagrement. Instead I consentrated on the 
form of your letter. This was probably wrong to do.

>> 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.

I'm not sure about that either.
leif halvard silli

Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 18:06:37 UTC