When I hear the term "straw man" I think of jousting dummies - enemies that are just a set up, that can't fight back. And that's essentially what a straw man argument is. It's a logical fallacy in which the opposing view is simplified or subtly replaced in such a way as to make arguments against it easy and powerful.
For example, a company which wants to build a complex on protected wildlife land could argue that the laws protecting the land are just there to prevent progress and prosperity, and in this day of financial hardship, the new complex is essential. The straw man argument simplifies the opposition's viewpoint to be merely about blocking progress and prosperity. That makes their opponent easier to attack.
These are the nasty fallacies that keep arguments contentious rather than cordial. They rarely add anything to a conversation and tend to deepen divides rather than bring people together. It's probably one of the most common fallacies used in heated debates here on the internet.
If someone insisted that we don't want sexual deviants like homosexuals leading our boy scouts, they are making a straw man argument, trying to substitute sexual deviants for homosexuality because it is easier to argue against sexual deviants. Similarly, when someone argues that they support gay marriage because they are not racist, they are making a straw man argument, substituting racism for their opponent's opinion because it is easier to argue against racism than against a more complex opinion of an opposing view.
It's not hard to fall into making straw man arguments, and I try to avoid them, but I'm not perfect. Still, I try to screen comments for straw man arguments that are too disruptive or divisive. We should be careful not to make such arguments, nor to fall victim to them.
I would agree with that. On the other hand, however, are those who argue that their side of the argument will never be understood unless the other person is, for example, a Mormon. That in effect shuts down any rational discussion about, for example, gay marriage. For example, the Mormon will say well, it is an extremely complex issue and one can't understand all of the nuances unless one is actually Mormon. Further, tangents come up as a way to distract from the issue. For example, "well the government shouldn't be involved in marriage anyway." Prejudices come up: "a man marrying another man is just not natural." One's personal religious beliefs come up (since the U.S. is not a theocracy, this is irrelevant in terms of what the civil laws should be): "in my religion, we believe that God designed man to be with woman eternally in the Celestial Kingdom", "I really feel God's blessing on my remaining celibate/marrying a woman even though I am gay" While that is interesting, it is not relevant to civil law in a country that is not governed by that religion.
ReplyDeleteI have yet to hear or read a valid argument against same sex marriage that doesn't have to do with a religion's view on what God does and doesn't bless. Were I living in Saudi Arabia, this would be important. Here in the U.S. it not.
Finally, saying an issue is extremely complex is a way of shutting down discussion about it or seeing the more obvious points. "Being against same sex marriage is being against equality," I might say. "That's a straw man argument! It's way more complex than that." Okay, how is it more complex than that? Well, we believe God says . . . and the circular reasoning continues.
Let me get this straight. Are you trying to justify straw man arguments? Are you actually suggesting that everyone who disagrees with instituting same sex marriages legally is doing so simply because they are against equality?
DeleteIt's just as easy to insinuate that those who are for instituting same sex marriage are doing it because they don't care about family values. Both are straw man arguments and both are used to dismiss the views of their opponents.
I am saying that saying that an issue is extremely complex and can only really be understood if one is Mormon and also really understands God's plan of salvation (forgive me if I'm using incorrect terminology) is as at least as problematic as my statement of being anti-gay marriage is being against equality.
ReplyDeleteIn some ways it is more problematic because, as I said, there can be no rational discussion when one side's point is that "God says so and I feel a burning under my breast so I know it is true." There is no where to go with that. The fact that those beliefs can influence civil law is wrong.
You may call my statement a straw man but I would suggest that to call it that is a way of dismissing it. Is there a term for arguments that say 'this is true because God says so?" There should be, particularly as such beliefs influence civil law.
As for family values - whose family values? Yours? The Mormon Church's? What about the family values of those who have a different kind of family? Or a different kind of religion? Or no religion at all? It seems that you are speaking of family values as defined by the Mormon Church and not by ALL American citizens At last count, 53% of Americans are for gay marriage so perhaps that 53% has different family values than you do.
To sum up lest you think I am creating a straw man: it is not a straw man argument to say that being anti gay marriage is equivalent to denying equal civil rights to all. And I think that there needs to be a term for people who use "God believes" arguments and that those arguments have no place in civil law in the U.S. In places like Saudi Arabia yes and perhaps in Utah
and Idaho (and I say that non-sarcastically), but not federally. Finally, family values means very different things to different people.
I'm sorry that you feel that your straw man argument is not actually a straw man argument. In fact, you did a very good job of showing my very point. I used the example (which I did in fact claim was a straw man fallacy) of "being for gay marriage was being against family values." You were absolutely right to point out the innate complexities that make the statement worthless. My point is that the statement "being against gay marriage is being against equality for all" is just as much a straw man argument, and just as fallacious. Just because it's your side of the argument does not make it less fallacious.
DeleteSomeone on the other side of the argument could point out nearly identical flaws. Equality in what way? By whose measure? In what aspects? There are many who feel differently about what equality of marriage opportunities actually means. What about those for whom marriage never works out. Is marriage equal for them? Marriage opportunities, at least? How about those who find themselves in abusive relationships. Marriage might certainly not seem equal to them.
My point is not to take either side in this argument. The purpose of this post is to point out that both of these arguments are flawed, being straw man fallacies.
I have to admit that I'm disappointed that when I claimed that "opposing gay marriage is being against equality" was fallacious, you assumed that I was arguing against gay marriage, while at the same time, when I claimed that "supporting gay marriage is being against family values" was fallacious, you assumed that I was arguing against gay marriage again.
Also, you seem to argue as if using the fact that I'm a believing Mormon somewhere in your response somehow discredits my arguments about fallacious logic, which is itself a type of red herring fallacy. I ask you to please stop using these fallacies when responding to my posts.