Skip to main content

Straw Man

I often wonder why it is said that religion and politics are taboo topics and should not be discussed in the workplace (or anywhere "professional" or "polite"). One of the things I've noticed is the problem of the straw man argument. This is a logical fallacy where an argument is replaced by one which is more ridiculous so as to make it seem false. I have included here many such examples. This makes logical discussion impossible because the rebuttal given does not even address the argument proposed by the first person.
I say... Radical conservative thinks I'm saying...
Let's talk about gun control Take away everyone's gun and don't let anyone own one.
Let's have a secular government Kill Jesus and persecute all Christians.
Let gay people get married All straight marriages are null and void. Force everyone to marry someone of the same sex. Teach all children that gay sex is the only way to go.
Let women decide what to do with their bodies Murder all children under the age of 2
Obama actually accomplished quite a bit during his first term. Worship Obama and make virgin sacrifices in his name. He is God Almighty.
Climate change is real Every time you start your car, the whole world's temperature rises 50 degrees
Evolution is real People mutate from monkeys during their lifetime.

I say... Radical liberal thinks I'm saying...
Why is it the government's job to provide welfare? Let the poor starve. Who cares if they have enough to eat?
Having low-wage jobs can be good for the economy. Everyone should work for less than a dollar per hour.
People need to learn to accept responsibility for their own actions. If you weren't born with a silver spoon in your mouth, you don't deserve a nice life.
Life is valuable and should be respected. All contraceptive measures are evil and should be universally banned.
I don't think that bigger government is the answer to all of our problems. Declare total anarchy and overthrow the government.

I think that we'll have a much more respectable atmosphere in discussion these matters when we can at least agree on what is being discussed.  This is why when I make an argument, I try to be as articulate as possible, saying precisely what I mean, and I assume that the other person is doing the same.  I find that when people "read between the lines" and make assumptions about the other person's argument and attitude, there are higher rates of miscommunication and thus more contentious interaction.  

Popular posts from this blog

What's a gainer?

If you haven't already done so, I would suggest reading my previous post before reading this one.  It's sort of an introduction and gives the motivation.  Also, by way of disclosure, this post is not sexually explicit but it does touch on the topic of sexuality and how that relates to the subject at hand.

So, what is a gainer?  I'll relate, as best I can, the experiences I have gone through myself to help answer the question.  I remember when I was a young boy--perhaps around 6 or 7--I would have various fantasies.  Not sexual fantasies, just daydreaming about hypothetical situations that I thought were interesting or entertaining.  I had many different fantasies.  Sometimes I would fantasize about becoming very muscular, sometimes about becoming very fat.  
These fantasies varied in degree of magnitude and the subject of the fantasy.  Sometimes I myself would change weight--I would become muscular or fat.  Other times, I would do something to make other people fat or musc…

The scientific method vs the religious method

I find it interesting when people cite the fact that science keeps changing as a reason to disbelieve it and to believe instead in the "eternal" doctrines taught by some church or other.  Let's examine why science keeps changing.  Here's the scientific method.

Develop a hypothesis (this means "have a belief").Design an experiment to test the hypothesis.Conduct the experiment.Determine whether the hypothesis is believable based on the results of the experiment. This is why science keeps changing--because people notice flaws in it and correct them.  People once thought the solar system was geocentric, but now know that it's heliocentric.  How did this happen?  By using the scientific method.  Scientists are willing to admit that they're wrong.  They're willing to give up a bad idea when they see evidence that it makes no sense.  Contrast this with the religious method (simplified version). Have a belief.Look for evidence to support that belief.Ignor…

Cancel the gym

After I went to the gym this morning, I pulled in to the McDonald's drive through.  While waiting for my food, I played out in my mind a possible conversation I might have with someone concerning just this.  In fact, I have had many real conversations of similar nature.
"How was your morning?"
"It was good.  I went to the gym.  Then I grabbed a late breakfast at McDonald's on my way to work."
"Won't that cancel out?"
"Cancel what?"
"Going to McDonald's after the gym.  Won't that undo all the work you just did?"

I understand the humor.  I laugh about it.  It's funny.  And I think humor is an important thing, and that we should all laugh a little bit more and be offended a little bit less.  And so I write this not up-in-arms, but in the attempts of perhaps reaching some of those who literally believe this line of reasoning.

To the person who asserts that eating "cancels out" going to the gym, I ask just this…