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.  

Comments

  1. It's called "black and white" or "polarized" thinking - This type of thinking is common with extreme groups (such as cults and extreme religious and political organizations :) They believe there is only one right or wrong - also typical of teens during the late teen brain developmental process - ambiguity and thinking of answers in terms of a continuum have more to do with higher order thinking and more mature adults/more developed brains (frontal lobe). Granted - some people never get to higher order thinking ... :)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Anyone is allowed to comment on this blog. As you can tell from reading my blog, I am very opinionated and I'm not afraid to share my opinion. You're welcome to disagree with me as mildly or vehemently as you like, but be aware that I will reply with my own opinions, very strongly. If you don't want that kind of open discussion, or you think it will hurt your feelings, then please avoid posting. I do try to be respectful, but my verbology often comes across as brusque.

Popular posts from this blog

Hitchens v god

I'm rather ashamed to admit that I just recently discovered Christopher Hitchens. And, while I normally add my own thoughts and commentary to videos when I post them here, in nearly every Hitchens video that I've encountered, I have not a single word to add. He is so articulate and does such a good job of presenting his case that I couldn't possibly add anything to it.  I would definitely be interested if any of my readers have any comments to make in regards to what Hitches says in this video. Enjoy.  

Do you really believe?

This is Richard Dawkin's talk from yesterday's Reason Rally in Washington DC.  He makes several good points, but the one that stuck out to me the most was when he told people that they should challenge someone when they say they're religious.  The example he gave is when someone says they're Catholic, ask them if they really  believe that when a priest blesses a wafer that it actually turns into the body of Christ, or that the wine actually turns into his blood.  So, this post will be dedicated to me asking any of my reader base who are religious, do you really  believe what your religions teach? For those who are Christian (any denomination thereof), Do you really believe every word of the Bible to be the word of god?  If so, read every word of the Bible and then come back and answer the question again. Do you really believe that a snake tricked Eve into eating fruit that made her suddenly unfit to live in the paradisiacal garden god had just made for her? Do y

Co-efficiently Co-related

 I'm a fairly reserved person. I don't open up easily to people. I tend to hold my hand close to my chest, hesitant to lay cards on the table. However there have been a few times in my life where I have had a heart-to-heart talk with someone and I find them to be very rewarding. I've been seeing a therapist for over a year now. One thing that I have decided over all the chats I've had with him is that the people I want to spend the most time with are the ones that I feel the closest to. I have many friends (I use the term "friends" more loosely than some, since to me the term "acquaintance" feels very odd) who are fun to interact with, but our interactions are sparse or superficial. I think it's perfectly fine to have these kinds of friendships--in fact, I think they can be very beneficial. But I have decided that for my own well-being, I will not be putting any measurable amount of emotional effort into such a friendship. I want to reserve that