[WikiEN-l] Straw man (was: Proposed: stop all deletes for 6months, then reconsider)

Tue Nov 11 04:01:09 UTC 2003

> On Behalf Of The Cunctator
> At least according to Wikipedia, "the straw man rhetorical 
> technique is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than 
> your opponents actually offer."

Have you ever heard the saying, "Don't eat where you crap?" :) 

> That is what people have been doing.
> Your use of the word "crying"--when describing what people 
> are doing in a textual medium--unnecessarily vilifies the posters.
>  
> For one, slippery slope arguments are fallacies too.

When debating our policies, pointing out resulting troubling scenarios
and possible degradation to Wikipedia's reputation is a valid exercise
given Wikipedia's stature and importance. Slippery slope arguments are
not inherent fallacies.

And, yes there have been charges of strawman, right in the first
sentence of several posts on WikiEN-l (not particular to either side). 

-Fuzheado

> FULL POST:

> At least according to Wikipedia, "the straw man rhetorical 
> technique is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than 
> your opponents actually offer."
> 
> That is what people have been doing.
> 
> Your use of the word "crying"--when describing what people 
> are doing in a textual medium--unnecessarily vilifies the posters.
>  
> > In most of these cases, discussion has consisted of 
> reasonable "What 
> > if..." and "slippery slope" arguments when standards for 
> "articleness" 
> > are lowered.  This is not automatically a straw man, and in 
> most posts 
> > here, they have not been straw man arguments at all.
> 
> For one, slippery slope arguments are fallacies too.
> 
> Secondly, you actually made a straw man argument again: "when 
> standards for 'articleness' are lowered". I am not advocating 
> lowering standards for 'articleness'. Rather, others are 
> advocating changing the standards, and claiming that the new 
> standards are the "real" standards and that any other 
> position is for lower standards.
> 
> Thirdly, slippery slope arguments are generally connected to 
> a further straw man argument when the "what if" scenario is 
> deemed to be bad and used to attack the original position.
> 
> Finally, I hope you're not trying to characterize what James 
> Duffy wrote above as a reasonable "what if" argument.
> 