• Echogem222
    92
    Note:
    A straw person argument is a rhetorical technique where someone distorts or misrepresents their opponent's position or argument to make it easier to attack or refute. Instead of addressing the actual argument, the person creates a weaker or exaggerated version of it (the "straw person") and then attacks that instead. This can be used to make the original argument seem unreasonable or easier to dismiss.

    +++

    The Paradox:
    Person A: "I think we should invest more in public transportation to reduce traffic congestion and pollution."

    Person B: "Person A wants to eliminate all cars and force everyone to use crowded buses and trains!"

    Person C: "Person B thinks we should keep all roads congested with cars and ignore the benefits of improving public transportation!"

    Person D: "Person C wants to shut down all roads and force people to walk everywhere, ignoring the need for cars in emergencies or for long-distance travel!"

    Person E: "Person D believes we should pave over all natural areas to make room for endless highways, disregarding the importance of preserving the environment for future generations!"

    Person F: "Person E thinks we should live in the wilderness without any roads or infrastructure, ignoring the benefits of modern civilization and transportation!"

    Person G: "Person F believes we should live in a futuristic, dystopian society where technology controls every aspect of our lives, ignoring the value of a balanced, human-centered approach to technology and society!"

    Person H: "Person G wants us to live in caves, communicate solely through grunts, and reject all forms of progress, including fire and the wheel, advocating for a return to a primal state of existence, completely disconnected from the modern world!"

    +++

    The paradox emerges from the fact that each subsequent argument is a response to the previous misrepresentation, yet in doing so, it exaggerates the misrepresentation further, creating an endless loop of increasingly extreme positions. This highlights the absurdity that can result from misrepresenting arguments and how it can lead to a situation where the original discussion is lost entirely.

    If you think there is no straw person argument being used, this is a paradox, if you use a straw person argument without realizing you are, you would see this as a paradox. Only those who understand that straw person arguments are straw person arguments would not see this as a paradox.
  • Lionino
    2.7k
    A paradox is a situation that results in something impossible. How is this a paradox?
  • Echogem222
    92
    If you think there is no straw person argument, it's a paradox. In other words, those that think they're not using straw person arguments but actually are would see this as a paradox.
  • Lionino
    2.7k
    It is not clear how that fits the definition of paradox. So what is the impossible situation that results from that?
    Btw, it is strawman, not strawperson.
  • Echogem222
    92

    The word strawman is an outdated term because it expresses gender discrimination, but don't just take my word for it, places of education are already using strawperson instead: https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/straw-person.html

    I'm saying that if you think every person (B-H) is actually being reasonable, that there is no fallacy being used, then it's a paradox. But if you understand the fallacy, then there is no paradox.
  • Kizzy
    138
    The paradox arises when the straw man fallacy is adopted by the opponent as their genuine argument. By doing so, they unintentionally invalidate the fallacious intent behind the straw man and transform it into a legitimate stance.

    This serves as a powerful reminder of the critical role that clear and precise communication plays in our understanding of complex issues. It highlights the fact that without clarity, messages can be easily distorted, leading to a cascade of muddled misunderstandings. It reminds us that words have power and that how we choose to express ourselves can have far-reaching implications for our relationships and society at large.

    This is particularly relevant in the fast-paced world of today and tomorrow, where information is rapidly exchanged and the potential for misinterpretation is high. The paradox also encourages people to be mindful of the language they use and to strive for transparency in our interactions. By doing so, we can foster more productive and meaningful conversations that are grounded in reality rather than in exaggerated or misconstrued versions of our statements. It prompts us to consider the perspectives of others before jumping to conclusions, promoting a more empathetic and nuanced approach to dialogue.

    I love to see it, Echogem222!

    Edit This above comment was constructed with aid of Bing Copilot. But the heart, interest, and validity I have for the context and message of the OP is shown in my efforts to remain transparent and credible. I will refrain from the obvious aid moving forward. It is not authentic but the inputs and interests I took to learn more are genuine. My intent was not to pretend to know something I do not...just to be a bit more well written. I will take this as a lesson learned. Thanks!
  • Lionino
    2.7k
    The word strawman is an outdated termEchogem222

    It isn't, that's how everybody says it.

    because it expresses gender discriminationEchogem222

    It doesn't. And even if it did, it doesn't matter, it isn't 2017 anymore.


    Yeah, that is literally the only link the shows up on Google when you look that "word" up, while everything under that says "strawman".

    I'm saying that if you think every person (B-H) is actually being reasonable, that there is no fallacy being used, then it's a paradox. But if you understand the fallacy, then there is no paradox.Echogem222

    That doesn't follow. Whether I think someone is being reasonable or not does not result in a paradox.



    This post was written by an AI. Likely ChatGPT.
  • Echogem222
    92
    Thank you for the positive response!
  • Echogem222
    92
    How amusing, using the straw person argument to reject my post as valid.
  • Kizzy
    138
    Wait are you serious?
  • Lionino
    2.7k
    Sorry but playing dumb doesn't make it not obvious.

    I didn't strawman you. You have this tendency to accuse others of making a strawman when they point out how your posts make zero sense.

    In this thread you do it several times: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15054/why-we-dont-have-free-will-using-logic
  • Echogem222
    92
    If something does not make sense to you, then it doesn't make sense for you to conclude that it actually does make sense, and that's why you think it's wrong.

    Non-understanding does not equal understanding. Therefore, if someone says something which should leave you clueless as to how you should respond because of how little sense it makes, then saying they're wrong makes zero sense.
  • Kizzy
    138
    I am not playing dumb, I couldnt tell if you were calling me out or the OP. I think you meant my comment was written with A.I. and it was in fact. Good looking out, Lionino. I am messing with newly updated Bing Copilot. My post was translated here by me from the help of a.i., but I did not directly copy and paste it from chat. I save the outputs then copy into my notes app to break it up to make sense for me. I am not using it to for any other reason then to help me learn philosophical terms and usages by focusing on proper formatting and communication skills. I am usually a bit unpolished in my comments and am figuring better good structure with the tools available. I have all my inputs saved to authenticate my credibility. I am not claiming to know anything that I didnt already. I have to input into chat in order to get the results I did... But yeah I am not hiding the fact I have started using A.I. aid to see how I can construct better sentences through philosophical inquires. But you are right, it is obvious. But now what? This is the second time I have used Bings help, the first was yesterday replying to Sam26 in the thread Is knowledge merely belief. It is also obvious. What is also obvious is I am trying..
    But you have made a good impression on me, and I am willing to not implement so obviously or take advantage the aids A.I. offers. I care too much about my character, originality, and credibility to risk ruining it over something I can learn on my own. Thanks for the reminder and calling me out!
  • jgill
    3.9k
    Non-understanding does not equal understanding.Echogem222

    No argument with that. :roll:
  • tim wood
    9.3k
    The argument arises from consideration of what could be or might not be - that is, from ideas that counter each other or seem to counter each other in some sense, but that neither of which is itself certain. The governing logic falls under Rhetoric - persuasion. And ingredients of good persuasion are the good character, good will, and good judgment of the speaker. And for at least 2500 years, and no doubt much, much longer, arguments have been made by people of ill-will, poor judgment, and bad character. And the best of these are the Sophists. Straw-manning, or straw-personing, and in the likes of MTGreen we can extend the "privilege" to women, is simply clumsy and back-handed sophistry, and the best they can do is to annoy and delay. Which is to say they are best completely ignored.
  • Lionino
    2.7k
    Word salad.

    Try a dictionary. You can start here:tim wood

    I know how those work, they taught me in first grade. Reread my post as me politely saying that OP is using the word wrong.
  • Echogem222
    92
    Though it's true that ignoring them is what I'd normally do most of the time, I can only ignore them because I'm in a position of a certain amount of power. Imagine being in a situation where you need to convince the other person they are using a straw person argument by showing them it creates a paradox, or you'll be executed.

    That's an extreme example, but my point is that everyone has a certain degree of influence in the world, and by always ignoring the problem, it could come back to bite you later.
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    ↪Echogem222 I didn't strawman you. You have this tendency to accuse others of making a strawman when they point out how your posts make zero sense.Lionino
    :smirk: :up:
  • Wayfarer
    22.8k
    I love the political correctness of 'strawperson'. :rofl:
  • flannel jesus
    1.8k
    it's another non paradox. Some people seem really eager to call any thought experiment a "paradox".
  • Lionino
    2.7k
    I realised from the get go. I was just doubting myself here and giving OP a chance to enlighten me. Unsurprisingly that didn't happen.

    Or perhaps I am committing another strawfolx
  • ssu
    8.7k
    it's another non paradox. Some people seem really eager to call any thought experiment a "paradox".flannel jesus
    Indeed. As interesting to consider this thought experiment is, this simply isn't a paradox.

    Or perhaps I am committing another strawfolxLionino
    Perhaps we all are, who don't see a paradox. :smile:

    And what's with the folx, folks? :chin:
  • Benj96
    2.3k
    This highlights the absurdity that can result from misrepresenting arguments and how it can lead to a situation where the original discussion is lost entirely.Echogem222

    Welcome to global politics.
  • Benj96
    2.3k
    Btw, it is strawman, not strawperson.Lionino

    Did you just assume that straw persons gender??
  • Christoffer
    2.1k
    I think you meant my comment was written with A.I. and it was in fact. Good looking out, Lionino. I am messing with newly updated Bing Copilot. My post was translated here by me from the help of a.i., but I did not directly copy and paste it from chat.Kizzy

    Rather than have the AI write for you, write your own post and maybe analyze the grammar and structure by the AI as support. While AI functions well att writing, the problem is that you lose or never challenge your own process of thought as writing isn't just outward communication, it's part of your internal processing of ideas.

    It's been proven in studies that the physicality of writing increases the brain activity. It is stronger in writing on paper with a pen as it's the most physical action you can do, but it's also there while writing on a keyboard.

    So letting an AI do that work for you will only lead to you losing something in the purpose of gaining knowledge through discourse. So, write your own stuff and maybe use AI as a research and editing tool, but never as the source of train of thought for an argument. It will make you cognitively numb.
  • Lionino
    2.7k
    And what's with the folx, folks? :chin:ssu

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/folx

    Trust the science
  • Kizzy
    138
    Hey Christoffer, thank you for the helpful advice. You are exactly right here,
    While AI functions well att writing, the problem is that you lose or never challenge your own process of thought as writing isn't just outward communication, it's part of your internal processing of ideas.Christoffer
    And I often do write with pen and paper but its funny I type the same way I write a lot of the time, which is the same way I speak or think. I tend to communicate my ideas stream of consciousness style, so while I used to believe that the contents of the thought are more important than the delivery style, grammar, and proper language usage; I am quickly learning that side is equally important to be fully heard and understood. I would rush to put out my thoughts before the structural work because at the "brainstorming" stage it doesnt have to fully be presentable (to others) and thats the stage a lot of my philosophical thought is at...so sharing here TO OTHERS, I am taking away from my thoughts that maybe would be considered more if they were understood by more than just ME.

    But yeah, I am still learning how to use A.I. properly too so that didnt help me as much as I thought it would.

    Appreciate your insight.
  • ssu
    8.7k
    Trust the scienceLionino

    Folx

    A way of writing "folks" (= people) that emphasizes the fact that you intend the word to include all groups of people: There are a lot of folx who would disagree with me. Folx is meant to be a gender-neutral word that includes members of the LGBTQ community.
    Is it really science, or just the 21st Century?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.