Procrustes Stretched
"intuition and imagination and intelligence"
Dante v Yurt: Slippery Slope/Straw Man Logical/Informal Fallacies
Slippery Slope
Straw Man
History/Timeline
The Challenge: To convince that a straw man argument was set up by insertion of a slippery slope, but only after first ignoring the full context of the argument. That this tactic allows the set up for the knock down of the straw man: that same-sex marriage is about opening the door to marriage outside of two consenting adults as a couple.
Argument A: When it comes to state recognition of marriage, same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples should be treated equally.
Argument B: The state should or should not recognize marriages regardless of ages involved, regardless of relationships to each other, regardless of monogamy, regardless of species.
Yurt has to ignore the multiple meanings and forms of straw man arguments. All this in order to validate his premise that something is a slippery slope argument and not a straw man argument. Yurt needs to ignore the full context of the argument in order to defend the re-framing of an arguments
Dante
dD
Slippery Slope
Straw Man
History/Timeline
1 More Same-Sex/Gay Marriage Thread in the Politics Forum
Why not? What do you think about the politics of Same-Sex/Gay Marriage?
Should we have Civil Unions for same-sex couples and Marriage for opposite-sex couples? Should we have separate but equal?
Demand Pink Crow Laws Now!
plural marriage, polygamy will be next - multi sex, multi partner or muti partner same sex ... a solid solution for overpopulation.
plural marriage, polygamy will be next - multi sex, multi partner or muti partner same sex ... a solid solution for overpopulation.
Straw Man argument
An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition. For example:
Politician A: "We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch and further worsen the obesity epidemic by doing so."
Politician B: "What, do you want our children to starve?"
you're an idiot. he did not present a straw man argument. he never claimed anyone said polygamy would be next. he made that statement, thus, it was not a straw man. at best you could say it is the slippery slope argument.
it actually is a good point.
Politician A: "We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch and further worsen the obesity epidemic by doing so."
Politician B: "What, do you want our children to starve?"
A) Same-Sex/Gay Marriage: "Should we have Civil Unions for same-sex couples and Marriage for opposite-sex couples? Should we have separate but equal?"
B) polygamy will be next
------
Using a straw man argument in conjunction with other logical fallacies such as a slippery slope argument does not negate anything. Framing the argument as 'allowing same-sex marriages will open the door to polygamy' (slippery slope), Except:
Gay Marriages exist and Polygamy has already been ruled on in America (We fought that battle). The purpose some people have in introducing polygamy into a discussion about same-sex marriages is to do what straw man arguments are meant to do: knock down the arguments that same-sex marriages are about equality between two consenting adults of the same sex.
The two consenting adults argument is about equality or separate but equal. Introducing polygamy re-frames the debate so one side can be easily knocked down as absurd: Introducing an absurdity to make the whole argument appear absurd.
In the context I framed the conversation, introducing polygamy, child brides/grooms, and immediate family into the discussion is the use of a straw man
The Challenge: To convince that a straw man argument was set up by insertion of a slippery slope, but only after first ignoring the full context of the argument. That this tactic allows the set up for the knock down of the straw man: that same-sex marriage is about opening the door to marriage outside of two consenting adults as a couple.
Argument A: When it comes to state recognition of marriage, same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples should be treated equally.
Argument B: The state should or should not recognize marriages regardless of ages involved, regardless of relationships to each other, regardless of monogamy, regardless of species.
Yurt has to ignore the multiple meanings and forms of straw man arguments. All this in order to validate his premise that something is a slippery slope argument and not a straw man argument. Yurt needs to ignore the full context of the argument in order to defend the re-framing of an arguments
Dante
dD