rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/28/85)
>>Replace all references to homosexuality and homosexuals with "Judaism" >>and "Jews", and replace "Jews" with "Christians" or "Americans" or >>some such word, and the paragraph above sounds awful hateful, doesn't it? > This is an example of a type of debating tactic that I have seen > over and over again in different places and it bothers me. What > bothers me has nothing to do with the topic of the debates where > it is used, but the very tactic itself. > This is a form of straw-man. A straw-man usually takes the form > of one person in a debate taking the words of an opponent, > molding and shaping those words into something very silly and > then proceeding to knock down the new, silly statement. It > doesn't in anyway disprove or rebuff the original statement, but > it can embarrass an opponent into submission or it can sway the > opinions of an audience not familiar with such sophisticated > weaponry. [HARLAN BRAUDE] Charlie Wingate said the same thing. What you would seem not to like about it is that the use of this "tactic" shows the double standard with which some people view things like tolerance. "You should all be tolerant of me, not to do so is (e.g.) anti-Semitic, but for me to be intolerant of filthy abominable homosexuals is OK because it says so in the Bible!" > The example we have here is another form of straw-man, but in > this case, the person takes an exact quote of the other person's > words and demonstrates that by substituting some of words in the > sentence, the statement can be turned into something idiotic. What's demonstrated is that the root of the original statement is an extreme double standard held by the original speaker. It's not OK for X's to make certain statements about Y's, but it IS OK for Y's to make the same statements about Z's. I'd be curious as to what other tactics you consider valid or invalid in debate. The showing of a double standard like this seems quite acceptable, and useful. > The sheer number of legitimate and well respected masterpieces that > can be turned into meaningless drivel through the employ of this > method is absolutely mind boggling. I was unaware that we were talking about art. I thought we were talking about tolerance for other human beings. Are you so interested in JUSTIFYING such intolerance that you would engage in such distortion of premises and facts? > If you disagree with another person's statement, argue your view > on the merit of the content of the original statement, not on the > merit of its structure or, worse, on the merit of a statement you > made. You mean like this?: To say what you've said about homosexuals is essentially no different than some other group making similar statements about Jews. If you are entitled to say such things about homosexuals, then the others would thus be entitled to say similar things about you. To believe one is acceptable and not the other is to hold a ridiculous double standard that you cannot uphold. There, was that what you were looking for? Funny, I thought I had already said that... -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr