I am relatively new here and do not know all the lingo used. Not in the glossary. Thanks.

Straw man is an artificial person set up as an example, often for comparison to real individuals; sometimes in extreme attributes

"straw man" (in its most common usage):

1) "a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."

2) "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument"

https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html

"Straw Man Argument: A subtype of the red herring, this fallacy includes any lame attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side. Such an approach is building a straw man argument. The name comes from the idea of a boxer or fighter who meticulously fashions a false opponent out of straw, like a scarecrow, and then easily knocks it over in the ring before his admiring audience. His "victory" is a hollow mockery, of course, because the straw-stuffed opponent is incapable of fighting back. When a writer makes a cartoon-like caricature of the opposing argument, ignoring the real or subtle points of contention, and then proceeds to knock down each "fake" point one-by-one, he has created a straw man argument.

For instance, one speaker might be engaged in a debate concerning welfare. The opponent argues, "Tennessee should increase funding to unemployed single mothers during the first year after childbirth because they need sufficient money to provide medical care for their newborn children." The second speaker retorts, "My opponent believes that some parasites who don't work should get a free ride from the tax money of hard-working honest citizens. I'll show you why he's wrong . . ." In this example, the second speaker is engaging in a straw man strategy, distorting the opposition's statement about medical care for newborn children into an oversimplified form so he can more easily appear to "win." However, the second speaker is only defeating a dummy-argument rather than honestly engaging in the real nuances of the debate.

Classic Mormon straw man argument--you left the church! Someone must have really offended you.

No Straw Boner?

The straw Boner argument is--You left the church! You must have been immoral.

Straw Boner: I haven't been immoral for so long , I forgot how !!!

Well, an Honest (or Dishonest) person would (or wouldn't) do X...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2017 12:36AM by GNPE.

cutekitty wonders
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am relatively new here and do not know all the
> lingo used. Not in the glossary. Thanks.

Can't help you much cutie due to the miasma of definitions given for this modern greased pig of a phrase "Straw man."

But a real cinema victim is here to watch and we hope you are not in the witchy crowd who cheered while he went down in flames.

Another man done gone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv-bnEbMgxo

To cutekitty

When all else fails, a good place to find definitions of slang, latest teenage phrases, etc., is the Urban Dictionary.


http://www.urbandictionary.com

You might learn some things you won't be able to unlearn.

A literary example from the historical files of exmormon.org: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,538399

I dont know the lingo either i barely found out what TBM means.

Those of us used to encountering such arguments have learned to recognize that a "key element" is the distortion involved, i.e. there's generally a misrepresentation--sometimes simplistic--of a position taken and then, borrow our friend Simon Southerton's phrase, they then "incinerate it" and proclaim victory.

I've actually never had a formal or informal logic class, but raised as I was in the "Sputnik Generation," i learned actual science, and that taught me to recognize the subtle dishonesty in the tactic; I also had grad level training in psychotherapy techniques (which at their core, are decidedly "manipulative").

"False Analogies" and "False Equivalencies" are similar tactics, and with LDS apologists, given that the historical and scientific record demonstrates that the Book of Mormon is an utter fraud and Joseph Smith a sexually addicted narcissist, invariably all of the "defenses of the faith" can be broken down and understood via these analyses.

And Matt, the Dilbert cartoon was spot on...

Thank you all, for the info and sharing.

Dave the Atheist wrote to me a couple days ago,
"A lack of belief does not constitute a belief. Keep on beating up your strawman."

I didn't know what to think about this?