Search the Community

I wanted to follow up with @PatrickC on this which came up on an unrelated thread. So I'm creating a new (and probably lengthy) thread. Here are the quotes from that thread to catch anyone who's interested up to speed. I've cut out a lot of the bulkiness... hopefully it still makes sense what is going on: I said: Patrick replied: First, know that it's been a while since I've studied logical fallacies, and when I did, my mind wasn't in the right place to absorb what was being taught. Must have been because I was used to engaging in conversations riddled with fallacies and thought that was normal. So I had a hard time stepping away from that to analyze it critically. Alright, so I think I see where you identified a straw man... but it took me quite a while to figure out if it truly is a straw man. The straw man would be that "someone who is downvoting has the same malicious intent as an abusive father." However, I didn't intend it that way, so I should have been clearer. What I was trying to convey is that I feel similarly when I get a downvote sans explanation to when someone makes me guess why they are upset or disapprove of something I've done. What results from this kind of interaction (or lack thereof) is only two possibilities--right or wrong. There's no discussion or negotiation... no opportunity to learn. So that is why I related the two scenarios. They are not related through abuse, because giving someone a downvote, even without an explanation, is not abusive I don't think. Key words here would be that "I feel"... this leaves it open enough for me to consider if it is a personal problem/baggage (which it probably is) or if my feelings are justified (which is also possible, I'm not sure yet). So I'm allowing myself to assess this further by talking about my feelings rather than making claims. I see that my original post may have been seen as a claim, but it wasn't my intent... just bad writing. So in order for it to be a straw man, I must have an opponent whose argument I've deconstructed and reassembled into something that is no longer the same, then I start attacking that invention. Now that I've clarified my intent, do you still consider my original post to be a straw man? Feedback is greatly appreciated. And patience is also greatly appreciated. Thank you!