Strawman? It’s arm-in-arm with Dorothy, the Tin Woodman and the Cowardly Lion, singing something about a wizard. :rolleyes:
Wow, I’m surprised that you think that (as it wasn’t my intent). Here is the statement that was made (the universality of which I was attempting to challenge):
I did not accuse him of an argument that he was not making so that I could shoot it down (the definition of a strawman, so far as I know). My response was a strawman because of what, then: it was too specific? Should I have phrased it more generally? How about this:
If you pick up a drunken girl and she says do me, then is that consensual if she is underaged at all? You want to say “Of COURSE not!” then fine. But the statement that was made didn’t involve age as a consideration. Rick’s claimed position appeared to be that a drunken girl who says “Do me!” is consensual.
All I did was question how consistently he would apply that standard by presenting a scenario where I felt it shouldn’t apply. If you feel that it should apply, that’s one thing. But this is the second time I’ve been accused of a strawman without any demonstration of that accusation being true, AFAICT.
Either that, or I’m really missing something. Please clue me in, I’m lost on the “strawman” things at this point.
A strawman is a misconstruction or misrepresentation of another person’s argument, often done so that it can be easily attacked. Rather like making a human figure out of straw and then attacking it. You’re sure to win, but it really has nothing to do with your opponent. His argument had nothing to do with 8 year olds, and a reasonable person would not assume that he felt 8 year olds could give consent. I think adding in the bits that you did can be called a misrepresentation of his argument that is easily defeated, don’t you?
Please see #1 and #5.
Exactly. Your added ‘gotcha’ doesn’t really change the outcome of the hypothetical, at least as the law is concerned. If a completely sober minor yelled ‘do me,’ it would not lessen the criminality of his accommodating her request.
That’s what I thought a strawman was, too. I don’t believe that I have done that.
Eh…not in my opinion…a strawman is no more a victory than calling “Godwin!”
that would be true, if the “strawman” criticism was true.
Actually, no. Again, here is his statement (the validity of which I questioned):
I don’t believe that I did add “the bits that {I} did” in order to misrepresent his argument.
Look, first of all, your definition of a strawman is “a misconstruction or misrepresentation of another person’s argument,” which I did not present. I simply asked for a clarification of Rick’s position. His statement (referenced above in this post, and freely available upthread) did not exclude minors and children from his assessment. In fact, his use of the word “girl” rather than “woman” could be taken to imply an element of youth in the population to which he refers.
I did not accuse him of deliberately including minors/children as “those who can give consent when they are drunk and say ‘Do me’,” but I DID ask him if he intended to, because I didn’t know. It was unclear from his statement.
Do you wish to claim (as you did) that
That’s fine, but my reason for questioning him for clarification is that he didn’t exclude 8 year olds (or, by extension, minors/children) from his statement, and he (for all I know) may not be a “reasonable person” (by whatever standards that gets determined these days).
Had he said “Look, if I pick up a drunken woman and she says do me, that is consensual,” I’d be more inclined to believe that he’s limiting his attention to adults (who CAN give legal consent).
But he didn’t.
That bears looking at. It certainly justifies questioning. Mind you, I’m not accusing him of taking any position at all; I am simply taking the statement that he made, and asking for a clarification.
Perhaps he believes that everyone drunk is giving consent, regardless of age. Perhaps he posted inaccurately. I DON’T KNOW. I was simply attempting to understand his position.
That is NOT a “strawman”.
Now, if I were (in view of recent posts) to declare that furt has no valid point because his cite for a “strawman argument” comes from a comic strip, THAT might be a strawman.
But I’m not.
True, but that isn’t the scenario that Rick allowed as acceptable. His reference was if a DRUNK minor (although not exclusively minor, but still included) yelled ‘do me.’ Would THAT lessen the criminality of his accomodating her request?
According to Rick’s statement, it would.
Hence, my confusion.
This is offensively stupid. Point to where he said anything about minors.
And you remain confused. There was a lot that could have been added to his statement. None of it makes it a valid argument. Nobody was discussing pedophilia, and a reasonable person would not confuse issues of consent among minors with consent when intoxicated.
It would be just as reasonable to insert “and I held a knife to her neck” and argue about coercion and consent as it is to argue that “who is a minor” could be inserted into his statement.
He didn’t exclude “who is mentally retarded,” “who I just slipped a roofie,” “who I told I was a movie executive,” and so on and so forth.
He didn’t explicitly exclude a great number of things. Your inclusion of them for the purpose of arguing against it is unacceptable, invalid, and now persistingly fucking stupid.
Point to where I accused him of saying anything about minors. His statement (already quoted numerous times) included them, so I ASKED him for a clarification. How fucking hard is that to understand?
I agree with this 100%. Did you mean for this to be humorous? Because it is. <-WARNING–SENTENCE FRAGMENT. Rick’s statement is bullshit and false. Thanks for agreeing with me.
Well, then, Rick is evidently not a “reasonable person” by your standards, since “pedophilia” appears to be allowed under his stated philosophy. He made a statement, which I found to be largely unsupported by facts, and I simply questioned him on whether he meant what he said (I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he posted clumsily).
(We should also probably fail to note that he has not posted to this thread since 11-29, when I called on him to provide proof of his “strawman” accusation. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt…perhaps he left something on the stove a few weeks ago and isn’t finished putting out the fire yet. But I’m sure that he will get back and stomp me most justifiably into the dirt any day now…pretty soon…no, really…)
Again, for the dozenth time, I didn’t include anything. I simply questioned whether Rick intended to include something (which WAS included in his statement) which would invalidate his position.
Also, just because I’m home and bored, I agree with you, Hentor; he did not explicitly exclude a large number of things. I’m not arguing with you about that. But, as I noted upthread, his use of the word girl DID imply youth as a specific inclusion, and therefore merited some attention.
And since when do YOU get to decide what is “unacceptable”? I must have missed a memo.