The Sly Way to Commit a Straw Man Fallacy

[Willamena]

Can you elaborate on why you believe that, please?

Because the participants are discussing definitions.

 

[Sunstone]

Because the participants are discussing definitions.

Thanks! That helps me to understand how people see these things.

 

[Woberts]

Great, now I'm imaging someone sneakily posting pictures of scarecrows!

 

[Sunstone]

Great, now I'm imaging someone sneakily posting pictures of scarecrows!

Just so long as they're not nude scarecrows, Woberts. Nude scarecrows are immoral scarecrows. Think of the children!

 

[atanu]

..

What follows is not the actual argument. Rather, it is an argument that is logically equivalent to the real argument.

FIRST PERSON: Let us begin by defining "god" as "whatever you worship". If we first define god that way, then if we worship money, money is our god."

SECOND PERSON: But the dictionary defines "god" as "a supreme being". Money is not a being, and thus money cannot be a god".​

So what makes the second person's argument a straw man? Well, as you know, a straw man fallacy has this form:

Someone argues X.

Someone else argues against Y while claiming they are arguing against X. When they defeat Y, they claim they have defeated X.​

I do not see this as straw man argument.

 

[Sunstone]

I do not see this as straw man argument.

Everyone has their own opinion. What do you base yours on?

 

[Revoltingest]

Just so long as they're not nude scarecrows, Woberts. Nude scarecrows are immoral scarecrows. Think of the children!

You asked (sort of).
The internet delivers.

 

[Sunstone]

You asked (sort of).
The internet delivers.

Oh gods! Now you've done it, Rev. I need a cold shower.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just so long as they're not nude scarecrows, Woberts. Nude scarecrows are immoral scarecrows. Think of the children!

And would be a violation of the TOS here. Those pictures would need to be posted in The Eros Room.

 

[atanu]

Everyone has their own opinion. What do you base yours on?

Okay. Below is the original example.

FIRST PERSON: Let us begin by defining "god" as "whatever you worship". If we first define god that way, then if we worship money, money is our god."
SECOND PERSON: But the dictionary defines "god" as "a supreme being". Money is not a being, and thus money cannot be a god".
So what makes the second person's argument a straw man? Well, as you know, a straw man fallacy has this form:

Someone argues X.
Someone else argues against Y while claiming they are arguing against X. When they defeat Y, they claim they have defeated X.

In this case the first person has not argued anything at all.

 

[Sunstone]

In this case the first person has not argued anything at all.

What's your reasoning for saying that?

 

[atanu]

What's your reasoning for saying that?

Okay. I see your point. The first person has first defined god in a certain way, and then has argued that money can be god to some.

The second person has first not agreed to the definition and then has refuted the argument that money can be god to some. The refutation in this case is wrong.

But does make it sly? May be.

 

[Sunstone]

Okay. I see your point. The first person has first defined god in a certain way, and then has argued that money can be god to some.

The second person has first not agreed to the definition and then has refuted the argument that money can be god to some. The refutation in this case is wrong.

Thanks! I think that makes you one of the few people who really "gets" the OP. I appreciate that you took a real look at it.

But does make it sly? May be.

Probably not. My thread title seems to be a bit of clickbait.