Because the participants are discussing definitions.Can you elaborate on why you believe that, please?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Because the participants are discussing definitions.Can you elaborate on why you believe that, please?
Because the participants are discussing definitions.
Great, now I'm imaging someone sneakily posting pictures of scarecrows!
..
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.
You asked (sort of).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.
And would be a violation of the TOS here. Those pictures would need to be posted in The Eros Room.Just so long as they're not nude scarecrows, Woberts. Nude scarecrows are immoral scarecrows. Think of the children!
Everyone has their own opinion. What do you base yours on?
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.
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.