The infinite straw person paradox

[Echogem222]

Note:
A straw person argument is a rhetorical technique where someone distorts or misrepresents their opponent's position or argument to make it easier to attack or refute. Instead of addressing the actual argument, the person creates a weaker or exaggerated version of it (the "straw person") and then attacks that instead. This can be used to make the original argument seem unreasonable or easier to dismiss.

+++

The Paradox:
Person A: "I think we should invest more in public transportation to reduce traffic congestion and pollution."

Person B: "Person A wants to eliminate all cars and force everyone to use crowded buses and trains!"

Person C: "Person B thinks we should keep all roads congested with cars and ignore the benefits of improving public transportation!"

Person D: "Person C wants to shut down all roads and force people to walk everywhere, ignoring the need for cars in emergencies or for long-distance travel!"

Person E: "Person D believes we should pave over all natural areas to make room for endless highways, disregarding the importance of preserving the environment for future generations!"

Person F: "Person E thinks we should live in the wilderness without any roads or infrastructure, ignoring the benefits of modern civilization and transportation!"

Person G: "Person F believes we should live in a futuristic, dystopian society where technology controls every aspect of our lives, ignoring the value of a balanced, human-centered approach to technology and society!"

Person H: "Person G wants us to live in caves, communicate solely through grunts, and reject all forms of progress, including fire and the wheel, advocating for a return to a primal state of existence, completely disconnected from the modern world!"

+++

The paradox emerges from the fact that each subsequent argument is a response to the previous misrepresentation, yet in doing so, it exaggerates the misrepresentation further, creating an endless loop of increasingly extreme positions. This highlights the absurdity that can result from misrepresenting arguments and how it can lead to a situation where the original discussion is lost entirely.

If you think there is no straw person argument being used, this is a paradox, if you use a straw person argument without realizing you are, you would see this as a paradox. Only those who understand that straw person arguments are straw person arguments would not see this as a paradox.

 

[Heyo]

Note:
A straw person argument is a rhetorical technique where someone distorts or misrepresents their opponent's position or argument to make it easier to attack or refute. Instead of addressing the actual argument, the person creates a weaker or exaggerated version of it (the "straw person") and then attacks that instead. This can be used to make the original argument seem unreasonable or easier to dismiss.

+++

The Paradox:
Person A: "I think we should invest more in public transportation to reduce traffic congestion and pollution."

Person B: "Person A wants to eliminate all cars and force everyone to use crowded buses and trains!"

Person C: "Person B thinks we should keep all roads congested with cars and ignore the benefits of improving public transportation!"

Person D: "Person C wants to shut down all roads and force people to walk everywhere, ignoring the need for cars in emergencies or for long-distance travel!"

Person E: "Person D believes we should pave over all natural areas to make room for endless highways, disregarding the importance of preserving the environment for future generations!"

Person F: "Person E thinks we should live in the wilderness without any roads or infrastructure, ignoring the benefits of modern civilization and transportation!"

Person G: "Person F believes we should live in a futuristic, dystopian society where technology controls every aspect of our lives, ignoring the value of a balanced, human-centered approach to technology and society!"

Person H: "Person G wants us to live in caves, communicate solely through grunts, and reject all forms of progress, including fire and the wheel, advocating for a return to a primal state of existence, completely disconnected from the modern world!"

+++

The paradox emerges from the fact that each subsequent argument is a response to the previous misrepresentation, yet in doing so, it exaggerates the misrepresentation further, creating an endless loop of increasingly extreme positions. This highlights the absurdity that can result from misrepresenting arguments and how it can lead to a situation where the original discussion is lost entirely.

If you think there is no straw person argument being used, this is a paradox, if you use a straw person argument without realizing you are, you would see this as a paradox. Only those who understand that straw person arguments are straw person arguments would not see this as a paradox.

“Many were increasingly of the opinion that they’d all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.”
​

― Douglas Adams

 

[dybmh]

@Echogem222 ,

I understand, perhaps incorrectly, that a paradox is produced when two ( or more ) oppositional concepts are united such that their conjunction is simultaneously true and false. If I recall you started a thread regarding the "liar's-paradox" where the truth value of the assertion "this statement is a lie" is simultaneously true-and-false.

Based on this, perhaps incorrect, understanding of the meaning of "paradox", I'm struggling to find the paradox in the cycle of increasing exaggerations brought in the example. How are these examples of statements which are simultaneously sympathetic and antagonistic to itself? Or maybe you would please correct my understanding of what is meant by the word: "paradox"?