I'm sorry if this seems excessive, but I am really sick of wasting time/bandwidth/the health of my carpal tunnels by defending myself against wrongheaded assumptions that have been either deliberately or erroneously assigned to something I've written.

What is a Strawman, you ask? It's the mis-representation of what someone is saying, based on either a deliberate intent to undermine their argument, or an unintelligent assumption about the real meaning of said arguments.

Here's an example. It's not the best one, but it's the most recent and fresh.

Quote, originally posted by Poster X »

...Hugo Chavez does not want to destroy America. Why would he want America to be destroyed when we are/will be one of his biggest customers? ... When Katrina devastated New Orleans and US oil corporations were price gouging, who do you think offered to provide heating oil to the American people at a discounted rate that winter? Chavez did. I don't think trying to help poor Americans equates to wanting to destroy the country. Do I think he's a saint or something? HELL NO. But to purport that he doesn't have a problem destroying America is bullshit. Chavez hates Bush and America's corrupt intelligence agencies...you know, the ones that tried to pull a coup on him in 2002.

Quote, originally posted by Poster Y »

so you don't consider hugo chavez a threat to this country?

Poster X has explained his position very literally. However, Poster Y is seeking to assign Poster X a viewpoint, based on Poster Y's premeditated desire to trick people into admitting views that he himself has deemed worthy of public ridicule.

This is a tactic most vigorously employed by FOX News anchors who hold a premeditated intent to demonize certain individuals and political viewpoints. I don't watch FOX because it's ruinous to the public discourse. And as long as I'm tasked with making this forum a better place to discuss politics, I'm not going to stand for those tactics in here.

I'm not a fan of name-calling, but I'd rather see the occasional insult being thrown around than see this kind of dishonest baiting used in here any more. Thanks.

Quote »

An example of a straw man fallacy: Person A: I don't think children should run into the busy streets. Person B: I think that it would be foolish to lock children up all day. By insinuating that Person A's argument is far more draconian than it is, Person B has side-stepped the issue. Here the "straw man" that person B has set up is the premise that "The only way to stop children running into the busy streets is to keep them inside all day". A common example of a real world use of this fallacy might concern capital punishment: Person A: The death sentence would also remove some financial stresses on the prison system. Person B: It's terrible that you think we should kill people just to clear out prisons. The fallacy here is how Person B takes an inconsequential benefit of capital punishment and portrays it as Person A's main argument.

Wikipedia quote, fair use fiat.