Is it a strawman?

[danieldemol]

Suppose a person has an unstated belief.

They then make statement A, in order to lure you into unstated belief B.

You see where the conversation is headed and directly tackle unstated belief B.

Is it a strawman if the person believes in belief B to knock down belief B even though the person has not yet stated belief B?

 

[JustGeorge]

I don't think so, but I find the person doesn't like it very much.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is it a strawman if the person believes in belief B to knock down belief B even though the person has not yet stated belief B?

I'm not sure. I can see the parallels, but I don't know if "properly used" strawman would be the correct word as it usually isn't self-applied to yourself.

 

[Augustus]

Suppose a person has an unstated belief.

They then make statement A, in order to lure you into unstated belief B.

You see where the conversation is headed and directly tackle unstated belief B.

Is it a strawman if the person believes in belief B to knock down belief B even though the person has not yet stated belief B?

Wouldn't worry about it. Named logical fallacies are more of an impediment to thought than an aid. Like cliches they tend to result in pre-packaged thoughts rather than clear thinking: they make it easier for people not to think critically (evidence RF where the vast majority of claimed fallacies are actually errors by the person claiming them, yet this person thinks they've made a substantial argument by just repeating the name of a fallacy).

Best thing to do would be to respond in the most appropriate manner rather than try to fit into a conceptual category.

Acknowledge you are making an assumption about their beliefs for reason X that may/may not be correct. Respond as if this assumption was correct. Give them the opportunity to agree/disagree your assumption is correct.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

People who engage with debates by yelling 'fallacy!' aren't looking to have good faith debates anyway. If you say 'I might be wrong but it sounds like you're driving at (x)' and they say 'strawman fallacy!!!' just reply with this Argument from Fallacy and move on.
This works too.

 

[Heyo]

Suppose a person has an unstated belief.

They then make statement A, in order to lure you into unstated belief B.

You see where the conversation is headed and directly tackle unstated belief B.

Is it a strawman if the person believes in belief B to knock down belief B even though the person has not yet stated belief B?

Yes it is.
It is also rude to assume a (malicious/deceiving) intention in your interlocutor.
You could also call it a non sequitur.

If you assume you know where a conversation is headed, you could simply ask to force that step.
To assume is making an *** of u and me.

 

[danieldemol]

If you assume you know where a conversation is headed, you could simply ask to force that step.
To assume is making an *** of u and me.

True, but when some people are queried concerning the clarification of underlying beliefs driving their statements they become defensive and reply, "read my first post" or "read the OP" or similar obtuse and unhelpful statements.

Under such circumstances I'm left with nothing but assumption to go on. If such people are really acting in good faith, then they are at the very least being very unhelpful.

 

[Augustus]

People who engage with debates by yelling 'fallacy!' aren't looking to have good faith debates anyway. If you say 'I might be wrong but it sounds like you're driving at (x)' and they say 'strawman fallacy!!!' just reply with this Argument from Fallacy and move on.
This works too.

Very much this....

 

[Heyo]

True, but when some people are queried concerning the clarification of underlying beliefs driving their statements they become defensive and reply, "read my first post" or "read the OP" or similar obtuse and unhelpful statements.

Under such circumstances I'm left with nothing but assumption to go on. If such people are really acting in good faith, then they are at the very least being very unhelpful.

If that questioning has happened, that changes the situation. Depending on the exact answers you'd have to decide if you have a hostile interlocutor. I'd always use Hanlon's Razor in that case but if the interlocutor is beyond doubt, it is no longer a discussion and the rules change. Rhetoric and polemic are now allowed.

 

[Sunstone]

I think the study of logical fallacies can be quite beneficial to the person who studies them -- not to use in arguments and debates, but to discipline their own thinking. On the other hand, I now and then tell someone they've committed a fallacy without explaining why it's a fallacy, but only when I have already concluded that they are a willfully stupid jerk who would not benefit from my effort to educate them. Otherwise, I seldom or never toss out that someone has committed a fallacy without explaining why.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

True, but when some people are queried concerning the clarification of underlying beliefs driving their statements they become defensive and reply, "read my first post" or "read the OP" or similar obtuse and unhelpful statements.

Under such circumstances I'm left with nothing but assumption to go on. If such people are really acting in good faith, then they are at the very least being very unhelpful.

Okay, don't consider this true or any of that jazz. It is in effect psychology and relates to the concept of Metacognition - Wikipedia

In short, "some people are their thinking" in that they in relevant cases can't reflect on their thinking, but take it for granted. In other words, they cognitively produce thinking, feelings and behavior, but are apparently it seems unable to think about their thinking.

That doesn't mean that they are any of all the negative terms, which some people use about other people and their thinking, feelings and behavior. It means they are different than you and you are different than them. That is it. How you deal with that, is something else.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Suppose a person has an unstated belief.

They then make statement A, in order to lure you into unstated belief B.

You see where the conversation is headed and directly tackle unstated belief B.

Is it a strawman if the person believes in belief B to knock down belief B even though the person has not yet stated belief B?

I would say probably not, but I find it best not to make assumptions about where one intends to take an argument unless one has a history of baiting people as such.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would say probably not, but I find it best not to make assumptions about where one intends to take an argument unless one has a history of baiting people as such.

I struggle with that one. I can bate people, but even if I don't, I somehow do, because I am a strong, general skeptic, who doesn't believe in evidence and knowledge as some people do.

 

[joe1776]

Is it a strawman if the person believes in belief B to knock down belief B even though the person has not yet stated belief B?

No. If you are countering B, and B is the actual intended belief, it is not a strawman because the intent of the strawman is to deliberately attack an argument that is easier to knock down. It can't be easier if it's the inevitable- intended conclusion.

It sounds like you were given a true premise but your opponent stopped there rather than taking his argument to its logical conclusion.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I struggle with that one. I can bate people, but even if I don't, I somehow do, because I am a strong, general skeptic, who doesn't believe in evidence and knowledge as some people do.

And with it being known that you have a history of such behavior, the onus is on me to get clarification on exactly what is being asked before responding. If I respond based on an assumption and fall into your trap, I'm accountable for that result, not you.

 

[exchemist]

Suppose a person has an unstated belief.

They then make statement A, in order to lure you into unstated belief B.

You see where the conversation is headed and directly tackle unstated belief B.

Is it a strawman if the person believes in belief B to knock down belief B even though the person has not yet stated belief B?

I think it puts you in the driving seat on that question. If the person objects that it is a strawman, then you can infer - and invite them to confirm - that belief B has nothing to do with the discussion. If they won't do that then it is not a strawman.

 

[PureX]

Suppose a person has an unstated belief.

They then make statement A, in order to lure you into unstated belief B.

You see where the conversation is headed and directly tackle unstated belief B.

Is it a strawman if the person believes in belief B to knock down belief B even though the person has not yet stated belief B?

Why not just seek to clarify the objective, first, rather than presuming to know it to be the 'real' objective of the conversation.

Some people are big on this tactic of 'baiting' others into pursuing their hidden agenda. I say call them out on it up front, and if they won't be honest about it, then drop the discussion.

 

[Audie]

Wouldn't worry about it. Named logical fallacies are more of an impediment to thought than an aid. Like cliches they tend to result in pre-packaged thoughts rather than clear thinking: they make it easier for people not to think critically (evidence RF where the vast majority of claimed fallacies are actually errors by the person claiming them, yet this person thinks they've made a substantial argument by just repeating the name of a fallacy).

Best thing to do would be to respond in the most appropriate manner rather than try to fit into a conceptual category.

Acknowledge you are making an assumption about their beliefs for reason X that may/may not be correct. Respond as if this assumption was correct. Give them the opportunity to agree/disagree your assumption is correct.

Which is your fav fallacy fallacy?

 

[Left Coast]

Suppose a person has an unstated belief.

They then make statement A, in order to lure you into unstated belief B.

You see where the conversation is headed and directly tackle unstated belief B.

Is it a strawman if the person believes in belief B to knock down belief B even though the person has not yet stated belief B?

It might be. Best to stick to what they actually say, and ask questions if you want more information.

 

[Augustus]

Which is your fav fallacy fallacy?

People who think correcting their misunderstanding of your post constitutes 'moving the goalposts'

A: I think Hitler was to blame for WW2
B: I can't believe you said you love Hitler and want to marry Hitler and think Hitler was the greatest human ever.
A: I didn't say that, I said "I think Hitler was to blame for WW2"
B: OMG. Moving the goalposts! LOL