Is it a strawman?

[Audie]

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

They could have also nailed you with a godwin!

My choice is the ad hom ad hom

 

[icehorse]

We're talking about exchanges occurring in debate forums, correct?

One reason I spend time in debate forums is to learn to think and debate better. While I agree that accusing posters of fallacy arguments can get out of control, done with some discipline can help everyone learn to think better.

 

[danieldemol]

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

What if their answer in respect to a request for specific information is something obtuse like, "read my OP" or "read my first post"

 

[JustGeorge]

What if their answer in respect to a request for specific information is something obtuse like, "read my OP" or "read my first post"

I would say "I already have, and did not find the information, or was unable to comprehend the information given in that post. Please restate your claim in a way that is easier for me to understand, or more relevant to this specific question I am asking now."

 

[Bird123]

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?

People can choose to value so many petty things. Control is so important to some that they would resort to anything to get their results. Manipulating and conniving seem justified in their minds in pursuit of control. Little do they realize that most will see the manipulating and conniving in the process. How can that result in a favorable view of any belief? What are they teaching themselves and those around them? It's not good.

If one strives toward Truth, one doesn't have to worry about selling or doctoring the results. Further, If one is proven to be wrong, that just points in the direction of the real truth.

Isn't it time people stopped thinking beliefs are important or make one important? Won't Truth and Reality always end up with the best results?

Yes, there are many people as you describe. Point them in the right direction.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Secret Chief]

Best to stick to what they actually say

What a crazy notion.

 

[Left Coast]

What if their answer in respect to a request for specific information is something obtuse like, "read my OP" or "read my first post"

Ignore them.

 

[SomeRandom]

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?

Is this about political “dog whistles” that I’ve been hearing about? Or just in general?
For reference Dog whistle (politics) - Wikipedia

Because if it is I can see why one would want earnest clarification, just in case. Even if not, then I would think those arguing in good faith would not have a good reason to refuse to clarify their positions.

 

[danieldemol]

Is this about political “dog whistles” that I’ve been hearing about? Or just in general?
For reference Dog whistle (politics) - Wikipedia

Because if it is I can see why one would want earnest clarification, just in case. Even if not, then I would think those arguing in good faith would not have a good reason to refuse to clarify their positions.

It was just in general but I can see how it would apply to dog whistle politics.

I basically wonder what people who are allegedly arguing in good faith have to hide by refusing to clarify their positions.

 

[SomeRandom]

It was just in general but I can see how it would apply to dog whistle politics.

I basically wonder what people who are allegedly arguing in good faith have to hide by refusing to clarify their positions.

I tend to agree. I know I’m often flippant and stupid. But I also know when someone is arguing in bad faith. Now at least. And that’s when they hide their positions. I’m more skeptical these days. Though I’m still my usual dumbass self