Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

A: no one should believe any statement from any politician ever

B: don't demand that politicians meet standards

Your argument (not mine): A -> B

Then you argue that B is dysfunctional so A leads to dysfunction.

Can you not imagine some C such as

C: demand that politicians live up to some standard

Wherein A->C makes everything better?

The fact that you concocted B to discredit A is a logical fallacy called "strawman".

Either you already understood this, but hoped for an audience that did not, or you didn't even realize what you had done. I point it out here for your possible benefit and for the possible benefit of anyone else who doesn't understand this flawed reasoning. I apologize to everyone who recognized it immediately and has then suffered through this response.



You seemed to have missed the context that you're arguing the "against" position in a thread about social media fact-checking, i.e. a "demand that politicians live up to some standard [of truth]"

Language has implied meaning, it's one of the maxims of conversation in the field of linguistics, of the Cooperative principle [1].

If you're going to immediately jump to technical dissection of a conversation, you should probably consider the relevant field first.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle#Maxim_of...


Your "strawman" was very clearly directly implied by what you said. And the fact that you just attacked the argument instead of just responding like a normal person does not help your case.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: