I dunno about straw man... It's a matter of semantics. If you were to say, "You should not say___," I think a better response would be "why not?" Usually when people say things like that, their true intentions aren't exactly surface-deep. You need to find out what someone means by their words rather than immediately attacking them.
In your voting example, the common response might be common, but it completely throws out that there might be a danger in someone voting a certain way that puts the best interests of themselves and others at risk. The reactionary probably isn't really interested in any kind of discussion. The only part they see is the idea of infringing on someone's rights in the electoral process. You might want to take the initiative and explain that you aren't telling someone they don't have the right to vote. You're merely stating your opinion that it is dangerous to vote on a matter that you don't understand.
This isn't quite a straw man, though it seems to me very close. Straw man isn't merely a misunderstanding of a position. It's the purposeful misrepresentation of it. For example, someone might say "Abortion should be illegal because it kills human beings." The pro-abortion reaction might be, "So you think that women are second-class citizens and that it's ok for the government to have control over women's bodies?" The pro-life puts the focus on the interest of the baby. Pro-choice puts the focus on the woman. In order to argue against the pro-life position, one has to call into question whether the unborn is recognized as a human being, i.e. a person. I don't see how in the western world anyone in their right mind is going to argue against the pro-choice position, since women already have the right to do what they want with their bodies. So the question is whether women have the right to do what they want with their bodies at the expense of someone else's life. Generally speaking nobody really has that right--for instance, if it is known that someone with CPR certification fails to administer CPR, that person can be taken to court. In some places, the "Good Samaritan Law" (roughly) says that it's only valid for someone with medical expertise, therefore without current CPR certification you could be sued for cracking a rib or the sternum while trying to save someone's life. Teacher's are required to maintain safe environments for their kids, which means putting themselves in danger if it means breaking up a fight. But teachers can also be sued if they exceed reasonable force. So...you don't REALLY have that kind of freedom of choice anyway. And most often with the abortion debate unwanted pregnancies result from consensual intercourse. There are also preventative measures available in case someone might be at risk. So there are choices available that a woman may or may not take, and no one can force her to make one choice over another. If she does not choose preventative measures or a lifestyle that would avoid unwanted pregnancy, then she takes a risk and MUST accept that there are consequences for those risks.
That's just one side of it, of course. The main point being that you cannot really sensibly argue a position if you don't understand what that position is or the underlying motivations for making assertions. "Only what can be empirically tested is true" is obviously false, but there are those who will cling to that position if it kills them. "There is no such thing as moral absolutes, so who are you to tell me I'm wrong?" is self-referentially incoherent, but it does reveal an underlying motivation for making the assertion.
08 Nov 2011, 7:57 am
