Have you met Mr. Straw Man?

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

Have you met Mr. Straw Man?

Quickie from Wiki: “A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

The straw man fallacy is an often used fallacy in the United States because American citizens have a low level of intellectual sophistication.

One recent use of this fallacy is that Guantanamo detainees are terrorists and thus too dangerous for detention on American soil.

Obviously American prisons contain many bad guys from whom the public must be protected. Also most of these bad guys are released while still alive. Also records indicate that that many of these released become recidivists.

The FBI scares us by saying that these terrorists represent a different kind of detention problem.

The “Fallacy Files” web site {http://www.fallacyfiles.org/} provides an important introduction to both formal and informal fallacies. I think their work on informal fallacies being the most important for our needs today. It is the informal fallacies that we must learn to recognize.

The early settlers had to learn the sign and behavior of the wolf and bear but it is the informal fallacy that today’s citizen must learn. When not recognized the manipulative sophistication of those who wish to control our society will cause us similar damage.

Those members of our early American settlers were required to understand many things about their natural habitation in order to survive. These early frontier settlers had primarily natural conditions that threatened their existence. They worried about and learned to understand the signs of the wolf and the bear also the clouds and the weather in general. Their survival depended upon it.

Today our well being, if not our very survival, depends upon our ability to understand the society we live in and the fellow citizens that occupy our space with us. Our needs for understanding our environment especially that part of it that contains fellow citizens has become acute because our fellows have become expert at manipulating our environment. If we do not understand how these things are being manipulated we are the losers.

Many of us who were first introduced to the concept ‘fallacy’ when we took a college course on ‘Logic’ found the matter to be boring. It appears, from what I hear, that many students took away from those classes distaste for everything related to the concepts of ‘logic’ and the associated ‘fallacies’. That is unfortunate and is perhaps an indication of why it is so important for all individuals to become self-actualizing self-learners after their school daze is over.

This wonderful phrase “the ubiquity of ambiguity” I found on a web site that I think all individuals who understand the importance of CT (Critical Thinking) might wish to visit.
fallacyfiles.org/ambiguit.html

What I am trying to say is that the folks living in the early days had to know the habits of the wolf and the bear to survive. Today we have to know the habits of those who wish to manipulate us by using logical fallacies.

2

Could you explain how your Guantanamo example constitutes a straw man argument? What is the true argument and what is the weaker argument being refuted?

3

its not technically a straw man, more of an appeal to pathos than anything else.

a straw man is attacking a position which your opponent never made. however, when the administration makes the argument that opponents of closing guantanamo say we shouldnt store terrorists in american prisons, the administration is correct that its opponents ARE making this claim; so its not a straw man for the administration to attack this position by asserting that american prisons are secure enough to hold terrorists.

the actual reasons one way or another are irrelevant from the perspective of straw man. the administration has some valid points that US prisons are very secure, while the opponents have valid points that putting them into US prisons greatly increases the chances of them recruiting many more members to their ranks of islamic extremism right here from within our own borders.

now, if the opponents of the administration are attacking a position that the administration does not hold, that would be a straw man-- but they are not doing so. neither explicitly nor implicitly. the opponents of the administration are claiming it is unwise and unsafe to close guantanamo and also unwise and unsafe to store terrorists on american continental soil; these are both things that the administration is actually proposing to do.

so basically, the debate between the administration and its opponents regarding guantanamo and the terrorists there is not a straw man, because each side has points directly addressing the issues, and each side is attacking the other side’s points. i dont know why this OP here claims that its a straw man, because clearly it is not, at least not from the perspective that ive layed out here and as i understand it… perhaps theres some specific arguments related to this debate that im unaware of that might constitute straw men, but they arent mentioned here.

4

That’s not an excuse for being intellectually unsophisticated, its a fundamental flaw.

Saying that we hold the truths to be self evident and then going on to say no man shall be refused fair trial and that no man should be subject to cruel and unusual punishments, clearly is a logical fallacy, or at the very least hypocrisy, but I’m not entirely sure what you are driving at, I think most Americans would agree that they are held to the same high standard as everyone in the West and being a signatory to the UNCoT obligates them not to make laws that make torture legal anywhere in the world, geography is not a moral issue in this case. It’s still American citizens torturing foreign men, the UN treaty makes clear that no man, not no enemy combatant, not except terrorists, the charter is clear: no man shall be subject to torture. If you mean something like the argument against that proposition is a straw man I agree. There is no argument ethically at least, only moral ambivalence is in question here. It depends though: legally you can always make a case for a country, Israel and Palestine are famous for doing it despite often having dubious moral virtue in making demands on legality. However ethically it is a totally different kettle of fish. As with most things moral it boils down to perspective for many people, if you are a USian then you will be more likely to find it tolerable, but fortunately you are not in a majority I would imagine, at least not any more, who knows?

5

This is a response made by someone on another forum that I think is quite good.

"As a question of US law and policy, the current controversy over the Guantanamo Bay detention camp is, I believe, at heart on of Constitutional Law.

Were the people imprisoned at GITMO imprisoned in a US state or federal jail or penitentiary, they would be subject to State or US law, which in turn must conform with the US Constitution. As article 1 section 9 of the Constitution states
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it
and as neither case of rebellion in nor invasion of the US is at present existent, these people would be legally entitled to be either charged in a US court with a crime or released. There is simply no provision in US law that allows people to be imprisoned without being charged with a crime or incapacity (eg: insanity or senility), regardless of how dangerous or bad they are.

If charged, Amendment 8 would apply, which states
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
As nearly all of the GITMO detainees were arrested outside of the US, many without witnesses to any criminal act by them, it’s unlikely that many of them could be charged with a crime in US court.

Some US politicians have argued that the moving of GITMO detainees to US jails and penitentiaries would pose a risk to public safety, not so much because detainees might escape, but because supporters of them might attempt to break them out, or use bomb threats or hostage taking to force their release. These politicians, IMHO, are guilty of the making emotionally charged appeals to fear that obscures more important legal issues.

I agree with the position of the ICRC as quoted in the GITMO wikipedia article:
Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third [Geneva] Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.
In believe that in rejecting this position, US officials blundered badly in the legal reasoning that supported the use of GITMO, an error that may have severe and long-lasting consequences, and which I believe should be addressed and remedies as soon as possible."

From The Fundamentals of Logic, Carney, J.D. and Scheer, R.K., 1974:34-36.

Carney and Scheer wrote that “The fallacy of straw man is committed when a claim is misinterpreted (either deliberately or accidentally) and the attempt is made to refute the misinterpreted claim. The argument, however, is presented as a refutation of the original claim.”

6

There is a difference between someone making an argument you don’t like and someone making a fallacious argument.

7

exactly why this issue is NOT a straw man.

and as a side note, US constitutional protections do not extend to terrorists who are not also US citizens, and have never extended to non-citizen terrorists at any point in US history (that is, until now).

8

The Mexican Leader (Why Mexico I don’t know) pressed the leader of the UNCoT to press for war crimes trials - after it was revealed the CIA had okayed at least three counts of waterboarding - on the then head of the CIA who IIRC has since resigned; I know it’ll never happen but the shame of the indictment alone is a black mark on American history, just as the trial of Sharon for war crimes (that never happened for legal technical reasons ie no PM can be tried for crimes while in office) is a terrible shaming incident on the consciences of Israel (I always feel I should attack Palestine at this point so people don’t get the idea I don’t dislike both of them equally, but meh just like the US Government we all know what they done). Just because you don’t face the music and dance doesn’t mean it didn’t happen nor that you are guilty before the eyes of the world and subject to ethical judgement, which is a longer sentence and may never be forgotten. The irony is perhaps that the Government thinks they did nothing wrong, the hypocrisy is disgusting, still I suppose you have to consider how much terrorism will be caused by the self righteous indignation against American foreign policy, sadly as you reap so shall you sow. It’d be nice to think Obamah has taken on board what a disaster 20th and 21st century American foreign policy has been post 1945, but I’m not banking on it. Like recalcitrant children, it takes some people more than one beating to learn a lesson.