Dismissing claims based on a counter logic is how a proper arguments are formed. Once again, that is not a strawman. Strawman is a fallacy where they attack a different claim. He is not attacking a different claim in any way. Underselling and dismissing is not a strawman.
Misrepresenting it is, but if anything, you keep proving him right. You’re putting your feelings of Crowder, as a person, as the reasoning. In other words, someone you don’t like is a meme format. There is no misrepresentation here.
My only point here is that you have your fallacies wrong.
I appreciate the pedantry on this. Where is the logic? I’ll grant the meme didn’t make a specific claim, but I definitely did. If my claim is that Crowder has serious ethical violations and another dismisses my argument saying “You just don’t like him,” have they addressed my point? IMO they have taken an easier path by conflating my “feelings” with the more serious, actual point.
Take the example from Wiki:
Alice: Taking a shower is beneficial.
Bob: But hot water may damage your skin.
Bob attacked a non-existing argument: “Taking a hot shower is beneficial.”
Note that the claim addressed is indeed related but is nonetheless a strawman.
While it is true I don’t personally like Crowder, that is not my point. I am saying that Crowder has said and done things that broach beyond a simple distaste. Perhaps that is debatable or one can disagree, but that isn’t what the other commenter is doing. They have painted my argument as purely emotional and trivial while not addressing the actual point.
Anyway, if that doesn’t convince you then I don’t think we’ll agree on this, which is fair enough.
Dismissing claims based on a counter logic is how a proper arguments are formed. Once again, that is not a strawman. Strawman is a fallacy where they attack a different claim. He is not attacking a different claim in any way. Underselling and dismissing is not a strawman.
Misrepresenting it is, but if anything, you keep proving him right. You’re putting your feelings of Crowder, as a person, as the reasoning. In other words, someone you don’t like is a meme format. There is no misrepresentation here.
My only point here is that you have your fallacies wrong.
I appreciate the pedantry on this. Where is the logic? I’ll grant the meme didn’t make a specific claim, but I definitely did. If my claim is that Crowder has serious ethical violations and another dismisses my argument saying “You just don’t like him,” have they addressed my point? IMO they have taken an easier path by conflating my “feelings” with the more serious, actual point.
Take the example from Wiki:
Note that the claim addressed is indeed related but is nonetheless a strawman.
While it is true I don’t personally like Crowder, that is not my point. I am saying that Crowder has said and done things that broach beyond a simple distaste. Perhaps that is debatable or one can disagree, but that isn’t what the other commenter is doing. They have painted my argument as purely emotional and trivial while not addressing the actual point.
Anyway, if that doesn’t convince you then I don’t think we’ll agree on this, which is fair enough.
Cheers