Arguably then, for the audience of people who agree with the statement, the statement itself is not necessary either.
Arguments work by drawing attention to certain things you already know. The act of drawing attention is not void, it’s almost the whole point (more so when there are multiple steps, of course, but it’s often one step at a time).
Obviously, the comment is courting the undecided. Obviously, many humans are swayed by sheer numbers of people who believe certain things. But that behavior is not rational.
Making conclusions from comments’ rating would be largely misguided. On the other hand, paying attention depending on comments’ rating is a necessary evil with limited biasing effects.
Of course it’s a bad argument when considered as directed to you
Prejudicial strawman. I never said that it was a bad argument. I never said anything close.
Hmm, do you mean that you agree with the statement? Something else? I don’t understand.
Yes. I agree with the statement but not it’s relevance to the current discussion. It’s clouding the issue/diverting attention away from the issue with irrelevant facts. Surely you know what a “Strawman Argument” is. If not, does the term “Red Herring” help?
A strawman is an argument that your opposition doesn’t believe.
If you are casting yourself in the position of the opposition, then that is not a strawman. You do believe it’s a bad argument when considered as directed at you.
A strawman is a specific fallacy. If you believe it was a red herring, call it a red herring.
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]
My position never included the any claims about the value of the statement as an argument. To imply that my position was that it was a “bad” argument is to misrepresent my position. My position was exactly the two sentences that I wrote:
This is a statement that can be made about any premise. It is backed by no supporting evidence.
Did he disagree with either of these two sentences? Or did he strongly imply that I said that the upvoted comment was a bad argument and attack that?
Arguments work by drawing attention to certain things you already know. The act of drawing attention is not void, it’s almost the whole point (more so when there are multiple steps, of course, but it’s often one step at a time).
Making conclusions from comments’ rating would be largely misguided. On the other hand, paying attention depending on comments’ rating is a necessary evil with limited biasing effects.
Hmm, do you mean that you agree with the statement? Something else? I don’t understand.
Yes. I agree with the statement but not it’s relevance to the current discussion. It’s clouding the issue/diverting attention away from the issue with irrelevant facts. Surely you know what a “Strawman Argument” is. If not, does the term “Red Herring” help?
A strawman is an argument that your opposition doesn’t believe.
If you are casting yourself in the position of the opposition, then that is not a strawman. You do believe it’s a bad argument when considered as directed at you.
A strawman is a specific fallacy. If you believe it was a red herring, call it a red herring.
From Wikipedia
My position never included the any claims about the value of the statement as an argument. To imply that my position was that it was a “bad” argument is to misrepresent my position. My position was exactly the two sentences that I wrote:
Did he disagree with either of these two sentences? Or did he strongly imply that I said that the upvoted comment was a bad argument and attack that?