Replies

So you’re using someone else’s completely accurate hypothetical to attack two people who made a different argument, with my own argument supplying a direct example of the hypothetical you’re ‘poo-pooing’?

Socialist DugwayDuke said “Strawmaning? That(’s) quite an accusation coming from someone who is tilting at windmills. Flock cameras are not some nefarious attempt to keep track of your visits to walmart.”

Although you gave a perfect example right there of a strawman argument, you still don’t seem to understand what one is and how you are using one.

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wif923/eli5_what_is_a_strawman_argument/

I know its an “Explain like I’m 5” thread, but I’m sure if you try really hard you can understand what’s being said, even with your mental impairments. If not, ask your caretaker for help.

Actually, I suspect you’ll get really confused trying to find the answer on that thread, so I’ve reproduced part of it here:

“Basically, it’s an argument where you ignore what someone is actually saying. Instead, you build a fake “strawman” of their beliefs. It looks related, but it isn’t their argument.

These strawman arguments are built weakly, so you can easily knock them over, but they aren’t what is actually being said.

They can take the form of someone’s words being taken out of context, by adding minor details that weren’t in the original argument, or just straight up pulling an argument out of your rear that was never said by anyone.

For example, take the argument against prohibition:

A: We should relax the laws restricting beer.

B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

A had never said that they should remove all laws on alcohol. That wasn’t what was said. It was a belief made up by B so that he could easily knock it over.”

Do you understand now?

You’re the one making the argument that anyone against the government having access to a total surveillance system to monitor and real time track the movements of private citizens 24hrs a day in public, and not just by license plate identification, but clothing, gait, face, etc..., is a narcissist that is worried about the government tracking their visits to walmart.

That is a strawman argument.

The actual argument is that we have millennia of examples of government abusing power, thus the reasoning for the very Constitution this country was founded on; to prevent government overreach and suppression of the citizenry’s right. So probably not a good idea to give a government, even a ‘Democratic’ one (actually founded as a Republic, for related reasons to my central argument, but that has already been subverted by people such as yourself), the power to legally stalk private citizens in the name of ‘safety’.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals” - CS Lewis

Now go crawl back into whatever Socialist troll/bot/subversive foreign actor hole you came from.