>>”Straw Man” - one of the most often misused terms of the fallacious arguments.
You prove why.
Pointing out that there WASN’T a SWAT team when someone says that there was a SWAT isn’t a fallacious argument, and it certainly isn’t a straw man argument.
However, the fact that you - repeatedly - fail to understand this, doesn’t say much about the rest of your diatribe.
Moral of the story - don’t you phrases you clearly don’t understand.<<
Give it up. The straw man has been burned alive. Stay on topic.
BTW, what I find comical is that you are correct, but it is still irrelevant. Someone else said straw man and I decided to run with it even though, technically speaking your argument is more accurately called Argumentum Red Herring.
Most people think of the two as pretty much the same thing and it was (and is) good enough for the point being made.
You have fallen into a typical fallacy about article threads — assuming that every post must logically tie to the topic you found most interesting from the article.
In fact, there are multiple people commenting, each have their own piece of the article they find interesting, they each make their own comments. Then, other freepers want to answer those comments.
In this case, a commenter wondered why we are all OK with swat teams performing arrests for child pornography. This premise was clearly incorrect — there was no swat team — and therefore the conclusion was faulty.
OldDeckHand pointed this out, and people argued with him about it for a while, before having to admit he was correct.
Your complaint that his correctness is “meaningless” to the story is a straw man argument — he wasn’t making the comment to discuss the meaning of the article, he was making the comment to correct a false conclusion from another comment. You made up a “straw” reason for his comment so you could dismiss it as irrelevant.