Recent statements by President Barack Obama with regards to the planned ground zero mosque have brought quite a few issues of import to the forefront. One that I wish to consider is the issue of straw-men (or, to be politically correct must I state, “non-gender specific straw-personages”?).
In fallacious argumentation one builds a straw-man because straw-men are so very easy to knock down. The logically fallacious tactic is to not deal with an issue but to caricature an issue, watering it down, misrepresenting it, etc., so as to build an target that is easy to discredit. In other words; consider an issue, realize that your opposition—your pseudo-defeater—is weak, redefine the issue to fit your weak opposition, restate the issue according to your redefinition, offer your response to the watered down version, consider yourself victorious.
Yet, you have only succeeded in arguing against yourself; against your redefinition, and not the issue itself.
Here are two examples of this fallacy: 1) Same sex marriage: the pseudo-defeater, the talking-point, is, “How does same sex marriage affect your marriage?” Wow! Great point!
Yet, the issue is not how same sex marriage affect my marriage. The issue is to ask, “Who claimed that the reason to oppose same sex marriage is because it will affect my marriage?” As far as I can tell; no one, at any time, in any place, at all, ever.
2) Muslim terrorism: the pseudo-defeater, the talking-point, is, “Not all Muslims are terrorists.” Wow! Great point!
Yet, the issue is not that all Muslims are not terrorists. The issue is to ask, “Who claimed that all Muslims are terrorists?” As far as I can tell; no one, at any time, in any place, at all, ever.
Now, to Barack Obama who stated the following with regards to the ground zero mosque. Note that from the get go he mischaracterizes the issue as it is not true that “Recently, attention has been focused on construction of mosques in certain communities, particularly New York.” This is specifically a New York/ground zero issue (by the way, you know that Barack Obama is about to attempt to pull a fast one whenever he says, “Let me be clear”):
So, he affirms (to applause) Muslim’s rights to practice religion and the right to build mosques. Wow! Great point!
Yet, the issue is not Muslim’s rights to practice religion and build mosques. The issue is to ask, “Who ever claimed that Muslims in America do not have the right to practice religion and build mosques?” As far as I can tell; no one, at any time, in any place, at all, ever.
Next came the following statement:
Again, he offers firm responses to arguments that no one made and affirmed that he refuses to deal with the actual, real issue. This is why this issue has blown up in his face; he refuses to deal with the issue and answer the real concerns which amounts to a lack of sensitivity on the part of those who support the building of the ground zero mosque, the ignoring of those concerns and the utter selfishness—as they only care about what they want; the mosque. A side issue is that this mosque is said to provide a meeting place, a place for dialogue. Yet, if they were really motivated by merely providing a meeting place, a place for dialogue they very well could—it would be called a build and not a specifically Muslim house of worship.
This is that which one must keep in mind as this issue is ubiquitously discusses; to note the category mistakes and parse the real issue from the false talking point.