Re:Fallacies of Distributed Computing
by khafra on Friday April 22, 2011 @12:42PM
(#2474591)
> 1. Person A has position X.
> 2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and [...]
> 3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
> Person A doesn't need to be present or even know that his position is being spun for Person B to establish and attack a strawman.
In the degenerate case, person B only identifies person A by the position he claims that person A holds. It should be obvious that there is no strawman here, since A does not exist unless A holds the position B claims.
It could be argued that, as B gives A more and more distinguishing characteristics, he slides closer to strawman territory. But I don't think the OP was close enough to be in danger.
> 2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and [...]
> 3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
> Person A doesn't need to be present or even know that his position is being spun for Person B to establish and attack a strawman.
In the degenerate case, person B only identifies person A by the position he claims that person A holds. It should be obvious that there is no strawman here, since A does not exist unless A holds the position B claims.
It could be argued that, as B gives A more and more distinguishing characteristics, he slides closer to strawman territory. But I don't think the OP was close enough to be in danger.