Thanks! I see both their points. The comic clearly was intended to point out women’s issues but if men resonate with that that’s fair too. There was a lot of gross stuff though in the rest of the thread(s). I wouldn’t say pizzacake was totally out of line, but it wasn’t particularly empathic, the way she responded. The comments by defensive men though… very wrong place, wrong time.

Which deleted thread? The link takes me to an entire post and scrolling through that many comments seems a bit pointless.

I cannot read your comment without great difficulty. I’m sounding it out like I’m learning to read lmao

Wait until you find out where fish and dolphins poop!

My dyslexia nightmare.

The vast majority of people I know in the queer community around me get tested regularly and don’t use condoms, since pregnancy isn’t a risk.

Saying “your views support this” is not making the argument you’re claiming it does.

Would love to. I’m too poor.

You claimed they made several strawman arguments. The one you are pointing to is where they called your argument corporate apologia, which isn’t a strawman, whether you are or are not l, as it’s referring to the beneficiaries of your argument, which they argue to be corporations. The points they are making are sound.

For example (none of this is my actual beliefs), I could make an argument for unrestricted gun ownership. Someone, in disagreement with me, could say I need to take my gun lobby apologia and leave, after discussing why my position supports the gun lobby. In actuality, hypothetical me wants easier gun ownership for queer people and other marginalized groups. Me not supporting the gun lobby doesn’t make that a strawman. They aren’t making a strawman argument by saying because my argument supports the gun lobby, it is automatically invalid.

They do this exact same thing against your argument. They argue the points that your beliefs ultimately support corporations, not that your opinion is automatically invalid because you support corporations. If all they said was that last line about corporate apologia, you’d have a point, but they don’t. You’re simply misusing and diluting the strawman fallacy. You also claimed they made several strawman arguments, but failed to demonstrate the one example you pulled. I don’t even really care about your arguments or theirs in regards to my response, as others have covered my beliefs already, I only am concerned in discussing the improper use of logical fallacies to discredit people you disagree with.

Who. Decides.

I suppose you’re talking about the part about your post history, which seems flimsy. Just because some of your posts agree with the other poster doesn’t mean the ones specifically referred to don’t exist. A strawman is putting your ideas up framed such that you do not support them, but arguing that you do in order to make a simpler argument. That doesn’t appear to be happening, as lacking nuance isn’t the same thing as a strawman. You do seem to be making the argument referred to, and having a nuanced position from other posts doesn’t make that untrue. It also seems irresponsible to use that one point to discredit the entire argument, which broadly doesn’t care about said point.

That’s a fair point, but the question still stands. In a stateless society, who decides when violence is appropriate and which ideas deserve violence? What differentiates such individuals from the state, seeing as they are acting in lieu of one, enforcing certain ideals and rules via violence? My questions still stand.

Isn’t that exactly what the post is doing?

I don’t see it, as it seems like you are in fact arguing that tools are neutral. Giving counter examples isn’t the same thing as a strawman, it’s challenging your argument. Did you mean a different part of their argument?

Who decides what ideas are and aren’t okay? Who decides which ideas are bad enough to use force against? What’s to stop those in charge of making those decisions from being compromised, or plants, or changing their minds, or having morals counter to the morals of their society, seeing as the voting clearly cannot be trusted. All it takes is fascism and conservatism to quietly seep into government and now we’ve created the perfect framework for them to shift the targets to those they oppose.

This week, trans people have been declared anti-party. Next week it’s disabled people. Tune in the week after for nationalism.

This is like building a big gun to protect ourselves from fascists but not putting any checks to make sure it’s wielded in the best interests of the people.

I understand that you disagree with their points, but I’m more interested in where the strawman arguments are. I don’t see any, and I’d like to understand if I’m missing a clear fallacy due to my own biases or not.

Can you point out and explain each strawman in detail? It sounds more like someone made good analogies that counter your point and you buzzword vomited in response.

I like the term “cultural voyeurism.”

There is something to be said for having friends that refuse to make choices because “I really don’t care.” I hang out with a person like this, and it means I have to always take more of an emotional load in our friendship making the decisions. It kinda sucks to always be the one that has to make the executive decisions. It’s nice sometimes to do what someone else wants to do.

“What’s up, what do we want to do?”

“I’m easy.”

“Nah, I picked last time, your turn. What are we up to?” (And the last several times)

“I’m down for whatever really.”

“Come on, pick something!”

“I really don’t care, I’m good with whatever.”

What I want to say: “JESUS FUCKING CHRIST PLEASE JUST MAKE A DECISION FOR ONCE PLEASE I AM TIRED OF THE BURDEN”

What I actually say: “Aight whatever let’s just [insert activity]” or, optionally “I’m pretty tired of picking. Do either of these options sound good?”

Don’t push off your executive functions in relationships onto others all the time! It’s a give and take, and everyone has different limits. It’s nearly as bad, in my opinion, as dictating the relationship to force someone else to do it. Now, I wouldn’t yell at someone, no matter how frustrated they make me, but I do communicate when I’m running out of executive function battery for the group, and ask someone else to step up. I just wish they’d take it up on their own initiative sometimes.

You’re multiplying the amount of CO2 dramatically. That is the amount of CO2 for the entire plane, not calculated per passenger. Emissions are always calculated per passenger for different methods of transportation, otherwise you’re multiplying the output by potentially hundreds.

Edit: I think I’m wrong. I’m getting different results saying those numbers are actually closer to the per passenger number. I’d have to do the math but it’s definitely more than a burger by a long shot, just from a logical calorie conversion.