| theprof00 said: i see you editted your post, but you were e xplaining to me what strawman is, saying that i was using it incorrectly in order to undermine my point, and then didn't explain it correctly. strawman is misrepresenting the opposing position. It's attacking the opposing position because it's attributing a definition of being contrary to the one that is proposed by science. We are defined simply by existence, nothing more. |
That's not what a strawman is though.
In the view of the side you described with the first claim under examination "why did god make gays", the viewpoint is that of a deist (I think). As such, a deist believes that a person is defined by the intent of the creator.
The claim was not a strawman argument, it was an argument from the premises on which the one that made the claim rests.
A strawman argument would be to say something like "Evolutionists believe that we are descendent from apes. Yet apes still exist today, so evolution must be false."
It's a strawman because you build a bogus case from the opposing view's premices, with a flaw, only to destroy it shortly after.
It's usually done intentionally, as a troll form of logic, and is something I hate reading.
