Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion History Characters / BaldursGateMainPartyMembers

Go To

[008] girlyboy Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
@taltamir: Yeah, I\'m not getting it. \
to:
@taltamir: Yeah, I\\\'m not getting it. \\\"Strawman\\\" is obviously a well-established pre-existing term, not something this article is trying to define for the first time ever. Saying that this article describes straw-people is not a claim that people who hold extreme beliefs are impossible or don\\\'t exist in real life. It\\\'s simply a statement that this page is describing the use of fictional devices, not the political or social beliefs of real people. Not because real people can\\\'t possibly share the views spouted by these fictional devices, but simply because real people \\\'\\\'aren\\\'t what the article is about\\\'\\\'. The article is about fictional devices that are crafted for a specific purpose. Which real people aren\\\'t. This bit of the description is really just meant to make clear \\\'\\\'why\\\'\\\' you shouldn\\\'t try to talk about real-life feminists here. I don\\\'t understand where the claims of this being a logical fallacy come from.

I can agree, I suppose, that the line \\\"Related to Straw Misogynist, the anti-female version of this,\\\" wrongly implies that this trope is simply \\\"Straw Misandrist\\\". In practice, however, misandry probably \\\'\\\'would\\\'\\\' be used as \\\"straw feminism\\\" most of the time when brought up in fiction, so it\\\'d likely still fit into this article. Maybe that particular line should be changed to make it clearer that it is not meant to imply feminism itself has anything to do with misandry (since implying misandry=feminism \\\'\\\'is itself a strawman argument against feminism\\\'\\\' :P ), but I don\\\'t see how this is connected to your claims of the article being flawed as a whole.

And in any case, I don\\\'t see what this has to do with the issue you brought up of deleting the \\\"as real people are not crafted for a specific purpose\\\" bit. Perhaps it \\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\' be discussed as a separate issue. See below.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
@taltamir: Yeah, I\'m not getting it. \
to:
@taltamir: Yeah, I\\\'m not getting it. \\\"Strawman\\\" is obviously a well-established pre-existing term, not something this article is trying to define for the first time ever. Saying that this article describes straw-people is not a claim that people who hold extreme beliefs are impossible or don\\\'t exist in real life. It\\\'s simply a statement that this page is describing the use of fictional devices, not the political or social beliefs of real people. Not because real people can\\\'t possibly share the views spouted by these fictional devices, but simply because real people \\\'\\\'aren\\\'t what the article is about\\\'\\\'. The article is about fictional devices that are crafted for a specific purpose. Which real people aren\\\'t. This bit of the description is really just meant to make clear \\\'\\\'why\\\'\\\' you shouldn\\\'t try to talk about real-life feminists here. I don\\\'t understand where the claims of this being a logical fallacy come from.

I can agree, I suppose, that the line \\\"Related to Straw Misogynist, the anti-female version of this,\\\" wrongly implies that this trope is simply \\\"Straw Misandrist\\\". In practice, however, misandry probably \\\'\\\'would\\\'\\\' be used as \\\"straw feminism\\\" most of the time when brought up in fiction, so it\\\'d likely still fit into this article. Maybe that particular line should be changed to make it clearer that it is not meant to imply feminism itself has anything to do with misandry (since implying misandry=feminism \\\'\\\'is itself a strawman argument against feminism\\\'\\\' :P ), but I don\\\'t see how this is connected to your claims of the article being flawed as a whole.

And in any case, I don\\\'t see what this has to do with the issue you brought up of deleting the \\\"as real people are not crafted for a specific purpose\\\" bit. Perhaps it \\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\' be discussed as a separate issue.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
@taltamir: Yeah, I\'m not getting it. \
to:
@taltamir: Yeah, I\\\'m not getting it. \\\"Strawman\\\" is obviously a well-established pre-existing term, not something this article is trying to define for the first time ever. Saying that this article describes straw-people is not a claim that people who hold extreme beliefs are impossible or don\\\'t exist in real life. It\\\'s simply a statement that this page is describing the use of fictional devices, not the political or social beliefs of real people. Not because real people can\\\'t possibly share the views spouted by these fictional devices, but simply because real people \\\'\\\'aren\\\'t what the article is about\\\'\\\'. The article is about fictional devices that are crafted for a specific purpose. Which real people aren\\\'t. This bit of the description is really just meant to make clear \\\'\\\'why\\\'\\\' you shouldn\\\'t try to talk about real-life feminists here. I don\\\'t understand where the claims of this being a logical fallacy come from.

I can agree, I suppose, that the line \\\"Related to Straw Misogynist, the anti-female version of this,\\\" wrongly implies that this trope is simply \\\"Straw Misandrist\\\". In practice, however, misandry probably \\\'\\\'would\\\'\\\' be used as \\\"straw feminism\\\" most of the time when brought up in fiction, so it\\\'d likely still fit into this article. Maybe that particular line should be changed to make it clearer that it is not meant to imply feminism itself has anything to do with misandry, but I don\\\'t see how this is connected to your claims of the article being flawed as a whole.

And in any case, I don\\\'t see what this has to do with the issue you brought up of deleting the \\\"as real people are not crafted for a specific purpose\\\" bit. Perhaps it \\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\' be discussed as a separate issue.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
@taltamir: Yeah, I\'m not getting it. \
to:
@taltamir: Yeah, I\\\'m not getting it. \\\"Strawman\\\" is obviously a well-established pre-existing term, not something this article is trying to define for the first time ever. Saying that this article describes straw-people is not a claim that people who hold extreme beliefs are impossible or don\\\'t exist in real life. It\\\'s simply a statement that this page is describing the use of fictional devices, not the political or social beliefs of real people. Not because real people can\\\'t possibly share the views spouted by these fictional devices, but simply because real people \\\'\\\'aren\\\'t what the article is about\\\'\\\'. The article is about fictional devices that are crafted for a specific purpose. Which real people aren\\\'t. This bit of the description is really just meant to make clear \\\'\\\'why\\\'\\\' you shouldn\\\'t try to talk about real-life feminists here. I don\\\'t understand where the claims of this being a logical fallacy come from.

I can agree, I suppose, that the line \\\"Related to Straw Misogynist, the anti-female version of this,\\\" wrongly implies that this trope is simply \\\"Straw Misandrist\\\". In practice, however, misandry probably \\\'\\\'would\\\'\\\' be used as \\\"straw feminism\\\" most of the time when brought up in fiction, so it\\\'d likely still fit into this article. Maybe that particular line should be changed to make it clearer that it is not meant to imply feminism itself has anything to do with misandry, but I don\\\'t see how this is connected to your claims of the article being flawed as a whole.

And in any case, I don\\\'t see what this has to do with the issue you brought up of deleting the \\\"as real people are not crafted for a specific purpose\\\" bit. Perhaps it can be discussed as a separate issue.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
@taltamir: Yeah, I\'m not getting it. \
to:
@taltamir: Yeah, I\\\'m not getting it. \\\"Strawman\\\" is obviously a well-established pre-existing term, not something this article is trying to define for the first time ever. Saying that this article describes straw-people is not a claim that people who hold extreme beliefs are impossible or don\\\'t exist in real life. It\\\'s simply a statement that this page is describing the use of fictional devices, not the political or social beliefs of real people. Not because real people can\\\'t possibly share the views spouted by these fictional devices, but simply because real people \\\'\\\'aren\\\'t what the article is about\\\'\\\'. The article is about fictional devices that are crafted for a specific purpose. Which real people aren\\\'t. This bit of the description is really just meant to make clear \\\'\\\'why\\\'\\\' you shouldn\\\'t try to talk about real-life feminists here. I don\\\'t understand where the claims of this being a logical fallacy come from.

I can agree, I suppose, that the line \\\"Related to Straw Misogynist, the anti-female version of this,\\\" wrongly implies that this trope is simply \\\"Straw Misandrist\\\". In practice, however, misandry probably \\\'\\\'would\\\'\\\' be used as \\\"straw feminism\\\" most of the time when brought up in fiction, so it\\\'d likely still fit into this article. Maybe that particular line should be changed to make it clearer that it is not meant to imply feminism itself has anything to do with misandry, but I don\\\'t see how this is connected to your claims of the article being flawed as a whole.

And in any case, I don\\\'t see what this has to do with the issue you brought up of deleting the \\\"as real people are not crafted for a specific purpose\\\" bit.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
@taltamir: Yeah, I\'m not getting it. \
to:
@taltamir: Yeah, I\\\'m not getting it. \\\"Strawman\\\" is obviously a well-established pre-existing term, not something this article is trying to define for the first time ever. Saying that this article describes straw-people is not a claim that people who hold extreme beliefs are impossible or don\\\'t exist in real life. It\\\'s simply a statement that this page is describing the use of fictional devices, not the political or social beliefs of real people. Not because real people can\\\'t possibly share the views spouted by these fictional devices, but simply because real people \\\'\\\'aren\\\'t what the article is about\\\'\\\'. The description of this article as it stands now seems reasonably clear to me on this point. I don\\\'t understand where the claims of this being a logical fallacy come from.

I can agree, I suppose, that the line \\\"Related to Straw Misogynist, the anti-female version of this,\\\" wrongly implies that this trope is simply \\\"Straw Misandrist\\\". In practice, however, misandry probably \\\'\\\'would\\\'\\\' be used as \\\"straw feminism\\\" most of the time when brought up in fiction, so it\\\'d likely still fit into this article. Maybe that particular line should be changed to make it clearer that it is not meant to imply feminism itself has anything to do with misandry, but I don\\\'t see how this is connected to your claims of the article being flawed as a whole.

And in any case, I don\\\'t see what this has to do with the issue you brought up of deleting the \\\"as real people are not crafted for a specific purpose\\\" bit.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
@taltamir: Yeah, I\'m not getting it. \
to:
@taltamir: Yeah, I\\\'m not getting it. \\\"Strawman\\\" is obviously a well-established pre-existing term, not something this article is trying to define for the first time ever. Saying that this article describes straw-people is not a claim that people who hold extreme beliefs are impossible or don\\\'t exist in real life. It\\\'s simply a statement that this page is describing the use of fictional devices, not the political or social beliefs of real people. Not because real people can\\\'t possibly share the views spouted by these fictional devices, but simply because real people \\\'\\\'isn\\\'t what the article is about\\\'\\\'. The description of this article as it stands now seems reasonably clear to me on this point. I don\\\'t understand where the claims of this being a logical fallacy come from.

I can agree, I suppose, that the line \\\"Related to Straw Misogynist, the anti-female version of this,\\\" wrongly implies that this trope is simply \\\"Straw Misandrist\\\". In practice, however, misandry probably \\\'\\\'would\\\'\\\' be used as \\\"straw feminism\\\" most of the time when brought up in fiction, so it\\\'d likely still fit into this article. Maybe that particular line should be changed to make it clearer that it is not meant to imply feminism itself has anything to do with misandry, but I don\\\'t see how this is connected to your claims of the article being flawed as a whole.

And in any case, I don\\\'t see what this has to do with the issue you brought up of deleting the \\\"as real people are not crafted for a specific purpose\\\" bit.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
@taltamir: Yeah, I\'m not getting it. \
to:
@taltamir: Yeah, I\\\'m not getting it. \\\"Strawman\\\" is obviously a well-established pre-existing term, not something this article is trying to define for the first time ever. Saying that this article describes straw-people is not a claim that people who hold extreme beliefs are impossible or don\\\'t exist in real life. It\\\'s simply a statement that this page is describing the use of fictional devices, not the political or social beliefs of real people. The description of this article as it stands now seems reasonably clear to me on this point. I don\\\'t understand where the claims of this being a logical fallacy come from.

I can agree, I suppose, that the line \\\"Related to Straw Misogynist, the anti-female version of this,\\\" wrongly implies that this trope is simply \\\"Straw Misandrist\\\". In practice, however, misandry probably \\\'\\\'would\\\'\\\' be used as \\\"straw feminism\\\" most of the time when brought up in fiction, so it\\\'d likely still fit into this article. Maybe that particular line should be changed to make it clearer that it is not meant to imply feminism itself has anything to do with misandry, but I don\\\'t see how this is connected to your claims of the article being flawed as a whole.

And in any case, I don\\\'t see what this has to do with the issue you brought up of deleting the \\\"as real people are not crafted for a specific purpose\\\" bit.
Top