this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
633 points (88.1% liked)
unions
1353 readers
255 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Strawman fallacy. They (Dangblingus) tried to argue with a completely different topic to try and discredit the argument, without acknowledging the difference.
Edit: since everyone interpreted this wrong.
~~The statement has two clauses, are you saying we're not allowed to acknowledge corrections to clause A without also addressing clause B?~~
~~That seems a little silly, I'd think you'd strive for the most accurate overall statement, and corrections to either clause should be welcome.~~
~~You can offer an objectively true correction without addressing the entire argument, can you not?~~
EDIT: I misunderstood the comment - disregard this.
If someone stated they like the color blue, and another person states that red is better, asserting that the first person hates red. That would be a stawman.
Op stated unskilled labor means no prior experience.
Comment stated then why is it ok to give slave wages.
OP was not making an argument about wages. Making the comment a starwman since they are arguing a point that was unrelated to the original argument.
Ah, okay, I thought the straw man accusation was pointed at the fellow defining unskilled labor. My bad!
I get you. Ya I was supporting GBU, not saying they were making the stawman.
Lol nope
Nope what? You didn't make the strawman guy.
God damn right I didn't.
I guess you left out the brackets in the first version - I have to admit I misread it even then.
Only commenting to let you know that your edit succeeded in at least one case, no matter the points! ♥