I'm confused on The Straw Man Argument concept.
I know it's basic definition is as follows: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw-man_argument)
I've run across an argument here in Michigan against enforcement of a recently enacted law. When opponents use this argument I call it a Straw Man response, but lately I've come to the conclusion that I'm wrong. It's still a BS response, but I don't think it's truly 'Straw Man'. I'm just unsure as to how to define their response.
Quickly across the fold, the argument, examples and a request for your opinion.
All of the following examples are from this annarbor.com online article.
Briefly, a new law has been enacted by the State of Michigan prohibiting text messaging while driving. While texting when driving is not the focus of this diary, I'll say that I'm for the law, and think it's a good thing.
Since the rape and demise of the Ann Arbor News in 2009 (thanks for nothing Booth Newspapers!), for better or worse Annarbor.com has become the (online) newspaper for the city of Ann Arbor. Following the model of most online newspapers, after you register you can comment on any article, anytime. Annarbor.com does moderate the comments.
This morning there was an article on how the police will start enforcement of the No Texting While Driving law that will take effect this coming Thursday.
Her are cuts from the comments section of the online article:
In most cases, this will be difficult to enforce and will take an officer's time and energy that could be used to address more serious issues.
this is a good law, but aren't our officer's over burdened already?
Impossible to enforce and open to abuse by officers ticketing motorists.
Remember how the seatbelt law was originally never supposed to be a primary offense that a driver could be pulled over for? That changed a couple of years ago and everyone applauded. Well, not everyone. Some of us still think the legislature pulled a fast one. It's easy to see how this new legislation will spread to talking on a cell phone, then hands-free talking.
Nanny state, here we come.
Silly Law and a waste of good resources. Texting is just one of many other and older issues of distraction that are experienced all the time around here, including:
- makeup application (seen way too often!)
- GPS (highly distracting for me)
- book/newspaper reading (witnessed a lot on M14)
- coffee & cig in the AM (esp. since you can't smoke anywhere else now)
- sign language to passengers (seen more than once in town)
- finding favorite songs on iPod/mp3 player
- talking and gesticulating wildly to friends/family
- child(ren) in back seat (the worst distraction thus far)
- texting and cell phone use
until we ban children as passengers, texting is just one of many evils.....
Gotta love that last one :-) For the record, there are an equal number of comments supporting this new law, including my own.
My question: Are these arguments classic Straw Man arguments? Or are they a hodgepodge of different political response types to distract from what is basically a good thing (in my opinion). And if so, what types of responses are they? Concern Troll? Other types?
Thanks, for any help and education you can give me with this. It's already appreciated.
UPDATE: A few of the great comments below have led me to the following website, The Nizkor Project,which has also led me to a website on Constructing a Logical Argument. I'm learning a lot from these sites, as I do from the D-Kos (which is why I read here! Thanks, all!!)