How do you respond to stupid strawmen like this?

[Christian Liberty]

OK, so a couple times I've had the following conversation with former Romney-supporters.

Me: Among other reasons, I could never support Romney because he was completely OK with the NDAA 2012 (I would then proceed to explain what the NDAA 2012 is.)

Other Person: Well, you're never going to get a perfect candidate.

I get really ticked at this, mostly because I can't imagine how some otherwise intelligent people fall into it. I don't see how this can be anything other than extreme stupidity or deliberate misconstruction.

I mean seriously, I could get my 11 year old brother to understand the absurdity in this line of thinking, and he doesn't know a single thing about politics other than that I rant against the government and that I'm a huge fan of Ron Paul.

Regardless of whether you personally think Romney, Obama, or neither was the "Lesser evil", this line of thinking is still absurd. Heck, my dad voted for Romney, he heard one such conversation that I had yesterday, and he recognized it as absurd immediately.

So, if calling someone a moron no longer worthy of your time isn't an option (I'm not ready to start doing that face to face yet, as much as I'd like to sometimes) how the heck do you respond to people who strawman you that way?

I guess in their minds if you don't play the two party game you are "Demanding perfection" but its self-evidently absurd. I don't even know what information to give to show that its a fallacy. I mean, its so obvious. There are some issues that I'll compromise on, so I'm not "Demanding perfection", but indefinite detention just isn't one of those issues that I'm going to compromise on. What on earth is so hard to understand about that?

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

That's not a strawman.

 

[gwax23]

That's not a strawman.

lol

 

[Christian Liberty]

That's not a strawman.

I'm going to give you a fair chance to defend this post before I neg rep the crap out of it.

 

[eduardo89]

I'm going to give you a fair chance to defend this post before I neg rep the crap out of it.

Maybe start by learning what a straw man argument is.

What Is a Straw Man Argument?

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.

 

[limequat]

All that means is that you haven't found an issue that that particular person cares about.

In fact, it's true that there are no perfect candidates. RP is a perfect example of a non-perfect candidate.

Grassroots campaigning 101: Figure out what your target is passionate about, talk about that.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm going to give you a fair chance to defend this post before I neg rep the crap out of it.

He's right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

[TaftFan]

I'm going to give you a fair chance to defend this post before I neg rep the crap out of it.

Wow, why so angry.

He is right. A strawman is a fallacy but a fallacy is not necessarily a strawman.

In this case, I don't even see a fallacy at all. Basically you have a disagreement on the standards you hold candidates too. Your next response should be that you have higher standards and you will have to agree to disagree.

 

[James Madison]

Other Person: Well, you're never going to get a perfect candidate.

There's no safest way to commit suicide, either. Instead of arguing over which is the least likely to kill you, how about not committing suicide.

 

[aclove]

All that means is that you haven't found an issue that that particular person cares about.

In fact, it's true that there are no perfect candidates. RP is a perfect example of a non-perfect candidate.

Grassroots campaigning 101: Figure out what your target is passionate about, talk about that.

^This.

#1, it's kind of a waste of time to go find Romney supporters and tell them why they were wrong, especially since he lost. It kind of comes across like you're saying, "Nyah, nyah, I told you your guy sucked, and here's why."

So when you say, "I couldn't support Romney because of XYZ" and someone responds with the imperfect candidate copout line, they're really saying, "I don't know/care about that issue." Of course, they won't just come out and say that, because they're politically active too and don't want to look ignorant or apathetic.

You're the one with a "product" to sell (the Liberty message) so the onus is on YOU to sell it. Telling people why they were wrong not to have already bought your product is, frankly, a piss-poor sales job. If someone strolled up to me and popped off with, "See, Ron Paul didn't get the nomination. I told you he couldn't win, that's why you should have voted for (fill-in-the-blank)", I wouldn't be terribly open to what they had to say, either.

A better approach with ex Romney-ites would be to commiserate about how unfortunate it is that Obama is still President, use that as an opening to find out why they liked Romney, then point out the ways Rand would be a good candidate who appeals to their issues in 2016.

 

[erowe1]

The point I make to Romney supporters is that I'm pretty sure we'd have been worse off with Romney than Obama.

Can you imagine the government shutdown happening if Romney were president, for example?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Maybe start by learning what a straw man argument is.

What Is a Straw Man Argument?

Yeah, I think that what was said qualifies. I say "I won't vote for X because of Y." My opponent says "There are no perfect candidates", thus trying to make my argument into "I would only vote for a perfect candidate". Which is silly.

Wow, why so angry.

He is right. A strawman is a fallacy but a fallacy is not necessarily a strawman.

In this case, I don't even see a fallacy at all. Basically you have a disagreement on the standards you hold candidates too. Your next response should be that you have higher standards and you will have to agree to disagree.

You're wrong, its not just a disagreement. I mean, it is, but there's more to it than that. If my opponents had said that they wouldn't discount a candidate on any one issue, or that that issue didn't matter to them (I generally get disgusted with anyone who DOESN'T think indefinite detention is a big issue once it is presented to them, but that's another issue entirely) that would be one thing. But to imply that I will only support a perfect candidate because I won't support a candidate who supports NDAA 2012 is silly.

There's no safest way to commit suicide, either. Instead of arguing over which is the least likely to kill you, how about not committing suicide.

Yep. Lol!

^This.

#1, it's kind of a waste of time to go find Romney supporters and tell them why they were wrong, especially since he lost. It kind of comes across like you're saying, "Nyah, nyah, I told you your guy sucked, and here's why."

So when you say, "I couldn't support Romney because of XYZ" and someone responds with the imperfect candidate copout line, they're really saying, "I don't know/care about that issue." Of course, they won't just come out and say that, because they're politically active too and don't want to look ignorant or apathetic.

You're the one with a "product" to sell (the Liberty message) so the onus is on YOU to sell it. Telling people why they were wrong not to have already bought your product is, frankly, a piss-poor sales job. If someone strolled up to me and popped off with, "See, Ron Paul didn't get the nomination. I told you he couldn't win, that's why you should have voted for (fill-in-the-blank)", I wouldn't be terribly open to what they had to say, either.

A better approach with ex Romney-ites would be to commiserate about how unfortunate it is that Obama is still President, use that as an opening to find out why they liked Romney, then point out the ways Rand would be a good candidate who appeals to their issues in 2016.

First of all, the kind of people I'm talking to are generally conservative Tea Party type people. They aren't really Romneyites. Romney was the "Not Obama" choice for them, not a great choice on their part.

Second of all, I don't go up to people and try to start conversations about how Romney sucked. That's not really how it goes.

Replace Romney with anyone else, it doesn't matter. The fallacy is still there. "If you won't vote for a candidate despite the fact that he supports X, you're a perfectionist." Really?

The point I make to Romney supporters is that I'm pretty sure we'd have been worse off with Romney than Obama.

Can you imagine the government shutdown happening if Romney were president, for example?

Oh boy. I mean, I agree with you, but that's like practical blasphemy to these kinds of people. If I'm going to do that, I might as well just say screw it I'm a pro-choice atheist

That would be the WORST thing I could do. These kind of people are convinced that Obama is a socialist (And I mean an actual soicalist here, not a social capitalist like virtually all Keynesians including Romney, McCain, Santorum, etc. are), anti-God, etc.

 

[thoughtomator]

It's technically not a strawman. I believe this one is called a "red herring". It's designed to throw you off the trail.

The answers I gave to that question was usually along the lines of, "that may be so, but it is reasonable to require, at a minimum, a candidate not be completely hostile to my vital interests".

 

[DamianTV]

Step #1: Don't let them get under your skin

Step #2: Get under their skin instead

 

[silverhandorder]

Step #1: Don't let them get under your skin

Step #2: Get under their skin instead

How not to win friends and converts.

 

[erowe1]

That would be the WORST thing I could do. These kind of people are convinced that Obama is a socialist (And I mean an actual soicalist here, not a social capitalist like virtually all Keynesians including Romney, McCain, Santorum, etc. are), anti-God, etc.

It doesn't matter if he's a socialist. Do they care about the nation? Do they want to protect it from more socialism? Or to they want to score partisan points?

Fact 1: Under Romney, socialism would have advanced more quickly in our federal government than it has under Obama.

Fact 2: We knew this already before the 2012 election.

Given those two undeniable facts, the only way they could justify supporting Romney over Obama is if they're socialists.

 

[JK/SEA]

How not to win friends and converts.

anything wrong with de-moralizing your opponent to the point of throwing in the towel allowing you a win and taking over?

 

[pacelli]

OK, so a couple times I've had the following conversation with former Romney-supporters.

Me: Among other reasons, I could never support Romney because he was completely OK with the NDAA 2012 (I would then proceed to explain what the NDAA 2012 is.)

Other Person: Well, you're never going to get a perfect candidate.

In the most humble way possible, I would suggest not beginning a conversation with a topic that is over the other person's head, where you have to explain the topic itself to them.

Its like when Ron Paul was running, a canvassing operation didn't go well if I knocked on someone's door and had to explain what in the hell the federal reserve IS, before even talking about Ron Paul's stance on it.

Start the conversation simple, so your average product of the public fool system can understand it: "Yeah, Romney just isn't republican enough for me."

 

[jdcole]

All that means is that you haven't found an issue that that particular person cares about.

In fact, it's true that there are no perfect candidates. RP is a perfect example of a non-perfect candidate.

Grassroots campaigning 101: Figure out what your target is passionate about, talk about that.

+rep the heck outta this one. Hit the nail right on the freaking head.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Start the conversation simple, so your average product of the public fool system can understand it: "Yeah, Romney just isn't republican enough for me."

But that would be a stupid lie. I don't want a Republican