The Arizona Daily Star ran a series of articles last week opposing Republican proposals to secure the border against illegal immigration. A team of reporters and photo journalists actually traveled both sides of the border with Mexico to develop stories. The Star called it “investigative journalism.” Actually, their minds were made up before they investigated, but that’s a separate question.
What interested me were the arguments set forward against sealing the border. They all took the form of straw men. The lead article laid them out: “Canyons, rivers and shifting sand—plus a multibillion-dollar price tag, more violence and less business—make sealing the border all but impossible.”
A straw man argument seeks to divert attention from the main issue. It also initiates ideas that seem to make the main issue irrelevant.
As a pastor who often introduced people to the good news about Jesus, I became very familiar with straw man arguments. One of the more common diversions came in the form of a question. “Where did Adam get his wife?” Sometimes they were simple statements. “I don’t believe the Bible.” “I’m an agnostic.”
Early on, I learned how to circumvent straw men and lead conversations back to the main issue. Straw man arguments are not without merit. They need to be respected and answered. However, they are diversions from primary questions. How does one find peace with God? On what basis may I seek forgiveness? What should I say when I stand before God?
When I began to teach others how to share their faith, I taught them to recognize straw men. I taught them how to respond in an appropriate manner. I encouraged them to “keep the main thing, the main thing,” not only in their conversations with others, but also in their own lives.
So, what do I think about a fence along the border with Mexico? Will it work? For those who want to cross without our permission, probably not. However, is that the main issue? Locks on the doors of my house can’t keep out thieves, either. I lock them anyway. I have a responsibility to do my part. So does America.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi Jerry,
I don't like disagreeing with you, but you're not quite right on this one. The logical fallacy you're describing is a "Red Herring" not a Strawman.
The term "Red Herring" comes from the practice of dragging a smelly fish, usually a herring, across a trail to distract bloodhounds from their quarry. In debate, a red herring is an irrelevant point thrown in to distract from the central point of the issue being discussed.
The most common red herring I've encountered when discussing the gospel is this, "What about all those people who have never heard the gospel?" In this case, the central point is what the person asking the question is going to do about the gospel which they have heard. But they're trying to deflect the conversation away from that point by focusing on hypothetical "others" who haven't heard of Jesus.
A straw man argument is another logical fallacy where someone misstates their opponent, then attacks the misstatement rather than the opponents real position. It's just like the difference between attacking a scarecrow and a real human.
In the immigration debate the open borders side often states that pro-enforcement side is either "against all immigration" or that they "want to oppress those who just want to build a better life for their family." These arguments carry a bit of "ad hominem" attack (attacking the supposed motives of the opponent) with them as well by claiming they are racist. These misstatements ignore the fact that the those who are for pro-enforcement have no problem with legal immigration, and may even think that making legal immigration easier is a good idea.
Sorry about the dissertation. :-} Just replace "straw man" with "red herring" in your post and I would say that you're completely accurate.
Shalom
Post a Comment