If B attributes an argument to A and refutes it despite the fact that A never offered the argument, isn’t that just a misrepresentation of A’s position? Perpetuual, in my mind, was misrepresenting Bawerk by saying that he was defending the ruling elite/interests of the capitalists by being a bourgeousie, when of course he isn’t.
Well (and I’m only pressing the point, not to “win”, but to help you debate more effectively), there’s no such thing as a “strawman motivation”; the term “strawman” refers to an argument.
Of course, and I appreciate the help. I could definitely use some tips.
I think I see what you’re saying now (took me a while. It’s 1:22 AM and my mind is essentially the size of a walnut), although the term “strawman motivation” is a tad confusing.
He’s saying that you can’t strawman someones (psychological) motivation for action/argument. Only his actual action/argument.
I guess the “correct” response would be something like “stop making ad hominem arguments” (since he was attacking the person)
I think he meant ad hominem, not strawman. You could simply accept his ad hominem argument and then apply it to Marx (since he was a member of the bourgeoisie).
Exactly, yessir.
Blueline, by saying that Perpetual is strawmanning BB by attributing to him a motivation he doesn’t have (sychophancy for capital), you are, in effect, saying that he is propping up a “strawman motivation”. But there’s no such thing, in the accepted use of that word: only a strawman argument. And Perpetual wasn’t talking about arguments at all.
Ah, I see now. Apparently I was trigger happy, heh. Thanks!
An anarcho-communist who is a follower of Marxism. Why does it not surprise me that he can try to contrive a way to twist those two doctrines together.