No, that wouldn’t be a straw man argument. If you’re going to try to call fallacy on something you would have to argue appeal to hypocrisy. However the hypocrisy is based on your post and previous posts calling for a boycott for something you find morally reprehensible while at the same time using a platform created by the morally reprehensible. One you have a problem with the other you do not. It calls into question your own morals when they only serve you when you think they should. That’s all.
Yeah uh no, I didn’t argue one way or the other about a boycott. That was your assumption and you’re trying to get me to fight it. If I cared to lay out my opinion about a heated topic on the internet and then defend it from a bunch of mouthbreathers I would go back to Reddit.
You seen to be getting pretty upset about this topic for someone not arguing about it. If you don’t have a position, that’s fine. It doesn’t seem that way, but that’s you. Also that’s again not how straw man is defined.
No, that wouldn’t be a straw man argument. If you’re going to try to call fallacy on something you would have to argue appeal to hypocrisy. However the hypocrisy is based on your post and previous posts calling for a boycott for something you find morally reprehensible while at the same time using a platform created by the morally reprehensible. One you have a problem with the other you do not. It calls into question your own morals when they only serve you when you think they should. That’s all.
Yeah uh no, I didn’t argue one way or the other about a boycott. That was your assumption and you’re trying to get me to fight it. If I cared to lay out my opinion about a heated topic on the internet and then defend it from a bunch of mouthbreathers I would go back to Reddit.
Your comment is a de facto strawman.
You seen to be getting pretty upset about this topic for someone not arguing about it. If you don’t have a position, that’s fine. It doesn’t seem that way, but that’s you. Also that’s again not how straw man is defined.