Menu Home

June 22nd. The straw dog.

Why am I on the Lead? I say. We are in the Park, I say.

Because this Lady, says the Owner, feels that you are responsible for the Colour of her Child. She says her Child was not the Colour of Mud when she gave him to you.

You can tell that she is an Unreasonable Person, I say. She is wearing Pink Trousers in the Park, I say. Or, at least she was, I say. You can still See It in places, I say.

That is called a Straw Man argument, says the Owner. Such arguments are based on the Fallacy that one can Destroy the Nature of the Argument by attacking the Nature of the Arguer. The Fact that the Lady’s trousers are Pink has no bearing on the Reasonableness of her Objection to the Mud Wallowing Lesson which the Moral Dog generously extended to the Small Human. You cannot Morally Defeat a Person with a Straw Man argument.

On the contrary, I say. It seems to the Moral Dog that the kind of Person who wears Pink Trousers is the Kind of Person would impose Penalties on the Moral Dog for his services to the Small Human purely because of her own Unnatural Preference for Pink.

Ah, says the Owner, this version of the Straw Man fallacy is called the Circumstantial Straw Man argument. It tries to defer accusations by suggesting they arise from Bias rather than Good Evidence. It is possible that the arguments of the Lady in the Pink Trousers are Unrelated to her Unreasonable Preference for Pink, and are in fact related to her NonPreference for Mud. You still cannot Morally Defeat a Person with a Straw Man argument.

That may be true, I say, but the Lady in the Pink Trousers hardly Practises what she Preaches, I say.  Her accusations seem Somewhat Hypocritical, I say.

This version of the Straw Man fallacy is called the ‘you too’ Straw Man argument, says the Owner.  It defers accusations by suggesting that the Accuser has not Obeyed the Rules she suggests you should Obey. However, the Moral Dog is fully aware that the Lady in the Pink Trousers was obliged to Enter the Pond to retrieve the Small Human. The Fact that she is now also Mud Coloured does not Detract from her right to claim she does not wish to be Mud Coloured, since if she were Not then the Small Human would Still be Wallowing. You still cannot Morally Defeat a Person with a Straw Man argument.

I am completely fed up with all these Straw People, I say. Are you suggesting that the Moral Dog must Cast Aside the Values of the True Dog and live by the Narrow Suburban Rules of the Ladies in Pink Trousers who feel that Mud is bad for Trousers and Children alike? I say. The Moral Dog who does such a Thing will not feel a Real Dog at all, I say. One might even say he will feel like a Straw Dog, I say. You cannot Morally Defeat a Dog with a Straw Dog argument, I say.

Nice Try, says the Owner, but your Lead is not Coming Off unless you can Pay for the Dry Cleaning.

The Moral Dog. Not even a Moral Dog today. Just a Straw One.

 

 

 

 

Categories: dignity dog dog philosophy Uncategorized

Hergest the Hound

I am a dog of many thoughts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: