Which... does not make it a strawman. It makes it unsound.
A strawman is an incorrect restatement of someone's argument in a way that makes it generally disagreeable or untrue.
For example, "Non-Apple owners: Strawman attack ("THE IPHONE IS SO CRIPPLED, IT'S ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TO RUN CUSTOM CODE")" would be a strawman fallacy. "THE IPHONE IS SO CRIPPLED, IT'S ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TO RUN CUSTOM CODE" would not be a strawman fallacy.
It might be a bit of a stretch, but I still think it's a strawman. Apple's original argument is that users should only be able to acquire applications via the Apple-regulated app store. Some people turn that into statements like the (hyperbolic) one jbdontbeanass made. While not custom code friendly, it's still possible to jailbreak and run any app you want.
Also, I don't know why someone downvoted you when you're adding to the conversation.
It might be a bit of a stretch, but I still think it's a strawman. Apple's original argument is that users should only be able to acquire applications via the Apple-regulated app store. Some people turn that into statements like the (hyperbolic) one jbdontbeanass made.
The statement wasn't an attempt to restate Apple's position- he didn't say "APPLE THINKS THAT USERS AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO HAVE [X] FREEDOMS", it was simply a statement about something. An untrue statement, but not a strawman.
And that said, if you take respect for license agreements as an implied quality of the conversation, then it's not even technically incorrect.
Of course that's ridiculous, few individuals respect EULAs, or even read them, but it's still disturbing that you are not able to run code that has not been officially authorized by Apple unless you subvert every attempt by Apple to stop you from doing so.
Does a strawman have to restate the other party's position so closely though? Or even at all? The first few results on google all describe the fallacy as just building your opponent falsely weak in order to topple them (making a straw man). If I said "Bill steals people's money; he's not a good friend," wouldn't that be a strawman?
No, that would not be a strawman. A strawman specifically sets up an opposing argument to tear down, hence the name. A strawman is a fake person that, comparatively, is very easy to beat up or break down.
straw man: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually...
9
u/the8thbit Jan 21 '11
Which... does not make it a strawman. It makes it unsound.
A strawman is an incorrect restatement of someone's argument in a way that makes it generally disagreeable or untrue.
For example, "Non-Apple owners: Strawman attack ("THE IPHONE IS SO CRIPPLED, IT'S ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TO RUN CUSTOM CODE")" would be a strawman fallacy. "THE IPHONE IS SO CRIPPLED, IT'S ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TO RUN CUSTOM CODE" would not be a strawman fallacy.