Board Thread:False Info and Speculative Discussion/@comment-4723271-20140716053249/@comment-1313995-20141224032531

Paul, I'd like to introduce you to the concept of the "straw man". No, it's not a supernatural creature, it's a logical fallacy. And it's committed when one misrepresents an opponent's actual argument as a weaker version of itself---the straw man---that is then "refuted" in place of the real thing.

I belabor the point because, in that short post, you set up no less than four straw men. Given the pithy word count, that's gotta be a record:


 * 1) "You mad. I get it." --- Misrepresenting my rational argument as mere emotional bias, so you can dismiss it with the condescending hand-wave emotional bias deserves.
 * 2) "Teen Wolf and its creators are not responsible for all Gay Representation on TV." -- Misrepresenting my actual point---that Danny's status as an ideal gay role model is one reason to consider him differently than your average minor character---as an extremist position that defeats itself.
 * 3) "I have as much right to like it "as is" as you do to throw shade about how minor characters are treated." -- Misrepresenting my support of fans who disapproved of how the show handled Danny, as an attack on your right to have an opinion of your own.
 * 4) "Again, we get it - the show isn't 'gay enough' or 'the right kind of gay' for you." -- Misrepresenting (indeed, completely reinventing) Grahamburglar's rather decisive undermining of your reliance on GLAAD, as unrelated personal opinion that can be easily dismissed.

Although there's no hope of winning a debate with someone who argues as you do, the red herrings, evasions, straw men and ad hominems have got me really close to winning Fallacy Bingo!