Reverse straw man
The reverse straw man fallacy is the opposite of the straw man fallacy. Consider two propositions:
- A, which is hard to attack ;
- B, which is easy to attack.
Whereas the straw man fallacy consists in attacking proposition A by attacking instead proposition B, the reverse straw man consists in defending proposition B by defending proposition A.
It’s a form of non sequitur: accepting A would imply to accept B, or a form of equivocation.
In its extreme form (antonym fallacy), proposition B is the exact opposite of A, thus akin to the [[Schrödinger’s razor fallacy.
The reverse straw man then consists in getting a proposition accepted by arguing in favor of its opposite, by playing on definitions, using intermediate anti-conceptual definitions (definition by non-essentials) or even intellectual package dealings.
Exemples
barking cat
borders
examples
