I agree that - "Don't let government get it's hands on my Medicare!" is rather silly.
OTOH, while not a straw man (people are actually saying it) to the extent that pointing out and ridiculing this idea is meant to imply that arguments against the reform plan are generally, weak, properly ignored, and/or refuted, its something of a "weak man" argument
juliansanchez.com
Attacking weak arguments isn't itself wrong. It can be beneficial, or even important; particularly if its acknowledged that the weak arguments are not the only one, or that refuting them doesn't decide the overall issue. Its esp. useful if the weak arguments are widely believed to be true and meaningful (for example if a lot of people think Medicare has nothing to do with the government, and they are politically active based on that idea, then the idea has to be, and is easily, refuted).
So just attacking the statement is not problematic. Only making a more general implication, which you may not have intended. (Of course its not just about intentions, there is also concern about how people take it. Not that your to blame (unless your write very unclearly) if people misread what you are saying, but those misreadings are things that may need to be refuted as well.)
Also if the arguments involve a chain, with one depending on the other, then the weakest link is a very reasonable target and you can claim to have refuted the whole argument by taking out the weakest link. (But that idea doesn't apply in this particular case) |
