"You Have Misrepresented Me." --A Clever Ploy?

[_Mister Scratch]

As I was polishing my monocle this morning, it occurred to me that Mopologists frequently rely upon this as a rebuttal. I.e., if a critic does a thorough job of trouncing an apologist's argument, the Mopologist will often respond by saying, "You have misrepresented my views. You've distorted my ideas," etc.

I wonder about this, though. For one thing, this occurs with startling frequency. For another thing, I cannot recall a single instance in which the apologist in question has ever gone on to clarify his/her views, and to point out just where and how the critic really did "misrepresent" his/her views. When I accused juliann of distorting the Bromley sociology text some time ago, I made a concerted effort to very clearly explain how and why juliann had distorted the work.

So: Is this just a clever Mopologetic ploy, a kind of straw man where the apologist can conveniently paint the critic as someone who either suffers from reading comprehension problems, or who is dishonestly "spinning" the argument? Or, are the apologists really "misrepresented" as often as they claim?

[_Some Schmo]

So: Is this just a clever Mopologetic ploy, a kind of straw man where the apologist can conveniently paint the critic as someone who either suffers from reading comprehension problems, or who is dishonestly "spinning" the argument? Or, are the apologists really "misrepresented" as often as they claim?

Yes, they do tend to use the strawman rebuttal quite a bit (I wouldn't call the ploy itself a strawman - it's the accusation of a strawman that's the ploy). In fact, I think it's overused in general on these boards. It's almost as though some people think a strawman is just about any paraphrasing of an argument ever made. You are absolutely forbidden from making any inferences from the content of their argument, because that constitutes a strawman.

It's gotten to the point where I think people use the term "strawman" to really mean "wow, that was a good rebuttal but there's no way I'm going to acknowledge it, so I'll just pretend you suffer from a reading disability, you unfortunate mental midget" and then they go on to rework the original argument to work around the rebuttal.

I've seen dart and DCP do this so many times, for instance, it's become their modus operandi. I often suspect people like this don't know what a strawman argument really is based on how freely they use the term.

[_Runtu]

It's not just an apologist thing. It's a nice, all-purpose deflection that works as well in apologetics as it does in politics. It's unfair to make such a broad statement about Mormon apologists who cover a broad spectrum of credibility and credentials. Yes, some apologists do it with alarming frequency, but then so do some critics.

[_Mister Scratch]

It's unfair to make such a broad statement about Mormon apologists who cover a broad spectrum of credibility and credentials.

??? Come on now, Runtu. Surely you didn't think I was referring to the "good" apologists like Richard Bushman, did you? It seems to me that you are misrepresenting what I said. Your version of what I wrote is obviously a hostile caricature of what I actually meant.

(Wow. This is really effective!)

[_Dr. Shades]

I wonder about this, though. For one thing, this occurs with startling frequency.

Agreed.

For another thing, I cannot recall a single instance in which the apologist in question has ever gone on to clarify his/her views, and to point out just where and how the critic really did "misrepresent" his/her views.

Neither can I.

So: Is this just a clever Mopologetic ploy, a kind of straw man where the apologist can conveniently paint the critic as someone who either suffers from reading comprehension problems, or who is dishonestly "spinning" the argument?

Absolutely. I think one can bet one's life on it.

Or, are the apologists really "misrepresented" as often as they claim?

NO. A thousand times, NO.

For the single best example of this, take a look at any of the threads in which Wade Englund has been involved on this very board. MOST times when someone responds to something he says, he'll reply (paraphrasing):

"I wasn't advocating anything of the kind, but the fact that you insist on falsely believing otherwise speaks volumes to your true agenda. To each his own.

Thanks,
-Wade Englund-"

[_Runtu]

NO. A thousand times, NO.

For the single best example of this, take a look at any of the threads in which Wade Englund has been involved on this very board. MOST times when someone responds to something he says, he'll reply (paraphrasing):

"I wasn't advocating anything of the kind, but the fact that you insist on falsely believing otherwise speaks volumes to your true agenda. To each his own.

Thanks,
-Wade Englund-"

ROFL. I've told Wade before that I don't think I have ever once understood him correctly if I am to go by his posts.

Thanks, indeed.

[_John Larsen]

NO. A thousand times, NO.

For the single best example of this, take a look at any of the threads in which Wade Englund has been involved on this very board. MOST times when someone responds to something he says, he'll reply (paraphrasing):

"I wasn't advocating anything of the kind, but the fact that you insist on falsely believing otherwise speaks volumes to your true agenda. To each his own.

Thanks,
-Wade Englund-"

ROFL. I've told Wade before that I don't think I have ever once understood him correctly if I am to go by his posts.

Thanks, indeed.

This seems to be an advanced technique, because it is most often employed by the more experienced apologists such as Peterson, Hamblin, Lloyd and Englund. You would think they would be a little more concerned about their communication skills, since no one seems to understand what they have to say.

[_The Dude]

See DCP's denials on the "Saw the words in English" thread for an example of how this tactic can be used even when the apologist is caught on videotape.

It is, of course, totally predictable that DCP will now claim I am misrepresenting him by suggesting that he claims to have been misrepresented on the other thread. And so it goes.

[_Runtu]

See DCP's denials on the "Saw the words in English" thread for an example of how this tactic can be used even when the apologist is caught on videotape.

It is, of course, totally predictable that DCP will now claim I am misrepresenting him by suggesting that he claims to have been misrepresented on the other thread. And so it goes.

I do wish Dan would clarify his position on that thread. His posts have been completely non-illuminating.

[_Daniel Peterson]

1) I'm getting weary of this place.

2) I don't worry about my communications skills. Lots and lots of people understand me perfectly well. Some critics don't. This place isn't the world.