[nl]

Wait - so I'm not allowed to attack omissions in his arguments?

That's like saying when Rick Santorum points out what he sees as problems with gay marriage no one can point out the benefits because it is a strawman.

That's ridiculous!

[skore]

Alright, this is moving quickly into troll territory. One final reply:

The premise of the article we are discussing was this:

"My editor wanted a quote from a privacy advocate, so I immediately thought of Eben “Spying for Free” Moglen, a militant digital privacy advocate, founder of the uber-secure personal server FreedomBox, and the inspiration for the decentralized social network Diaspora."

Eben Moglen was asked for his statement as a privacy advocate. There is nothing to be said about facebook in terms of being a privacy advocate. Except for maybe "sure wish they'd try some!". And that's the end of your argument right there.

Eben Moglen argues that facebook is bad because of the gross privacy violations it institutionalized. His argument is perfectly sound and coherent and doesn't need any forced "balancing" to be valid. He is not omitting any facts to make his argument.

You are welcome to argue against it, but you have instead chosen to act as though his argument is moot because he didn't make yours. That's not how arguments work.

Your 'Rick Santorum' point boggles the mind. Rick Santorum is not attacking a straw man, he is stating his honest, if misguided, beliefs. You could now attack a point completely unrelated or only superficially related to his rants about gay marriage and that would be a straw man. You could also, however, argue for or against his points with your own argument.

[nl]

Rick Santorum is not attacking a straw man, he is stating his honest, if misguided, beliefs.

Moglen is not attacking a straw man, he is stating his honest, if misguided, beliefs.

You could now attack a point completely unrelated or only superficially related to his rants about gay marriage and that would be a straw man. You could also, however, argue for or against his points with your own argument.

This is true. Additionally, one could point out the good things about gay marriage. That's a perfectly reasonable approach.

Specific to the Moglen argument, it doesn't make a lot of sense for me to argue against his points because I agree with a lot of them. However, I think the benefits are more important and I won't sit still and let only one side of the argument be presented.

How would you suggest I should present benefits of social networking without you calling me a troll or saying my argument is a strawman?

[skore]

Moglen is not attacking a straw man, he is stating his honest, if misguided, beliefs.

Seems like you finally got it! (Although I disagree that his beliefs are misguided.)

Moglen was stating his beliefs because he was asked for them. You created a straw man to argue against them.

You could have just said "I agree with Mr. Moglen on points X-Z, but I would like to weigh them against the benefits of social networks" - and then do that. That would clearly mark that you are opening your own line of reasoning instead of trying to forcibly claim them on the OP. Then, we could have that discussion together.

You must understand - I did not take exception to you trying to start that discussion, but it's a cheap shot to say that Mr. Moglen was the one who should have done so. It's perfectly reasonable to stand up for your own arguments without forcing them on another person. It was a particularly cheap shot because you did not offer anything in line with your argument except the washing machine argument which I found very weak for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

[nl]

You could have just said "I agree with Mr. Moglen on points X-Z, but I would like to weigh them against the benefits of social networks" - and then do that. That would clearly mark that you are opening your own line of reasoning instead of trying to forcibly claim them on the OP. Then, we could have that discussion together.

There are an infinite number of ways I could have responded, but I deliberately chose to use an analogy, and to express my anger about how Moglen presented a 100% negative view. I understand why you say that he didn't need to express anything positive about social networking, and I disagree. To me, one should always attempt to give an honest view on any subject. Moglen's 100% negative views are either wrong or dishonest. That make me angry.

Show me where I misrepresented Moglen's views in anyway. That's the definition of a strawman, and I object most strongly to your claim that I used one. Nor do I troll, take cheap shots or resort to personal attacks.

[skore]

Eben Moglen was asked "What's so bad about Social Networks?". Then he talked about what he thinks is bad about social networks.

You say: "His argument isn't valid because he isn't talking about what is good about social networks".

Instead of addressing what he did talk about, you chose to talk about something he did not. And that's the definition of a straw man:

to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition

"What is bad about social networks?" != "Can you provide a balanced picture of social networks?"

The fact that you have not given a single word to actually discussing his statements (Oh, because you agree? Hmm...), except defending your initial argument (based on the olde and extremely valuable "because!"), actually not even responding to my critique of that argument, shows that you are not interested in the discussion, you are only interested in being right. You've made a mistake in your understanding of the article and made a bad argument against it that I and others clearly saw for what it is. Get over it.

Actually, I don't know why I bother anymore. If what I (and a couple other commenters) have said before doesn't convince you, I reckon nothing will.

[pessimizer]

Probably under an article talking about some specific benefit of social networking. Hopefully no one will be enraged by your only analyzing the truth of that benefit there, rather than recounting everything terrible about social networking that went unmentioned.

When you respond to a Santorum argument about the terrible things about gay marriage with a list of good things about gay marriage, you have accepted his arguments as true, and started a new discussion.