That’s perfectly fair. I feel like where a lot of anti-circumcision activists go wrong is they focus too much on telling circumcised people that their body is wrong and they should feel mad, rather then focusing on the actual issue at hand.
Thanks for laying it out. I am curious about identifying logical fallacies. But after your description, strawman is exactly how I read the picture. Here’s how it goes in my head: there’s an unstated assumption that since circumcision in America is so common, that pro choice people are for it. And then they point out that circumcision at birth is against bodily autonomy. So yeah, strawman.
To me, the fact that it’s intended as a joke is besides the point, but still supports strawman. Why is it funny? Because you contrast the pro-choice bodily autonomy ascribed to the pregnant woman with the lack of bodily autonomy for the circumcised child. But this juxtaposition ascribes the decision to circumsize the child to the pro choice person. Meaning, they’re claiming that this is those people’s opinion. And arguing against it. If instead we said that person A is pro-choice and person B circumcised their child then it isn’t funny or clever anymore.
Straw man argument
That’s not what a strawman is. They’re not saying pro choice people are for circumcision, and then arguing against that falsely constructed opinion.
They’re making a joke that pro “choice” people should be against circumcision, as the babies who get them aren’t given the choice.
A strawman specifically means that they’re claiming that this is those people’s opinion, and then arguing against it.
I mean I’m against circumcision Like Im circumcised and it doesn’t really bother me, it’s just a really weird practice that makes no sense to me
That’s perfectly fair. I feel like where a lot of anti-circumcision activists go wrong is they focus too much on telling circumcised people that their body is wrong and they should feel mad, rather then focusing on the actual issue at hand.
Thanks for laying it out. I am curious about identifying logical fallacies. But after your description, strawman is exactly how I read the picture. Here’s how it goes in my head: there’s an unstated assumption that since circumcision in America is so common, that pro choice people are for it. And then they point out that circumcision at birth is against bodily autonomy. So yeah, strawman.
To me, the fact that it’s intended as a joke is besides the point, but still supports strawman. Why is it funny? Because you contrast the pro-choice bodily autonomy ascribed to the pregnant woman with the lack of bodily autonomy for the circumcised child. But this juxtaposition ascribes the decision to circumsize the child to the pro choice person. Meaning, they’re claiming that this is those people’s opinion. And arguing against it. If instead we said that person A is pro-choice and person B circumcised their child then it isn’t funny or clever anymore.