I noticed this a while ago and my curiousity has been killing me. What exactly does this mean? Is it a Monty Python joke or character maybe?

I believe that Sayo has a way with making a good joke

But then again, I don't know if he referenced a source for the name, so as far as I know, he made it up

*and I laughed very hard.* :-D

*and I laughed very hard.* :-D

Me too, but I am still curious as to what it is supposed to mean, if it means anything.

It was from a thread in Evolution (which you could have found on a Search for Susan Gobblehat) where a troll was flaming Sayo:

May I then assume that it is therefore perfectly appropriate to call you a pompous ass?

Call me Susan Gobblehat if it makes you happy. I don't care what you think of me.

Shortly after this post, it became his custom user title.

 

It should be noted that Susan didn't even give the troll a warning for disrespect. I later banned the troll for excessive strawmanning and a trolly agenda in a different thread.

What's strawmanning?

But it nevertheless explains who or what Susan Gobblehat is, is it just someone Sayo made up? Or is it just some English thing?

strawman

 

although im still a tad confused as to exactly what counts as a strawman.

im still a tad confused as to exactly what counts as a strawman.

It's a form of Red Herring fallacy, where someone uses something semi-related to the argument to throw a line of debate off-course. Where Red Herring leads an opponent down a path that takes him off-topic, Straw Man specifically changes the debate target from a strong position to a weak one:

 

Dak: "Evolution has more scientific evidence to back it up than creationism does."

 

Creationist: "Like suddenly a creature mutates a complex organ like an eyeball? Come on, evolution is totally ridiculous!"

 

Notice the creationist invented (set up a man made of straw) a false argument different but similar to the original statement, then refuted that one (knocked the straw man down).

a sneaky way to mislead/divert an arg into an ambush

Interestingly, in your example, Dak's comment is also a strawman, since scientific evidence is not applicable to creationism.

Interestingly, in your example, Dak's comment is also a strawman, since scientific evidence is not applicable to creationism.

They're everywhere!

 

Actually, since I used it as the opening argument, it can't be a Straw Man. Had the creationist started the argument with, "Creationism is more logical than evolution", then Dak's statement would be a Straw Man, or a Red Herring at the very least.

 

Didn't mean to hijack the thread. I wonder what Susan would think?

I think "Susan" made a thread (can`t rem where) about Fallicy in arguments not so long back, and I`m reasonably sure it contained some strawman data.

 

eitherway, it`s worth a read!

Actually' date=' since I used it as the opening argument, it can't be a Straw Man. Had the creationist started the argument with, "Creationism is more logical than evolution", then Dak's statement would be a Straw Man, or a Red Herring at the very least.

[/quote']

 

I was assuming it was meant as an excerpt from an evolution-creation debate...

*All through this, Sayo sits back on his joke and laughs at our confusion

Muah ha haaa.

You can't have a convincing evil laugh whilst being called Susan Gobblehat....

strawman

 

although im still a tad confused as to exactly what counts as a strawman.

 

Me too. If I look at average posts, all I see are strawman fallacies.

 

So, I will wait till someone tells me I did it, I guess.

 

Bettina

hmm... i was gonna start a new thread in GD asking what a strawman is (as lots of people, including me, arent 100% sure)

 

i thought id search the forums first, as i figured there could be a thread on it already, so i went to 'advanced search', typed in 'straw' and selected 'search titles only'. and this was the result.

 

wtf? wheres 'straw' in the title of that thread?

Many supposed strawman arguments are arguably just poorly presented (and condensed) rational arguments.

Search checks post content as well as titles. Look further and you will see your search word highlighted in red.

 

Strawman is very common, but easy to spot. When you make a point and your opponent sidesteps that point and raises a similar but non-applicable point and then refutes the new point, he is strawmanning.

 

It's easy to avoid strawmanning. Refute or concede your opponent's point before you move on to other arguments. What makes Straw Man so insidious is that it's impossible to debate someone progressively who won't admit you may have a good point.