The Real Problem with Parsers

[Viridiana]

Practically the whole post? Instead of supporting his own argument he just started pointing out problem's with a something completely unrelated, as though that would support his position. Straw manning doesn't necessarily need to be something that was never said; it can just be something irrelevant to the topic at hand. The topic was how his post was relevant, and his argument was that someone else's was less relevant. That doesn't make his post any more relevant.

It also doesn't make it a strawman, based on any definition of strawman I've ever seen.

It's been his go-to tactic in this thread. Attack other people's positions, then claim he can't be wrong because he never had a position. How many times now has he said something like "lol I never said I was against parsers, show me in my posts where I said that, I just said [goes on to say a bunch of stuff that's obviously against parsers, while carefully avoiding explicitly taking a position]"? Spoiler, it's happened a lot.

Spoiler, most of those were arguing with me, and he and I agree that parsers would be cool if they didn't come with a side order of jerks. He's only been stating that people being jerks is kinda SE's whole reason not to implement parsers, and some of the people in this thread are going a fair way to showing SE right. >_>

more extreme example: A literary theorist claimed earlier today that Pride and Prejudice doesn't have any merit in its use of literary devices, but I think they were just trying to rationalize their personal dislike by making unsupportable claims. So clearly I'm right about parsers, and about strawmanning.

That's a wonderful example of a non sequitor, but unless you have a decent source categorizing it as a strawman, I don't agree that this is a strawman.