Originally Posted by
Happy Feet
"...Finally, there is argumentum ad hominem. This occurs when you direct your argument to the prejudices and instincts of the crowd, of the mob, rather than dealing with the real issue(s)".
The Principles of Argumentation:
https://www.csun.edu/~hcpas003/argument.html
I suppose I could have said "straw man" instead: "It is a serious error to use the "straw man" tactic--falsely portraying opposing facts or arguments as so foolish, stupid, lightweight or crazy that you can sweep them away with a rhetorical wave of the hand. It is also an error to rely totally on ethos to make your argument by using an "ad hominem" attack--painting anyone who opposes your argument as doing so in bad faith".
How to Refute Effectively.
How to Do Refutation in Classical Format
That would cover this:
"It has been looking to me like there was a glimmer of hope to get mountain bikes allowed in certain wilderness areas. I think the E bike evangelists may put the nail in that coffin for good".
But of all the things to discuss regarding my post; that's the extent of your reply? No answer as to how the two forms of transportation differ in terms of rider effort (truck/chairlift rides up hill vs e-mtb)? No comparison of various forms of environmental impact between the two? No argument about which creates more noise or air pollution or impacts wilderness areas more? I put several examples forward that deal directly with the thread topic that could be challenged or countered. Tell me how throwing a mtb in the back of a truck and driving up the access road so you can ride down the single track is better physically or environmentally than riding up the same access road on an e-mtb.
For reference, here's the real road being discussed at a real mtb trail system, similar to many other systems in the region:
https://www.trailforks.com/trails/ve...-service-road/
----------------------------------------------------
Personally, I think down the road it would be best to develop a hybrid system of main trails specifically designed to resist erosion for mixed e-mtb/manual mtb use and other more fragile trails designated as manual mtb only. Some what similar to front country and back country camping. Many people riding e-mtbs probably don't want to tackle back diamond runs anyway. This gives the general public off road access and dedicated pedallers some protection from over use erosion.
The erosion issue isn't just from the "e" aspect either. Many trails get trashed by becoming too popular or from poor riding habits. Mtb will probably become more popular now with the "e" component opening up access for many and the concern would be those newer riders not understanding or observing etiquette. Making front country trails designed to resist damage would be a good preemptive move. Banning e-mtbs will work about as well as banning mtbs has worked in the past. Once enough of their numbers build they will drive the agenda. My opinion is its better to set the agenda ahead of time by considering them in the equation.
Which is it? Straw Man or Ad Hominem? They are completely different things.
You still have not shown where I made an Ad hominem attack. That would involve attempting to discredit YOU (independently of this argument), and then using that to discredit your argument by association. I have not attacked you, only your ideas, and I have addressed them directly. Throwing some extra colorful language regarding what I think of the idea does not change any of this.
As far as Straw Man.... What is the straw man, here? The example you gave is not a "straw man" argument. I gave a reason why I think it is dangerous and counterproductive to MTB access to be claiming what you are claiming. It explains WHY I am bothering to take the time to argue the point that a motor IS a fundamental distinction. Explaining why a claim (in addition to being incorrect) has negative consequences is not a straw man argument. Are you thrown off by the "evangelist" dig? That does not make it a straw man argument, and besides, take that out and the argument is the exact same argument: collapsing the distinction between motorized and non-montorized bikes is going to make Wilderness access harder. If you want to argue that is not true, then do so, but dismissing that as a "straw man" argument is an incorrect use of that term. Or don't argue it, if you don't want to. It is not essential to the point that was initially being debated (is a motor a fundamental distinction).
As far as your point about trucks and roads....If you want to share your thoughts on the "
truck vs e-bike on a dirt road" thing, fine. But I am not obligated to follow you down that off-ramp. You made what I consider an illogical comparison, and I have been using logical arguments to counter. Then part way through you start demanding that I engage you on a completely unrelated topic. I don't even necessarily disagree with the point... I just don't have much of an opinion on it or find it all that relevant to what we were debating.