Re: Popular Excuses To Avoid Salvation

"rogue" <rogue719@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:1dd1efa9-6cf7-4cab-848f-244d3247792b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 11, 10:32 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell__stamf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Carl" <sai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>>
news:8bfd8f12-712e-4dd6-9b83-b3382ec57bed@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On May 11, 1:28 am, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> > Carl wrote:
>> > > Straw man.
>>
>> > Publi****ng definitions without actually answering any of the
arguments 
>> > is
>> > meaningless.
>>
>> Making straw man arguments is meaningless and deserves no response.
>>
>> Chuck:
>>
>> Man's got a point, Mike.
>>
>> Chuck Stamford
>
> JERRY
> Uh, no he doesn't.  As I responded to Carl, anyone can yell "STRAWMAN"

You should know, Jerry, as you've certainly done your share and half of 
someone else's.


> but if you aren't prepared to show why my statement is the strawman
> logical fallacy, the best I can figure is that Carl doesn't understand
> the fallacy and is simply pulling it out of his fourth point of
> contact.

He gave you and everyone else multiple definitions and examples, so you 
saying "the best I can figure is that Carl doesn't understand the fallacy"

is, what shall we say on this beautiful Mother's Day morn..."implausible"?

The fallacy is, perhaps, one of the easiest to understand of the several 
informal logical fallacies.  It's therefore difficult to accept you can't 
find it in your rhetoric when it fairly leaps off the page for Carl.  It's

his argument, Jerry.  He, not you, has the right to say what it is, and 
whether or not you've grasped it adequately enough to be able to correctly

characterize it.  He obviously doesn't think you have, and unless we're 
going to allow you to make you objection to that fact by resorting to yet 
ANOTHER "strawman" argument, that's the end of the story here.

>
> In fact, I responded to the text of the sermon Carl posted.  I used
> the text and argued why it wasn't valid.  If Carl thinks I set up a
> straw man argument, then it's in***bent upon Carl to answer why he
> thinks my argument is that logical fallacy.

Jerry, that obligation diminishes to the degree the fallacy was used in
your 
counter argument.  I didn't see it, so I can't say how much of your
argument 
was a strawman.  But I know Carl well enough to believe if he thought it
was 
too blatant to merit a response on a point by point basis, it probably
was. 
And my experience with you has been adequate for me to believe that you
are 
certainly not above engaging the fallacy where you think you can get away 
with it.  You've done it with me!

>
> I would do it for you.  For that matter, I have done and will continue
> to do it for Carl.

The only thing you have done, and I'm sure will continue doing, is 
constructing fallacious arguments against biblical truths.  Please don't 
compound that by insulting my intelligence with the notion that you are 
doing this as some sort of favor to me.  The whole concept assumes so many

facts not in evidence it's ridiculous.

Chuck Stamford