Re: Popular Excuses To Avoid Salvation

"rogue" <rogue719@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:ad48a4cc-a7ba-4473-bf4a-414ba47c4117@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 May 11, 8:22 am, Carl <sai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Straw man. Fallacy of establi****ng a position, claiming it is the
> opponent’s position, and then attacking it, when it is not in fact the
> opponent’s position at all.
> [Norman Geisler & Ronald Brooks: Come, Let Us Reason : An Introduction
> to Logical Thinking. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Book House, 1990, S.
> 194]
>
> Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme
> version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument
> they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into
> somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't
> actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled
> version of argumentum ad logicam. [Glen Whitman, Associate Professor;
> California State University, Northridge]

JERRY
Please show where and how my statements constitute a "strawman logical
fallacy."    Anyone can yell "STRAWMAN!"  Yet, I took the actual
statements made in the text you presented and argued why they aren't
valid.

Chuck:

Sigh.  A "strawman fallacy" was fully explained to you.  Where in any of 
those multiple examples and definitions did you see that as long as your 
counter argument used the same texts it, by that fact alone, avoided the 
fallacy???  It's the ARGUMENT you construct FROM those texts, taken in 
conjunction with the argument already made from those texts, that
determines 
here.  If that counter argument makes use of a faulty version of the 
original argument it means to demonstrate is invalid, then it's a
strawman. 
Get it?!

Jerry, let me try to explain this in terms you can grasp.  Just as it is 
easy for anyone to cry, "Strawman", so to it is very easy to construct a 
"counter argument" to an argument no one has made.  It puts you in full 
control.  You not only get to design the counter argument; you get to
design 
the argument it is meant to counter.  It should be obvious to everyone
that 
responding to this sort of "debate" would entail interrupting you arguing 
with yourself, and perhaps Carl just isn't in the mood to do something
that 
pointless.

Chuck Stamford