On May 11, 9:35 pm, "Chuck Stamford" <shell__stamf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "rogue" <rogue...@[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"?
JERRY
You haven't figured out yet that copying and pasting from web pages
doesn't denote comprehension? All he needs is a term that he can
google, then copy and paste the definition from multiple pages into
the response.
Yet, since he can't show me where and how my response constitutes a
strawman argument, I'm led to believe that Carl simply pulled a phrase
out of his butt and claimed it.
When I show a logical fallacy in a debate, I not only claim it, but I
explain why the other person's argument fits that definition. Carl
cannot or will not do that. And, if Carl really understood logical
fallacies, he would see that the stuff he posts is full of them. In
the trinity thread, I showed at least one logical fallacy, the logical
fallacy of argument from authority and then showed the problem with
the claim.
Any moron can yell "STRAWMAN," but that doesn't mean he knows what a
strawman actually is.
> CHUCK
> 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.
JERRY
And, given my response to what was posted, I don't see why and how
it's a straw man argument. Therefore, I want Carl to explain it to
me.
Or, since you seem to be all over it, YOU explain to me why my
response was a strawman argument. I'm happy to have anyone explain to
me why that particular response merits that claim.
> CHUCK
> 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.
JERRY
So, what you are saying is that if I am debating you and you say
something, I am within my rights to claim "Strawman" on your point and
if you claim that your statement doesn't constitute a strawman
argument, you just have to live with it, that I am not obliged in any
manner to show WHY your statement fits that logical fallacy and give
you a chance to respond?
Remember this post, then, Chuck. ;-)
> CHUCK
> 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.
JERRY
Oh, please, he doesn't even understand how a strawman logical fallacy
works. For example, it's used in Christian groups primarily by
theists who try to claim that evolution means one species evolving
immediately into another species, such as getting a cat from a litter
of puppies. Since evolution claims no such thing, that kind of
statement is a "strawman" logical fallacy, wherein an opponent
misrepresents the opposing argument so that he/she can knock down the
misrepresentation instead of the real point.
Now, given that the title of this thread is "Popular excuses to avoid
salvation" and that my response was a list of reasons to avoid
salvation, please show how my response constituted a strawman
argument. I know Carl isn't able to, since there was no strawman that
I can see, but I will acknowledge the claim if you can justify it for
him.
>
>
>
> > 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.
JERRY
Then scroll to the top of the thread, Chuck. It's not difficult.
> CHUCK
>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.
JERRY
LOL! Carl almost never responds to me at all, since he understand
that getting into a debate with me will simply show him up to not know
his bible or his logic. The fact that he responded was a surprise to
me, and then more of a surprise when he claimed something in my post
constituted the strawman logical fallacy. Looking it over, I don't
see it, but I'm willing to have someone explain it to me.
Too often, though, I have theists demonstrating in their posts that
they don't understand logic, they don't understand their bible and
they make it up off the top of their head.
> CHUCK
> 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!
JERRY
Cite? Please show where I have engaged your points with a logical
fallacy.
>
>
>
> > I would do it for you. For that matter, I have done and will continue
> > to do it for Carl.
> CHUCK
> The only thing you have done, and I'm sure will continue doing, is
> constructing fallacious arguments against biblical truths.
JERRY
If they were fallacious, Chuck, you should have been able to
demonstrate it without trying to claim that verses in the text say
things they don't. The fact that you have not yet been able to do
that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the text on your part,
not on mine.
> CHUCK
> 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.
JERRY
I don't do favors other in Usenet debates other than to explain my
points and my claims.
You have gotten many such favors already, including my showing you why
you can't construct a basic syllogism without assistance, why your
reading comprehension of the text includes reading into the text what
you want to see there rather than what the text actually says and why
your arguments based upon that lack of reading comprehension carry no
weight. And we can go right back to John 8:24 to discuss that if you
wish. ;-)
|
