On May 11, 9:42 pm, "Chuck Stamford" <shell__stamf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "rogue" <rogue...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:ad48a4cc-a7ba-4473-bf4a-414ba47c4117@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 11, 8:22 am, Carl <sai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Straw man. Fallacy of establi****ng a position, claiming it is the
> > opponent=92s position, and then attacking it, when it is not in fact
the=
> > opponent=92s 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
determin=
es
> 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
Sigh. No, you don't get it. I already fully understand what a
strawman logical fallacy is. I have pointed it out to theists before,
usually in evolution arguments. I don't need someone to tell me WHAT
the logical fallacy is, but to explain to me HOW my post fits that
definition. When you have claimed that your argument didn't meet some
logical fallacy that I have claimed, I have gone back and explained to
you WHY your argument was a logical fallacy, Chuck.
In this case, Carl claimed that my argument constituted a strawman
logical fallacy. Looking at it, I don't see that, and don't
understand where he sees that logical fallacy. I asked Carl to show
me where. Carl, so far, has refused to respond.
Given that Carl has no real understanding of logical fallacies (if he
did, he would see that the garbage he copies and pastes is full of
them and wouldn't post them) I am led to believe that Carl just yelled
Strawman because he didn't know what else to do and wanted to feel
like he was winning an argument with me.
And, given that Carl doesn't understand what logical fallacies are,
that would also fit in his reading of my posts. I show a logical
fallacy in his post, I explain it to him but he doesn't understand it
and so he thinks I am making it up to make him look bad and he's
determined to do the same thing to me.
At any rate, he called Strawman. He's the one who needs to show, when
challenged, why my post constitutes that logical fallacy.
I don't think he can. I also don't think you can, and you claim to be
sharp on this stuff.
> CHUCK
> 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
desi=
gn
> the argument it is meant to counter. It should be obvious to everyone
tha=
t
> 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
tha=
t
> pointless.
JERRY
Ok, if you are saying that's what I am doing, THIS constitutes a
strawman argument, since you are setting up a position that I don't
advocate so you can knock it down. Unless, of course, you can show
that's what I am doing.
Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen, though.
|
