"rogue" <rogue719@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:20c46564-9789-444c-8e0f-816fc87fbfa9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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?
You make a connection not in evidence. Carl has in the past certainly
demonstrated more than enough intellect to be able to comprehend something
as simple and straightforward as the informal strawman fallacy. With that
background information at hand and readily available, it makes no
difference
what copying and pasting from webpages either does or doesn't inherently
denote.
> Yet, since he can't show me...
Won't doesn't equate to "can't". Even you should know that much.
> When I show a logical fallacy in a debate...
Oh please! This completely unwarranted self-flattery posing as fact is
unseemly. I admit I don't read you much anymore, having plumbed the
depths
of that particular dry hole, so perhaps the fact I've yet to find you
successfully identifying, much less properly explaining any logical
fallacy
doesn't carry as much weight as it could.
Would you care to copy and paste an example of you making such a
successful
analysis of one of those logical fallacies you've had to combat in your
illustrious philosophical career here on the newsgroups?
>
>> 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.
The point was it was so obvious it needs no explanation. That point was
made by someone I believe is intelligent enough to make the *****sment
correctly, to someone I believe is intelligent enough to see that it
is...you. I therefore, according to those twin beliefs, judge your
request
to be dishonest in that you are making it for reasons other than those
you've stated. Because I believe you are being disingenuous in asking, I
would have to be a fool to cater to the request.
>
>> 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. ;-)
Now I suppose you want to pretend you don't understand the concept of
"being
obtuse", as well?
> JERRY
> LOL! Carl almost never responds to me at all...
Which simply shows his wisdom. I think I'll go back to emulating it.
Chuck Stamford
|
