"Carl" <saints@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1479a6c3-03ec-4de8-9e5f-5cd7cb8d1e4b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
May 11, 1:42 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’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, attempting to reason with "rogue" is pointless and will cause
you only aggravation, something you made plain was tiresome to you (if
memory serves me correctly). "rogue" inflated view of his self-
im****tance and blatant arrogance borders upon narcissism. His
continued intentional use of various forms of logical fallacies leads
logically to conclude that he is being dishonest and knows it. He is
clever enough to play wordsmith in his responses, most likely trying
to appear to others as superior in intellect but in most of his
responses, he attempts to shroud his ignorance and weak positions with
many logical fallacies. And whenever someone does go to the trouble of
trying to show him his errors, he engages in more denial, ad hominem,
non sequitur, red herring, straw man, etc. This is clearly evidenced
in countless posts of his, especially the numerous ones in which he
uses clear provocation to attempt to lure people, especially
Christians, into vain and useless arguments as well as Godless
chatter. He seems to revel in the Usenet variation of agent
provocateur. I've come to the conclusion (thanks to God giving me
wisdom in this matter) that his attitude and methodology are
completely worthless and as such are not worthy of my time and
attention. And neither should he be worthy of your time, attention and
aggravation. I've long since refused to engage in any further dialogue
with him since he's proven himself to be woefully dishonest, quick to
engage in personal attacks and has such an over-inflated opinion of
himself that it's a wonder he doesn't get nosebleeds from that
awefully high pedestal upon which he has placed himself.
Just as with others similar to "rogue" (such as Linda Lee, etc.) you'd
be much better off ignoring their taunts, their nonsense and them
completely.
In short, due to his own behavior, "rogue" deserves no response, no
respect and no attention whatsoever.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Chuck:
While all of the above contains a goodly amount of truth, and is generally
wise advice, still the occasional rebuttal is in order. I won't any
longer
engage Jerry in protracted debates, because of his basic intellectual
dishonesty in arguing his case, a trait he has demonstrated for me on more
than one occasion. Now I just post the occasional opinion as I happen to
stumble over one of his rants, as happened here.
God bless
Chuck Stamford
|
