On May 12, 8:52 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell__stamf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "rogue" <rogue...@[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
|
