Chuck Stamford wrote:
> "Carl" <saints@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:1479a6c3-03ec-4de8-9e5f-5cd7cb8d1e4b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 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.
All this prattle and still no answers.
No wonder you don't like Rogue. He asks questions you can't answer and you
have to write pages to attempt to hide the fact.
|
