On May 12, 9:00 am, Carl <sai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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=92s position, and then attacking it, when it is not in fact
t=
he
> > > 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
determ=
ines
> > 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
strawm=
an.
> > 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
de=
sign
> > the argument it is meant to counter. It should be obvious to everyone
t=
hat
> > responding to this sort of "debate" would entail interrupting you
arguin=
g
> > with yourself, and perhaps Carl just isn't in the mood to do something
t=
hat
> > pointless.
> CARL
> 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).
JERRY
Yeah, and it works both ways too, since having to instruct Chuck on
simple basics in logic on every single post and then reminding him of
the topic we are actually discussing when he attempts to change it
gets tiresome for me as well.
You, on the other hand, I NEVER get tired of posting to. With every
single response, even when you think you are being cute, you simply
demonstrate to anyone reading how little actual comprehension you
have.
> CARL
> "rogue" inflated view of his self-
> im****tance and blatant arrogance borders upon narcissism.
JERRY
You forgot the possessive apostrophe, Carl. It's "rogue's."
> CARL
> His continued intentional use of various forms of logical fallacies
leads
> logically to conclude that he is being dishonest and knows it.
JERRY
This is the funniest part yet, because when challenged on how I am
guilty of a logical fallacy, you are struck dumb. I also see you
continually posting sermons and nonsense you have copied from
elsewhere that contain the same logical fallacies you accuse me of,
yet you never see them. I can only conclude from this that you don't
know what the logical fallacy actually is and you are simply cutting
and pasting the definitions from terms you read just like you copy and
paste sermons you don't fully comprehend, or you would see the logical
fallacies presented in them (and which I have pointed out to you in
the past, including the past 24 hours.)
> CARL
> 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.
JERRY
Cite? You claim this all the time and I can't get you to sup****t your
case. You see, I have a theory about you, Carl. I think you are
every bit as stupid on logic as Chuck, Dave Raymond and Bob. All
three have accused me of the red herring logical fallacy and in each
case it was simply a matter of them not understanding the point I was
making. Chuck has serious reading comprehension problems and I am
starting to conclude that you may not even be as bright as Chuck. At
least when confronted with a challenge, Chuck attempts to rise to it.
You simply shout your accusations and run away.
> CARL
> He seems to revel in the Usenet variation of agent
> provocateur.
JERRY
Only with you, Carl, and it's mainly because you make statements, then
deny them and when confronted with your statements you try to dodge
the issue. Kind of like when you implied to another poster that they
would pay the consequences for their heresies (not believing in the
Trinity).
> CARL
> 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.
JERRY
Then your god is a fool, Carl. My methodology is quite sound and
that's one of the main reasons you avoid engaging me.
> CARL
> 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.
JERRY
Awwww, now you hurt my feelings. But Carl, you are wrong. When you
post things like accusing me of engaging in strawman logical
fallacies, you are engaging me, but then you run away because
apparently you are just throwing out terms you have heard and don't
really understand them.
> CARL
> 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.
JERRY
Chuck's ego won't let him do that. Chuck sees himself as smarter than
we are.
>
> In short, due to his own behavior, "rogue" deserves no response, no
> respect and no attention whatsoever.
JERRY
LOL! Then why are you responding, Carl?
|
