Carl, enough. We are not called to antagonize the heathens, and you've
made
your point I would think.
"Carl" <saints@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:g0b7s0$crm$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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]
>
> Straw man. A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in
> order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this
> misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real
> position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the
> position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which
> has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched
by
> it. [Tim Holt; http://www.logicalfallacies.info/]
>
> Straw man. A Straw Man occurs when an opponent takes the original
argument
> of his/her adversary and then offers a close imitation, or straw man,
> version of the original argument; "knocks down" the straw man version of
> the argument (because the straw man, as its name implies, is a much
easier
> target to hit, undermine, etc.) -- and thereby gives the appearance of
> having successfully countered/overcome/answered the original argument.
> [Dr. Charles Ess; A Database of Informal Fallacies; 1987]
>
> Straw man. The author attacks an argument different from (and weaker
than)
> the opposition's best argument. [Stephen's Guide To Logical Fallacies;
> http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/welcome.htm]
>
> Straw man. You commit the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an
> easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn't
> endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position
believing
> you have undermined the opponent's actual position. If the
> misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by
> lying. [James Fieser, Ph.D. & Bradley Dowden, Ph.D.; California State
> University, Sacramento]
>
> Straw man. Directing the argument against a claim that nobody actually
> holds or that everyone agrees is very weak. [Rise Axelrod & Charles
> Cooper; The Concise Guide to Writing; Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005]
>
> Straw man. A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on
> misrepresentation of an opponent's position. [Madsen Pirie; How to Win
> Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic; UK: Continuum International
> Publi****ng Group, 2007]
>
> Red herring (diverting the issue). Rather than proving the point, this
> fallacy simply evades the question by changing the subject, then
> proceeding as if the point had been made. Often the other topic bears a
> superficial resemblance to the one being discussed. Don't let that fool
> you! If no proof is given, there is no reason to accept the argument.
> [Norman Geisler & Ronald Brooks: Come, Let Us Reason : An Introduction
to
> Logical Thinking. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Book House, 1990]
>
> Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing
> irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. For
> example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher
> crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over
their
> heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this question as
> part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response to the argument
> about welfare leading to crime is fallacious. (There is also an element
of
> ad misericordiam in this example.) [Glen Whitman, Associate Professor;
> California State University, Northridge]
>
> Red herring. The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a
logical
> fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a
listener
> attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another
> topic. This can be one of the most frustrating, and effective, fallacies
> to observe. [Tim Holt; http://www.logicalfallacies.info/]
>
> Red herring. A red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject
> or divert the argument from the real question at issue to some
side-point;
> for instance, "Senator Jones should not be held accountable for cheating
> on his income tax. After all, there are other senators who have done far
> worse things." [Dr. L. Kip Wheeler; Carson-Newman College]
>
> Red herring. A "red herring" argument is one which distracts the
audience
> from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy.
> This frequently occurs during debates when there is an at least implicit
> topic, yet it is easy to lose track of it. By extension, it applies to
any
> argument in which the premisses are logically irrelevant to the
> conclusion. [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/]
>
> Red herring. A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is
> presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The
basic
> idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument
> and to another topic. [Dr. Michael C. LaBossiere; Florida A&M
University]
>
> Red herring. A red herring is a smelly fish that would distract even a
> bloodhound. It is also a digression that leads the reasoner off the
track
> of considering only relevant information. Example: Will the new tax in
> Senate Bill 47 unfairly hurt business? One of the provisions of the bill
> is that the tax is higher for large employers (fifty or more employees)
as
> opposed to small employers (six to forty-nine employees). To decide on
the
> fairness of the bill, we must first determine whether employees who work
> for large employers have better working conditions than employees who
work
> for small employers. Bringing up the issue of working conditions is the
> red herring. [Bradley Dowden; California State University, Sacramento]
>
> Red herring . Ignoring criticism of an argument by changing attention to
> another subject. Examples: "You believe in abortion, yet you don't
believe
> in the right-to-die-with-dignity bill before the legislature." [Dr. J.
P.
> Craig; University Of Iowa]
>
> 1 Tim 6:20-21
> Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely
> called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have
wandered
> from the faith.
>
> 2 Tim 2:16
> Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more
> and more ungodly.
>
> Ps 53:1
> The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and
their
> ways are vile; there is no one who does good.
>
> Prov 6:16-17
> There are six things the Lord hates...a lying tongue...
>
> Prov 10:18
> He who conceals his hatred has lying lips, and whoever spreads slander
is
> a fool.
>
> Prov 26:4
> Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him
> yourself.
>
>
|
