On May 13, 1:45 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell__stamf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Carl, enough. We are not called to antagonize the heathens, and you've
> made
> your point I would think.
>
> "Carl" <sai...@[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.
True enough. Point taken.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
|
