"Bible Bob" <biblebob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ld6h24pdse25uil5af7m87g00uvsfsl789@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| On Mon, 12 May 2008 09:36:10 -0700 (PDT), Carl <saints@[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]
| >
| >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]
|
|
| Carl,
|
| Anyone got a match?
|
| Where do you dig up all of your quotes? How much time does it take
| you to look them up and then cut and paste them into a response?
|
| Wouldn't it be easier to say something original using your own words
| such as Nanny Nanny Boo Boo or Nanny Nanny Boo Hoo?
|
| BB
It did not take much work on Carl's part. When I read the quotes, all (and
many more) of them I can recite off the cuff. Afterall they are posted
again
and again and again, so it is not hard to remember them.
What is the definition of insanity?
Repeating the same thing over and over expecting a different result. THAT
is
the atheist; THAT is insanity.
And it is really THAT simple.
|
