On Wed, 14 May 2008 06:02:46 -0700 (PDT), rogue <rogue719@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>On May 14, 3:55 pm, "adman" <72...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Bible Bob" <bible...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ld6h24pdse25uil5af7m87g00uvsfsl789@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> | On Mon, 12 May 2008 09:36:10 -0700 (PDT), 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]
>> | >
>> | >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.
>
>JERRY
>ROTFLMFAO! Do you even know what you are talking about? I understand
>you came into the discussion late, and it's spread over multiple
>threads now.
>
>I posted my comments, and Carl posted a collection of definitions for
>the strawman logical fallacy, implying that my arguments were strawman
>fallacies. When I asked him to show me where and how my comments
>constituted that logical fallacy, Carl continued to post the same page
>of definitions over and over.
>
>Given that Carl continually posts sermons that contain the same
>logical fallacies that he accuses others of using, it's fairly obvious
>that Carl doesn't know what a logical fallacy is and that this is his
>demonstration for those who claim his arguments are invalid due to
>logical problems.
>
>Bob, who has a history of back-and-forth with Carl as well, inserted
>his own comments at Carl's tactics. Then you decided to join in!
>
>Just call it a free-for-all!
>
>Don'tcha just love Usenet!
A real love feast it is.
|
