You always waste so much time on horse**** no one reads?...except yourself
of
course -lol
> 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 the
> 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]
>
> 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=92s 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=92t 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, =93Senator Jones should not be held
> accountable for cheating on his income tax. After all, there are other
> senators who have done far worse things.=94 [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 =93win=94 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]
--
I'm a compASSionate ****servative neoCONdescender with
a twist of blASSphemy thrown in for truth :)))
BTW...**** the jesus myth
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
|
