Libs in San Francisco: Progressive, what?

"Protest Zones" are a joke.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

maporsche wrote:

"Protest Zones" are a joke.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

The question is this:

Is this practiced only by the libs in San Francisco, or is duplicity a liberal tendency nationwide?

Seriously, what does it take for the libs on AK2 to come out and debate a topic that is not a slam dunk for them?

How do they defend the stance of the San Francisco supervisors? But then again, why should I expect honest dialogue from the libs here? They tend to shy away from any questions or threads where they have to defend or explain the actions of their leaders.

If I want dialogue, I guess I need to post something like 'Rush supports a black president'...

That will get the progressive intellect up and running...

One of the things I've noticed about libs..L

A Lone Voice wrote:

maporsche wrote:

"Protest Zones" are a joke.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

The question is this:

Is this practiced only by the libs in San Francisco, or is duplicity a liberal tendency nationwide?

Seriously, what does it take for the libs on AK2 to come out and debate a topic that is not a slam dunk for them?

How do they defend the stance of the San Francisco supervisors? But then again, why should I expect honest dialogue from the libs here? They tend to shy away from any questions or threads where they have to defend or explain the actions of their leaders.

If I want dialogue, I guess I need to post something like 'Rush supports a black president'...

That will get the progressive intellect up and running...

Gavin Newsome - mayor of SF - is liberal on some issues, but not all of them. I don't agree with free speech zones, but I understand that the guy doesn't want an international incident in his town.

Cycloptichorn

the people of Enid Oklahoma have voted to nuke "San Fran" or even "Frisco" or whatever the unwashed call it these days all in the spirit of truth, justice and the american way. Should they add Boulder Co/Portland/NYC/Boston and the general north-east. In your heart you know they might.

dyslexia wrote:

the people of Enid Oklahoma have voted to nuke "San Fran" or even "Frisco" or whatever the unwashed call it these days all in the spirit of truth, justice and the american way. Should they add Boulder Co/Portland/NYC/Boston and the general north-east. In your heart you know they might.

I knew I liked those Okies from Enid.

Please tell them not to forget Berkeley and Seattle.

Also please tell them not to be too indiscriminate in the North East as there are plenty of pockets of good Americans living outside of the cities. Better they should simply target Boston, Stamford, Howard Dean's house, and the Ben & Jerry's factory in Vermont.

While they're out at, if they are honest with themselves, they'll send a cruise missile Merle Haggard's way --- the old fart has gone liberal on us.

Roxxxane: The strawman argument tends to lose its effectiveness after you use it every time you want to counter a point you don't agree with. Come up with an original thought, Babe.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it[3]. Such a target is, naturally, immobile and does not fight back, and is not as realistic to test skill against compared to a live and armed opponent. It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.


A straw man argument can be set up in several ways, including:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choosing quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender and then refuting that person's arguments, thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.[1]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking the simplified version.