I see. I just need to change the meaning of words then I would understand your argument wasn't a strawman. "your position" didn't really mean my position
You've deliberately avoided the meat of my point to focus on a fractional example, made, to help you get your head around it, for the purpose of presenting my argument in a weakened state... before concluding you've neutralized it. (Therein lies the classic
Strawman example you've been searching for
By the way Bill. Read my quote then ponder the fact that all arabs aren't muslims nor are all muslims arabs. A racist response to muslims does not equate to anti-arab. Just a little more straw there for the stuffing it seems.
Inconsiquencial wordplay that neither adds nor takes away from either of our points.
Next pile of straw. "the people that have used those arguments.. for the last 4 years." doesn't necessarily reference the administration unless you happen to think the administration has been espousing those exact things. I didn't have the administration in mind when I made the statement.
This is a bold faced lie. Back-peddling now is futile since you elaborated in Ebrown's thread here
. This strategy is beneath you and I'll likely ignore your posts should you choose to continue it.
I particularly love this defense after building a strawman
I responded directly to the quoted words above... and can't be held responsible for your failure to articulate a more accurate picture of your position.
It means you can redefine my position any way you want without it being a strawman, doesn't it?
No, it means exactly what I wrote. Not being a mind-reader; I have little choice but to respond to what you actually write, rather than how you feel
. You parroted an illogical leftwing excuse for bigotry and were called on it. Your agreement or lack thereof with the proposed Port deal is not a factor in distinguishing this Non Sequitar. Retract it or live with it, but there is no Strawman in either pointing this out or defining the most common underlying rationale behind it.
So to recap. My statement about people advocating racism against muslims created an atmosphere became your argument about MY personal anti-arab bias caused by the administration. It certainly looks to me like you redefined my statement in 3 distinct ways. There doesn't seem to be much of my original statement left in your strawman at all.
Backpedaling away from your obvious intent is a sorry substitute for coherent argument and it is a tedious tactic to endure and correct. Again; defend your Non Sequitar Nonsense or retract it. You've sidestepped the issue long enough.
parados wrote: Quote:
Pay attention Parados, and you'll see that rationale both on this board and in lively discussions between political rivals... like Hannity and Combs for instance. For a written example of this Non Sequitar rationale; one need only reference your post. Wink
Nice evidence to support your claim. I'm sure you would let me get away with the same thing. Pay attention Bill and you would see your argument is a strawman. There, I win. :wink: Oh, and perhaps you should divorce yourself from the RW talking points while you are at it. :wink:
I would recommend you learn the definition of Strawman before touting it about foolishly. All you have won is an award for backpedaling and sidestepping your Non Sequitar nonsense.
Here is what you actually wrote:
"Any complaints about boogeymen and racist reactions to muslims point to the people that have used those arguments for the last 4 years. They created the present atmosphere."
No amount of back of backpedaling nor misdirection will get you out from under the Non Sequitar Nonsense above. Only a retraction will.
Before backpedaling further; may I remind you that you elaborated on your fallacious argument here
. You may also recall being thoroughly spanked for it by Finn, here
Now; either attempt to defend your Non Sequitar nonsense or don't. I'm bored with correcting your false accusations, futile attempts at misdirection and denial.
This concludes today's lesson in how not to duck an accusation of Non Sequitar nonsense by pretending the accuser is guilty of illogical reasoning himself.