That's interesting because I think Obama is the single best representative
the Communist have ever fielded in the Democratic party. He's awesome!
Foxfyre wrote:gustavratzenhofer wrote:Bill, I bet you think someone is reading your stuff.
He probably reads it. It could be where he acquired the hutzpah to be the self proclaimed judge of who is racist or bigoted or dishonest. Curiously it appears to be only those who strongly disagree with him who are ever labeled such, but I say that only as a casual observation without doing a lot of serious research.Yes, while labeling someone a bigot, idiot or both, I'm usually in disagreement with them. Your standard amount of research will suffice. As pointed out to those not terminally clueless; there is no automatic labeling because of disagreement... as evidenced by the fact that the more intelligent liberals and conservatives on this sight have NEVER been labeled an idiot or bigot by me.
Idiots and bigots like to pretend that the charge is thrown like a blanket over everyone; but it just ain't so.
H2O_MAN wrote:That's interesting because I think Obama is the single best representative
the Communist have ever fielded in the Democratic party. He's awesome!
Communist isn't a dirty word.
T
K
O
The 100,000,000 million+ victims of Stalin and Mao would probably disagree with you.
Diest TKO wrote:H2O_MAN wrote:That's interesting because I think Obama is the single best representative
the Communist have ever fielded in the Democratic party. He's awesome!
Communist isn't a dirty word.
T
K
O
Diest TKO wrote:H2O_MAN wrote:That's interesting because I think Obama is the single best representative
the Communist have ever fielded in the Democratic party. He's awesome!
Communist isn't a dirty word.
T
K
O
OCCOM BILL wrote:Diest TKO wrote:H2O_MAN wrote:That's interesting because I think Obama is the single best representative
the Communist have ever fielded in the Democratic party. He's awesome!
Communist isn't a dirty word.
T
K
O
Straw man.
Really? Please demonstrate how what I wrote constitutes a Strawman. (What is it with people on this site thinking everything is a Strawman?)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. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.
In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made.
Roxxxanne wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Diest TKO wrote:H2O_MAN wrote:That's interesting because I think Obama is the single best representative
the Communist have ever fielded in the Democratic party. He's awesome!
Communist isn't a dirty word.
T
K
O
Straw man.
For your education:
Quote: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. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.
In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made.
This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made.
