Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: one_less who wrote (82124)	1/12/2010 12:36:37 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) of 82486

You accused the man of constructing a Straw Man argument... "Yes." ...then failed completely when challenged to substantiate your accusation. "False. I stated exactly how his article served to construct a strawman argument against groups of people. You ignored it." I didn't ignore it; I rejected your specific charge of Straw Man argumentation as invalid because you refused to substantiate your claim by either quoting him directly (in context) or showing factual error in the premise of his argument. You instead provided a very emotional misrepresentation of his conclusions and called THAT your proof. "I have already said I can personally confirm the doctrinal statements he used/misused to be in general representative. You are just being dishonest about that." Not at all: you have conceded the point (he did not use a Straw Man argument) and are just making a patently false and emotional appeal to your own pseudo-tolerance. You do a lot of that, I see. "I never lie. I made no statistical claim, nor did I say the specific references he use were false." You have just refuted your own position. You can't claim his presentation constitutes a Straw Man Argument if it is factually based. So you have lied and continue to do so. "Now you are demanding a link?" I am simply asking you to prove your alleged charge of Straw Man argumentation. "Link or Lie" is your shtick and I'm simply hoisting you on it: (except in your case I granted you the additional option of just quoting the man in context and directly refuting him). You did neither: You Lie! "If I said the Christian doctrine focuses,..." You can't rescue your own bad argument by constructing yet another one that's even worse. Two bad arguments don't somehow make a good one. You are getting ever more ridiculous with every post. I showed you how easy it would be to refute a true Straw Man argument by simply showing the factual errors in the premise. Clearly you would have done so by now if you could have so It's safe to assume you can't. "But I wouldn't do that because I think it is bigoted, hateful, and wrong. Who, in their right mind, would do such a thing? And there in lies the irony behind what you religionists do." You are every bit the fundamentalist that you accuse others of being (and much more intolerant) with one exception: that being you are blatantly dishonest about it. Are your pants on fire?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next