Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (99274)	2/8/2005 10:44:27 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793718

Even when he goes out and inexplicably frees millions from tyrrany under false pretexts of grabbing their oil, dissent is not allowed! Oh, what a state.." This guy is asserting the inclusion of F. I challenged that and was opposed. Ergo, the opposition was asserting F, as well, seems to me. I don't think the response asserts F, as much as it responds to what is perceived as an implied assertion of at least f. It is an attempt to make the implied assertion tangible so that it can be responded to (and to be fair to your point, also an attempt to exaggerate it to make it a bigger target). It is also a rhetorical device rather than a logical argument, and one that runs the risk of overuse. It can I think be reasonably argued that the author of the article intended to imply f (or worse) or at very least knew that his article would be seen as implying that. OTOH, if people are touchy enough they can take less clear cases and exaggerate their implications to an even greater degree, really creating the straw man that wasn't reasonably implied by the original statement they where responding to. I can see how this can be a problem, and how you can be sensitive to that problem, I just don't think this particular response is an example of that problem. Tim