Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by B_NineInchCock_160IQ, Apr 24, 2007.
"How I graduated from the Ann Coulter School of Forensics."
"Truth is in the blogospheres that I've ordained"
"Straw Men Don't Burn"
I think I'd like to move to ban the cliche "strawman argument" from discussion. It's being completely overused and it's starting to chaffe me whenever I see it just like "you hit the nail on the head."
Guess you've never seen "The Wicker Man"?
no. I didn't think I'd like it.
"My one and only friends at Harvard"
Let's be generous. It isn't easy to be humble, especially when one is never wrong.
PS: Holocaust, what holocaust?
A few things:
1). I'm down with banning the use of "strawman", I've been guilty of its overuse myself lately. In the corporate world, the word "paradigm" started making my ears bleed, that shit gets annoying fast.
2). The Wickerman is a great movie.
3) That is all.
"An Open Love Letter to Tucker Carlson."
"Why fags and dykes should not be allowed on a cock site and other such musings"
I agree with you that the term is becoming a cliche, but not faster than the use of Straw Man techiques in the rhetoric of the far right. The Right seems to have only a handful of argument techniques (most of them dishonest) of which Straw Man is the one used most often.
Perhaps the term is misused by critics who don't understand its meaning. But it sure is necessary when debating someone like a science denier. In fact, the most famous Straw Man argument is the one where Creationists complain that the diversity of life on the planet "could not have evolved by chance." This Straw Man is essential to the definition of the Theory of Intelligent Design.
You can see how ingenious the technique is because everyone instinctively feels that it must be true. A good Straw Man argument is one that contains an element of truth, however, it leaves out one or more essential elements so as to be diversionary.
I think a great example of a straw man argument is to :
1. Claim a certain poster is a global warming denier;
2. Proceed to debate THAT position, much much easier to do than the person's actual position ;
3. Then calim victory when that position is defeated.
Idn't that right <cough> 160IQ < derisive chortle> ??
What's with the stuff I've highlighted, JQblonde?
Makes you sound truly, truly stupid.
You have a gift for that, doncha?
You are not a GW denier?
A troll, by any other name, is still a troll.
You're kidding , right?
well, sort of kind of, Kotchanski.
I was specifially referring to an effort similar to Kyoto. It has virtually zero chance of success.
You hit that strawman on the head, NIC. Will you still allow me to use nail arguments?
Typical lw. What moonbat lw blog did you get that from?
<chough> <snortle> <derisive snicker-doodle>