Strawman......

[SP1!]

Is that the new buzzword for dems to use to bash people who refuse to submit to the cult that is St Obama?

And bash away.

[cougarjake13]

straw man ??


is darryl out of jail ??

[mikeyboy]

huh?

[epo]

Strawman:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Person B draws a conclusion that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

That's the classic strawman that the right-wing seem to be presenting. The argument is a misleading argument via its nature, hence it could be easily defeated like straw. Since the defender is often defending point Y instead of point X by the attackers trickery, it is nearly impossible to defeat.

That is the strawman argument. And I'm sick of hearing it already.

[SP1!]

Its back to everyone saying I use strawman arguments, its an easy way to get out of proving a point or defending their own point of view.

Its all about people not accepting their set point of view thats prevalent on this board, or you get accused of being a limbaugh sucker which is amazing since I hate those people that are brainwashed to that idiocy. The biggest problem with people who abhor my viewpoint is that I see the idiocy in the obama robots points as well, yeah hes not bush but then again bush wasnt eligible this time around.

Dont get too excited because they finally found someone that could be a stiff like bush and his so-called people, its not that great of an accomplishment.

[GreatAmericanZero]

Strawman, come together with your hands

Save me, I'm together with your plan

Save me

[instrument]

Is this something that your best friend from college and his
neice told you?

[TheMojoPin]

Ironically, this is a strawman thread.

Create a false argument with little basis in the reality of what people around you are saying and then demand that they argue/defend it.

[mikeyboy]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6MC_-gC7rgg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6MC_-gC7rgg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[epo]

Ironically, this is a strawman thread.

Create a false argument with little basis in the reality of what people around you are saying and then demand that they argue/defend it.

Lock it up!

[SP1!]

Strawman:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Person B draws a conclusion that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

That's the classic strawman that the right-wing seem to be presenting. The argument is a misleading argument via its nature, hence it could be easily defeated like straw. Since the defender is often defending point Y instead of point X by the attackers trickery, it is nearly impossible to defeat.

That is the strawman argument. And I'm sick of hearing it already.

Yes I know what strawman really is, the problem is that argument is brought up all the time to try and discredit anyone that points out a flaw in someones thought process.

Most people here hate my POV but its the most rational on this board.

Here are two good examples:
You spent this whole damn thread attacking strawman after strawman, basically completely lying about Obama supporters, and now you're complaining about negative politics.

Wow. Just wow.
Its only a lie if you ignore the facts.

Yes. We do. Your thought process is faulty and full of holes. The problem that people here have with you politically isn't with your political leanings, but rather with the type of positions and statements you make. They are irrational with no underlying logic or support. You make statements about one thing and then when someone calls you on it, you support it with stuff that is unrelated or that doesn't support your point. Seriously.

For some reason, you think you are this fount of unbiased and accurate points. But you often make absolute sentences with little room for you being wrong rather than making statements that indicate that you have a belief but you understand there is a possibility you may be wrong. For instance, rather than saying that Virigina will never vote for Obama or 99% of Obama supporters would never support Powell, state that Virginia is unlikely to vote for Obama or that some or a portion of Obama supporters would not support Powell.

Your thought process and argument style is the major problem people have with you. Go back and take a look at the criticism above. None of it is about the fact that you are criticizing Obama or the democrats. It's how you did it and the absurdity of your statements/logic.

BTW, most people are right in the middle. You want to see people who are far left they can't see the middle? Go to a country with an active socialist/communist/anarchist party. It's as sckirdell said, compared to the rest of the world, there is very little difference between both parties in the US. In fact, compared to other countries, our political spectrum is very narrow and pretty moderate.

And one more BTW, you're the only poster here I know who is constantly talking about how people around him "in the real world" think about him as support against any statements about how you act on this board. If everyone here responds completely different to you compared to real life, maybe the way you act here is completely different from how you act with those people. People are going to judge you based upon how you act in front of them, not on how you say other people judge you.

Please. Giving someone a chance means that you don't lambast him or his cabinet or his followers on the first day the man becomes president. Attack them when they actually make a move, or take an action that you disagree with.
I refuse to accept the given statement that none of you would be cheering if it was colin powell on the republican side, all of you know damn well its true that is why it makes you uncomfortable. I presently hate the current state of the republican party but why people support the current state of the democratic side is just as crazy IMO, they are just as full of shit but people refuse to acknowledge that fact. I have nothing against obama, but I wish the guy in the milk film would have caught pelosi in her office instead of vaulting her into this position, that is one scary bitch.

I only shit on his cabinet because his entire campaign he was talking about change, then he puts old cronies in office with no real change apparent at all. I am willing to see what hes going to do in his quest to change but with those appointments do you really see change?

The second part of my bitch is, do any of you really feel represented by just two political parties?

[biozombie]

There's a strawman waiting in the sky, he'd like to come & meet us but he thinks he'll blow our minds.

[TheMojoPin]

Most people here hate my POV but its the most rational on this board.

Strawman.

Its only a lie if you ignore the facts.

Strawman.

I refuse to accept the given statement that none of you would be cheering if it was colin powell on the republican side, all of you know damn well its true that is why it makes you uncomfortable.

Strawman.

You claim your stance is the most rational, yet your posts are mostly made up of baseless generalizations and hyperbole. You get called for playing the strawman because that's wha you're doing. You're usually not presenting debatable points because they're declarations you've made up and nobody can argue or defend.

[booster11373]

Strawman.



Strawman.



Strawman.

You claim your stance is the most rational, yet your posts are mostly made up of baseless generalizations and hyperbole. You get called for playing the strawman because that's wha you're doing. You're usually not presenting debatable points because they're declarations you've made up and nobody can argue or defend.

if you say strawman 3 times in to a mirror what happens?

[GreatAmericanZero]

SP1 is getting destroyed in this thread

[Tall_James]

http://snarkerati.com/movie-news/files/2008/04/the-wicker-man.jpg

WORSHIP THE STRAW MAN!

[Freakshow]

Its back to everyone saying I use strawman arguments, its an easy way to get out of proving a point or defending their own point of view.


If you stop using a strawman--then they have to prove a point or defend their own point of view. Isn't that simple?



Rhetoric as a 'science' goes back thousands of years to the ancient Greeks. Maybe you can read a book, or at least the wikipedia page on it?

[Tallman388]

Maybe you can read a book, or at least the wikipedia page on it?

:lol::lol::lol:

[Furtherman]

Its back to everyone saying I use strawman arguments, its an easy way to show my ignorance.

Fixed that for ya.

[EliSnow]

SP1 is getting destroyed in this thread

Yet, in his thread, he is winning and we're all irrational.

[foodcourtdruide]

Is that the new buzzword for dems to use to bash people who refuse to submit to the cult that is St Obama?

And bash away.

You use a term like "the cult of St. Obama" and you wonder why you're having trouble finding people who agree with you?

[foodcourtdruide]

Its back to everyone saying I use strawman arguments, its an easy way to get out of proving a point or defending their own point of view.

Its all about people not accepting their set point of view thats prevalent on this board, or you get accused of being a limbaugh sucker which is amazing since I hate those people that are brainwashed to that idiocy. The biggest problem with people who abhor my viewpoint is that I see the idiocy in the obama robots points as well, yeah hes not bush but then again bush wasnt eligible this time around.

Dont get too excited because they finally found someone that could be a stiff like bush and his so-called people, its not that great of an accomplishment.

That is so untrue. There have been many differing opinions on this board. In the post above, you're defending yourself as a non-"limbaugh sucker", then use the term "obama robots" and go into a vague and unprovable point about what "obama robots" think. People are going to get defensive when you say things ilke that.

[EliSnow]

That is so untrue. There have been many differing opinions on this board. In the post above, you're defending yourself as a non-"limbaugh sucker", then use the term "obama robots" and go into a vague and unprovable point about what "obama robots" think. People are going to get defensive when you say things ilke that.

All the time, he says that everyone hear worships Obama and he can do no wrong, but he can't point to a single quote by Mojo, epo, etc. Taking that position.

His viewpoint is: I'm attacking Obama, they attack my arguments so they must be Obama worshippers. But he refuses to see that his positions are ridiculous, which is why we attack. But to him, it's impossible that he's irrational or biased because everyone he knows tells him he is the pinnacle of rationality and neutrality.

Unbelievable.

[disneyspy]

a heart
a brain
some courage
were off to see the wizard...

[midwestjeff]

He's called the strawman and everybody knows

strawman, strawman is the neighborhood ho.

[SP1!]

Strawman.

Strawman.

Strawman.

You claim your stance is the most rational, yet your posts are mostly made up of baseless generalizations and hyperbole. You get called for playing the strawman because that's wha you're doing. You're usually not presenting debatable points because they're declarations you've made up and nobody can argue or defend.
Which is funny because most people have argued points that cant be proven as well, yet those who go against your set line of logic are easy to argue against.

SP1 is getting destroyed in this thread
Really? All I have seen is board bullshit with no one really disproving anything.

If you stop using a strawman--then they have to prove a point or defend their own point of view. Isn't that simple?

Rhetoric as a 'science' goes back thousands of years to the ancient Greeks. Maybe you can read a book, or at least the wikipedia page on it?
I have yet to use a strawman argument, I bring up different points of view but those are construed as being strawman and somehow right wingish, which I find hilarious because all my right leaning friends tell me that Im a liberal. Its amazing to see the hysteria from both sides and then watch both sides get worked up.


Oh and I would be willing to bet I have read more on most topics than 99% of the people on this board.
Yet, in his thread, he is winning and we're all irrational.
No there are very rational people on this board, the problem is that people are too set in their viewpoints to realize that even the party in charge does not represent them.

And sadly in this day and age of politics it only appears that the people are losing and we will all end up on the outside.

[TheMojoPin]

Really? All I have seen is board bullshit with no one really disproving anything.

You've presented almost nothing that can be proved or disproved. Case in point:

Oh and I would be willing to bet I have read more on most topics than 99% of the people on this board.

That's the epitome of an antagonistic strawman.

[high fly]

Is that the new buzzword for dems to use to bash people who refuse to submit to the cult that is St Obama?

And bash away.



I like the way you use a cliche to object to a cliche.
Cute.

[EliSnow]

I have yet to use a strawman argument, I bring up different points of view but those are construed as being strawman and somehow right wingish, which I find hilarious because all my right leaning friends tell me that Im a liberal. Its amazing to see the hysteria from both sides and then watch both sides get worked up.

Look who went back to the well of "no, really my firends tell me that I'm quite unlike the way you board people say I am.". It's the equivalent of "no, I really do have a girlfriend-- you just don't know her."

Oh and I would be willing to bet I have read more on most topics than 99% of the people on this board.


All that reading, but apparently little comprehension.

[GreatAmericanZero]

i bet "SP!" stands for "Strawman Person"

[SonOfSmeagol]

Kind of off topic, but the tone of the thread reminds me of an old favorite. Y’all free for dinner? Join me for a little “Groupthink Stew”!

• Start with one cup ideological viewpoint couched in an eggshell framework of objectivity
• Sprinkle with 1 cherry-picked fact, 2 convenient historical references, and 1-2 selective web sites
• Fold in 2 “Well Saids!” and 1 teaspoon of extract of Mutual Admiration
• Beat until consistency is slippery
• Cook, uncovered, until most of the real world bubbles off
• Add salt, er, liberally or conservatively, to taste
• Serve immediately, and repeatedly, until diners are full and can’t take it any more

Just like yer mama used to make!

[high fly]

Sounds like Smeagol is finding out that facts tend to have a liberal bias...

[SonOfSmeagol]

Sounds like Smeagol is finding out that facts tend to have a liberal bias...

As a frequent diner, you should already know that the “Elitist Buffet” is only served on Wednesdays, from 4:30 till 8!

[high fly]

Oh no, us liberals are right most any time of day ................. you can look it up...

[SonOfSmeagol]

Oh no, us liberals are right most any time of day ................. you can look it up...

I did look it up – and lo and behold – nothing! Not one thing of any major consequence where liberals have been proved to have been correct on anything!

[high fly]

Those of us who picked Obama to win are sitting pretty right now...

[FezsAssistant]

I've never heard the word Strawman used.
BUT, all you have to do is apply the same standards Bush was held to...to Obama.
Within a week, he's murdered 10 people in Pakistan. Where's the outrage?
He's also murdered 16 people in Afghanistan. Media won't even talk about it.
I guess this is what he meant by 'rebuilding diplomatic ties' with the world?
He's commander-in-chief, so that means HE murdered them.
Maybe if he wasn't partying so much these people would still be alive.

[GreatAmericanZero]

I've never heard the word Strawman used.
BUT, all you have to do is apply the same standards Bush was held to...to Obama.
Within a week, he's murdered 10 people in Pakistan. Where's the outrage?
He's also murdered 16 people in Afghanistan. Media won't even talk about it.
I guess this is what he meant by 'rebuilding diplomatic ties' with the world?
He's commander-in-chief, so that means HE murdered them.
Maybe if he wasn't partying so much these people would still be alive.

no one was really talking about the outrage or anger about bush "murdering" people to. I'm not a news junkie, but ill have it on occasionally, they so rarely talk about the war in iraq period. I haven't heard about it in 2 years. Nothing about american soldiers dying or innocent brown people dying...its just not news Americans want to watch and they haven't wanted to watch it for years

[SonOfSmeagol]

Those of us who picked Obama to win are sitting pretty right now...

Yes, I would encourage that refreshing, forward-thinking attitude. Of course the 46% of American voters, 58,000,000+ people, that didn’t vote for BHO have clearly seen the light and the error of their ways by now!

[El Mudo]

Meh...

I prefer Powerman


http://melodyjnie.blox.pl/resource/kinks1.jpg

[Yerdaddy]

I've never heard the word Strawman used.
BUT, all you have to do is apply the same standards Bush was held to...to Obama.
Within a week, he's murdered 10 people in Pakistan. Where's the outrage?
He's also murdered 16 people in Afghanistan. Media won't even talk about it.
I guess this is what he meant by 'rebuilding diplomatic ties' with the world?
He's commander-in-chief, so that means HE murdered them.
Maybe if he wasn't partying so much these people would still be alive.

Good example.