Your posts are getting farther and farther into intentional
"disconclusions" and fabrications. This one has no coherent basis
that I can see. I imagine anyone can go back and read your
thread-post history and see the serious lack of structural
integrity. Apparently, either your posts don't know the meaning
of "strawman" or they don't care.
If you care to salvage some credibility for your future posts,
please:
a. educate yourself about common logical fallacies;
b. stop your repeat offending;
c. improve your writing skills.
-Mark
[From Wikipedia]
This article is about the logical fallacy, Straw man.
A straw man argument is a rhetorical technique based on
misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw
man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position
that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the
opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical
technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it
is in fact misleading, since the argument actually presented by
the opponent has not been refuted.
Its name is derived from the use of straw men in combat training.
It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy [1] or a scarecrow
argument.
More at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
------------------
I stated Life was an inalienable right. You stated that just
because
I call something inalienable it does not make it inalienable. So
Mark, make up your confused mind.
--- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Uncool,
>
> NO. Why would I want to do something like that? However you
> inferred such fantasy, I have no idea; but I have no choice but
> to conclude that the main point of your post is to make me into
a
> strawman (again). Do you know what I am talking about? Do you
> know the logical fallacy known as the "Strawman" tactic? Do you
> know that it is viewed as a cowardly strategy? I too would like
> to know how old you are.
>
> -Mark
>
>
>
> ************
> {American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
> "not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
> case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's
instructions.
> There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at
a
> unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and
fulfill
> its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
> unjust lawsuits.
> See www.fija.org
> [Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
>
> -------------------------
>
>
> So you wish to officialy state your belief is that Life is not
an
>
> inalienable right?
>
> --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <colowe@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Uncool,
> >
> > Having a conversation about rights, and what has them and
what
> > doesn't, in no way implies that said rights are alienable /
> > transferable / "assigned" / derived from the govt /
synonymous
> > with privileges / or granted by legislation. Not only did I
not
> > say anything about rights being any of those things, I did
not
> > imply it in any way. Your post is long-jumping to its own
> > obviously-false conclusion and claiming it's mine so you can
> > knock it down easily. That your post would stoop so low to
make
> > me into a strawman is a mind-boggler monstrosity.
> >
> > -Mark
> >
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
