On Jan 7, 2007, at 12:40 PM, John Baird wrote:
> Why is it, that every point made against your philosophy is a strawman
> argument?
There are lots of "points" made here that I don't agree with that
are not. But the most common argument for the small-minded is to not
address what the other person actually said, but instead concoct some
ludicrous scenario, and act as though that person said it. Perhaps
why you perceive "every" contrary argument as being labeled a
strawman is because it is so popular among right-wing pundits, and
the people who listen to those pundits tend to repeat the same
arguments.
Leland said nothing about having the UN taking our guns so that we
can't defend ourselves, but Virgil responded as if he had. That's a
strawman argument. It doesn't need to be negotiated, as Leland
stated, because it simply isn't true.
-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
