Sounds like an old nature show, "The Great wWhite Shark: Our Misunderstood Friend."
True though... Sharks don't attack humans unless they're being stupid enough to deserve it well sometimes not but whatever, i wouldn't want anyone to get attacked by a shark (except maybe Osama or Saddam) but they're not going to just start killing people for the fun of it.
You were probably joking anyway but I'm sometimes really bad at seeing if someone's joking or not \
For a decade or longer the savagery of Hussein was used as a weapon against the US policy, but now that the US administration brings that savagery up they downplay the significance.
This is classic leftist thinking? No. Straw man.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Where for a decade they lectured us about how we were keeping Saddam in power to protect our oil interests our only goal now was to oust Saddam protect our oil interests.
Straw man.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
There's also the famous quote "When the oil price rises above $30 a barrel, Saddam Hussein will be treated like Mother Teresa." from William Aikens (former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia) which has turned out to be a total farce.
That's more classic leftist thinking? No. Straw man.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
A short year ago ousting Saddam was never going to happen because we wanted to maintain "stability" and protect our oil interests.
Now we're ousting Saddam to maintain stability and protect our oil interests.
Straw man.
If you want to argue that Noam believes these things that's fine because he probably does. That this is 'classic leftist thinking'? Simply because Noam believes it?
Straw straw, everywhere straw. Anyone have a match? I want a nifty little catch phrase to throw out whenever I can't think of anything better too. Hmmm... I think I'll use paper woman. Anyone else have dibbs or something on paper woman? No? Good. From now on expect me to post "paper woman" whenever I disagree with someone but don't have the time to actually make a counterpoint.
Well I don't think you've edited enough then because it still doesn't make sense.
Originally I just had the closing statement, but I decided that that wasn't quite clear enough, so I broke down your definition of a straw man to show how you were employing it as a straw man, at least according to your definition anyway.
oops, forgot my new policy, forget all that, what I meant was paper woman.
Sometimes (nay, often) asking simple if perhaps academic questions like this can make the apparently difficult refreshingly clear. The world is a complex place, it's not necessarily complicated.
Tell me, BuonRotto, how does that apply to this situation. Not "perhaps some situation" -specifically this one. I would be interested in hearing what you have to say.
Now we're ousting Saddam to maintain stability and protect our oil interests.
Sigh...
Yes it is true that oil is important to the US, Iraq and everybody else but that is not why we are there. we are in a war againt Terrorism. if we wanted free oil we would have kept it in 1991.
OK, the whole straw man thing is goingin circles. You can drop it, take it to a new thread, or make yourselves look like a bunch of inane boobs some more. Up to you guys.
No, it's the attack 'classic leftist thinking' that goes in circles because it's an empty argument that didn't belong in this thread in the first place.
2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
I'll take boobs for a little bit longer at least.
Thank you for the clearer definition, but I still don't see how the straw man isn't the swiss army knife of political debate, a universal fix-all. Any halfway reasonable argument is going to address a particular point and reference that point. There's the set up. Then it's going to refute that point, the knock down.
Another question. Does having you around to make sure the straw man is not easily defeated make it not a straw man anymore?
Back on topic... lemme see... what was the topic? Oh yeah, as you can probably guess from my other posts in the wonderful textual battle-ground of AO, I do not miss Saddam.
No, it's the attack 'classic leftist thinking' that goes in circles because it's an empty argument that didn't belong in this thread in the first place.
Actually, I think he was referring more to me. Yesterday was a real through-the-wringer day so I'm sure my phrasing came off as snappish and childish. Sorry to all about that.
Not really a boob man myself, but I can play along when necessary.
Quote:
Originally posted by Guartho
Thank you for the clearer definition, but I still don't see how the straw man isn't the swiss army knife of political debate, a universal fix-all.
Just to end this tangent quickly, the straw man argument is one when person A fabricates the beliefs of person B and then goes on to attack the beliefs that they fabricated in the first place.
So, groverat says "classic leftist thinking" and goes on to name all sorts of things that have nothing to do with "leftist thinking", at least leftist thinking around here. He fabricates a point, attributes it to the left and attacks it. But no one around here actually supports the points he's attacking.
Comments
I just wanted to strip away some of the other stuff that gets us all fighting and figure out some stuff.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Sounds like an old nature show, "The Great wWhite Shark: Our Misunderstood Friend."
True though... Sharks don't attack humans unless they're being stupid enough to deserve it
You were probably joking anyway but I'm sometimes really bad at seeing if someone's joking or not
Amazing.
Originally posted by groverat
Straw man? How the hell can it be a straw man if I quote not only the source but the particular instance in which the source said it?
I'm betting the reply, if given, will boil down to:
"Because I said so."
Originally posted by Guartho
(edited to make more sense)
Well I don't think you've edited enough then because it still doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by groverat
The argument for years...
This is classic leftist thinking...
OK...get ready:
Originally posted by groverat
For a decade or longer the savagery of Hussein was used as a weapon against the US policy, but now that the US administration brings that savagery up they downplay the significance.
This is classic leftist thinking? No. Straw man.
Originally posted by groverat
Where for a decade they lectured us about how we were keeping Saddam in power to protect our oil interests our only goal now was to oust Saddam protect our oil interests.
Straw man.
Originally posted by groverat
There's also the famous quote "When the oil price rises above $30 a barrel, Saddam Hussein will be treated like Mother Teresa." from William Aikens (former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia) which has turned out to be a total farce.
That's more classic leftist thinking? No. Straw man.
Originally posted by groverat
A short year ago ousting Saddam was never going to happen because we wanted to maintain "stability" and protect our oil interests.
Now we're ousting Saddam to maintain stability and protect our oil interests.
Straw man.
If you want to argue that Noam believes these things that's fine because he probably does. That this is 'classic leftist thinking'? Simply because Noam believes it?
Straw man.
Originally posted by bunge
OK...get ready:
No. Straw man.
Straw man.
No. Straw man.
Straw man.
Straw man.
Straw straw, everywhere straw. Anyone have a match? I want a nifty little catch phrase to throw out whenever I can't think of anything better too. Hmmm... I think I'll use paper woman. Anyone else have dibbs or something on paper woman? No? Good. From now on expect me to post "paper woman" whenever I disagree with someone but don't have the time to actually make a counterpoint.
Originally posted by bunge
Well I don't think you've edited enough then because it still doesn't make sense.
Originally I just had the closing statement, but I decided that that wasn't quite clear enough, so I broke down your definition of a straw man to show how you were employing it as a straw man, at least according to your definition anyway.
oops, forgot my new policy, forget all that, what I meant was paper woman.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Sometimes (nay, often) asking simple if perhaps academic questions like this can make the apparently difficult refreshingly clear. The world is a complex place, it's not necessarily complicated.
Tell me, BuonRotto, how does that apply to this situation. Not "perhaps some situation" -specifically this one. I would be interested in hearing what you have to say.
Originally posted by groverat
Now we're ousting Saddam to maintain stability and protect our oil interests.
Sigh...
Yes it is true that oil is important to the US, Iraq and everybody else but that is not why we are there. we are in a war againt Terrorism. if we wanted free oil we would have kept it in 1991.
The french: Hey who will pay us for our missles n stuff.
Germany: Gee now who will we build 100 million dollar nuke proof palaces for
Russia: gee if we can not find Hussein who will our spys report too
Serria: our brother with guns in arms we hide weapons for you
Canada: Beer
Originally posted by Guartho
...I broke down your definition of a straw man...
My definition:
straw man
n.
2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
Originally posted by groverat
Straw man? How the hell can it be a straw man if I quote not only the source but the particular instance in which the source said it?
Have you found the souce that attributes your accusations as 'classic leftist thinking' or was it just your opinion and in fact a straw man argument?
Amazing.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
OK, the whole straw man thing is goingin circles.
No, it's the attack 'classic leftist thinking' that goes in circles because it's an empty argument that didn't belong in this thread in the first place.
Originally posted by bunge
My definition:
straw man
n.
2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
I'll take boobs for a little bit longer at least.
Thank you for the clearer definition, but I still don't see how the straw man isn't the swiss army knife of political debate, a universal fix-all. Any halfway reasonable argument is going to address a particular point and reference that point. There's the set up. Then it's going to refute that point, the knock down.
Another question. Does having you around to make sure the straw man is not easily defeated make it not a straw man anymore?
Back on topic... lemme see... what was the topic? Oh yeah, as you can probably guess from my other posts in the wonderful textual battle-ground of AO, I do not miss Saddam.
Originally posted by bunge
No, it's the attack 'classic leftist thinking' that goes in circles because it's an empty argument that didn't belong in this thread in the first place.
Actually, I think he was referring more to me. Yesterday was a real through-the-wringer day so I'm sure my phrasing came off as snappish and childish. Sorry to all about that.
Originally posted by Guartho
I'll take boobs for a little bit longer at least.
Not really a boob man myself, but I can play along when necessary.
Originally posted by Guartho
Thank you for the clearer definition, but I still don't see how the straw man isn't the swiss army knife of political debate, a universal fix-all.
Just to end this tangent quickly, the straw man argument is one when person A fabricates the beliefs of person B and then goes on to attack the beliefs that they fabricated in the first place.
So, groverat says "classic leftist thinking" and goes on to name all sorts of things that have nothing to do with "leftist thinking", at least leftist thinking around here. He fabricates a point, attributes it to the left and attacks it. But no one around here actually supports the points he's attacking.
I hope your today is better than your yesterday.