“Here’s the trick.
Take your opponent’s argument to a ridiculous extreme,
and then attack the extremists.
That leaves the opponent to sputter defensively.
In strawmanese, you never specify who ‘those who’ are.
They are the hollow scarecrows you set up to knock down.”
William Safire
“I need members of Congress who understand
that you can’t negotiate with these folks.”
George W Bush
“There are those who say these plans are too ambitious,
that we should be trying to do less, not more.
Well, I say our challenges are too large to ignore.”
Barack Obama
…The telltale indicators that a straw man trick is on the way,
are the introductory words “there are those who say” or “some say.”
“people who consistently distort the truth,
…are in no position to lecture anyone about values.”
Richard Bruce Cheney
Some Obama Enemies Are Made Totally of Straw
4 comments:
K7weRi comment1 ,
There are times when the opponent can not be named specifically because there are too many of them. I take it you are hitting at Joe's post on the Manhattan Project. should he have said gays and lesbians? But there are opponent who are not gays and lesbians.
Should he have said whackos, nuts, atheists, Left wing bats or any of that other derogatory name calling nonsense? Conservatives generally don't use these words, and certainly Joe never would.
I believe in this case using some people or there are those was appropriate and understandable to any who read the post.
By the way, I do really love this blog and am adding it to my small group of blogs that stand out from others. These blogs get a lot of hits on my site. BBBB
The Manhattan Declaration is an evangelical treatise that Joe has been posting that has been getting the swizzell stick that is in my brain stirring.
Great Stuff....
I like that Joe and I agree on the fiscal side and disagree on the religious/social ethical stuff. It's a view into what could be construed as an enlightening contrast of objective/subjective thought.
My point in the phrasiology in the Institute's rhetoric is that they are constructing a pious argument supporting the infliction of a set of religious beliefs on others by attacking said "others" for doing what the Institute actually wants to do.
I think they are strategizing the success of thier platform is to to pre-deflect percieved punches by punching first.
That way, if they get criticized, they can say "see, we said they would say that,etc..."
History Rhymes, as the Twain paddles the river.
There is no mistaking the Manhattan Declaration is a biased point of view. It is meant to be! They are not "inflicting a set of religious beliefs on anyone, but they are certainly stating their beliefs. They are also pointing out what they feel are erroneous beliefs of "others" and drawing-a-line-in-the-sand beyond which they believe the American public will not go. And if the public of 30 states shows anything it shows the American people will accept gays and certain rights be extended to gays that are merely rights of all Americans to be safe from harm, but will not extend the rights of a traditional marriage to these couplings. By demanding these rights the gay community is hurting its public acceptance which is provisional and only if it is kept to the privacy of their bedrooms.
I am more understanding of homosexuals and lesbians than the general public and therefore hate to see what the radicals among them are doing to those who simply wish to live and let live. BB
Post a Comment