- This topic has 350 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by
cabal.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 9, 2009 at 2:15 PM #480272November 9, 2009 at 2:47 PM #479446
Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=briansd1]
Many, on the right, have argued that hoping that Obama will bring about more peace and justice is stupid because he cannot deliver. I would argue that hope in Obama is more realistic than hope in God. [/quote]A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] 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. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent’s position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted.[2]
Who on the right argued this? Most of your arguments are littered with strawmen, but this is a particularly bad example. Forgetting for a second that its completely discursive, its also baseless, in that it provides no examples or evidence.
[quote=briansd1] But hope and faith are not science.[/quote]
And who said that they were? I certainly didn’t make that argument. Again, another strawman, but this one seeks to make a conflation without basis. Arraya, who has a background in the Philosophy of Science, makes a cogent argument supporting the intersection of spirituality and science and you seem perfectly okay with that, even going so far as approving “prayer”. However, any mention of God (and, thus, Christianity) and it becomes the province of the mindless, right-leaning rabble.
So, which is it?
November 9, 2009 at 2:47 PM #479616Participant[quote=briansd1]
Many, on the right, have argued that hoping that Obama will bring about more peace and justice is stupid because he cannot deliver. I would argue that hope in Obama is more realistic than hope in God. [/quote]A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] 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. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent’s position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted.[2]
Who on the right argued this? Most of your arguments are littered with strawmen, but this is a particularly bad example. Forgetting for a second that its completely discursive, its also baseless, in that it provides no examples or evidence.
[quote=briansd1] But hope and faith are not science.[/quote]
And who said that they were? I certainly didn’t make that argument. Again, another strawman, but this one seeks to make a conflation without basis. Arraya, who has a background in the Philosophy of Science, makes a cogent argument supporting the intersection of spirituality and science and you seem perfectly okay with that, even going so far as approving “prayer”. However, any mention of God (and, thus, Christianity) and it becomes the province of the mindless, right-leaning rabble.
So, which is it?
November 9, 2009 at 2:47 PM #479980Participant[quote=briansd1]
Many, on the right, have argued that hoping that Obama will bring about more peace and justice is stupid because he cannot deliver. I would argue that hope in Obama is more realistic than hope in God. [/quote]A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] 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. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent’s position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted.[2]
Who on the right argued this? Most of your arguments are littered with strawmen, but this is a particularly bad example. Forgetting for a second that its completely discursive, its also baseless, in that it provides no examples or evidence.
[quote=briansd1] But hope and faith are not science.[/quote]
And who said that they were? I certainly didn’t make that argument. Again, another strawman, but this one seeks to make a conflation without basis. Arraya, who has a background in the Philosophy of Science, makes a cogent argument supporting the intersection of spirituality and science and you seem perfectly okay with that, even going so far as approving “prayer”. However, any mention of God (and, thus, Christianity) and it becomes the province of the mindless, right-leaning rabble.
So, which is it?
November 9, 2009 at 2:47 PM #480062Participant[quote=briansd1]
Many, on the right, have argued that hoping that Obama will bring about more peace and justice is stupid because he cannot deliver. I would argue that hope in Obama is more realistic than hope in God. [/quote]A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] 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. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent’s position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted.[2]
Who on the right argued this? Most of your arguments are littered with strawmen, but this is a particularly bad example. Forgetting for a second that its completely discursive, its also baseless, in that it provides no examples or evidence.
[quote=briansd1] But hope and faith are not science.[/quote]
And who said that they were? I certainly didn’t make that argument. Again, another strawman, but this one seeks to make a conflation without basis. Arraya, who has a background in the Philosophy of Science, makes a cogent argument supporting the intersection of spirituality and science and you seem perfectly okay with that, even going so far as approving “prayer”. However, any mention of God (and, thus, Christianity) and it becomes the province of the mindless, right-leaning rabble.
So, which is it?
November 9, 2009 at 2:47 PM #480282Participant[quote=briansd1]
Many, on the right, have argued that hoping that Obama will bring about more peace and justice is stupid because he cannot deliver. I would argue that hope in Obama is more realistic than hope in God. [/quote]A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] 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. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent’s position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted.[2]
Who on the right argued this? Most of your arguments are littered with strawmen, but this is a particularly bad example. Forgetting for a second that its completely discursive, its also baseless, in that it provides no examples or evidence.
[quote=briansd1] But hope and faith are not science.[/quote]
And who said that they were? I certainly didn’t make that argument. Again, another strawman, but this one seeks to make a conflation without basis. Arraya, who has a background in the Philosophy of Science, makes a cogent argument supporting the intersection of spirituality and science and you seem perfectly okay with that, even going so far as approving “prayer”. However, any mention of God (and, thus, Christianity) and it becomes the province of the mindless, right-leaning rabble.
So, which is it?
November 9, 2009 at 3:23 PM #479456briansd1
GuestHere’s what Cal Thomas said about Obama and hope.
The “hope” being sold by Obama and his true believers is misplaced. Obama cannot deliver; he cannot save; he cannot improve individual circumstances by redistributing wealth and talking to America’s dictatorial enemies. He is selling snake oil.
He goes on to write:
The writer of the New Testament Book of Hebrews says that, “faith is being sure of what we hope for…” (Hebrews 11:1).
I wonder what the Christians are so sure about concerning their hope? Are they sure that Jesus is God?
I still believe that hoping for a better future thanks to Obama is more realistic than hoping in God.
November 9, 2009 at 3:23 PM #479626GuestHere’s what Cal Thomas said about Obama and hope.
The “hope” being sold by Obama and his true believers is misplaced. Obama cannot deliver; he cannot save; he cannot improve individual circumstances by redistributing wealth and talking to America’s dictatorial enemies. He is selling snake oil.
He goes on to write:
The writer of the New Testament Book of Hebrews says that, “faith is being sure of what we hope for…” (Hebrews 11:1).
I wonder what the Christians are so sure about concerning their hope? Are they sure that Jesus is God?
I still believe that hoping for a better future thanks to Obama is more realistic than hoping in God.
November 9, 2009 at 3:23 PM #479990GuestHere’s what Cal Thomas said about Obama and hope.
The “hope” being sold by Obama and his true believers is misplaced. Obama cannot deliver; he cannot save; he cannot improve individual circumstances by redistributing wealth and talking to America’s dictatorial enemies. He is selling snake oil.
He goes on to write:
The writer of the New Testament Book of Hebrews says that, “faith is being sure of what we hope for…” (Hebrews 11:1).
I wonder what the Christians are so sure about concerning their hope? Are they sure that Jesus is God?
I still believe that hoping for a better future thanks to Obama is more realistic than hoping in God.
November 9, 2009 at 3:23 PM #480072GuestHere’s what Cal Thomas said about Obama and hope.
The “hope” being sold by Obama and his true believers is misplaced. Obama cannot deliver; he cannot save; he cannot improve individual circumstances by redistributing wealth and talking to America’s dictatorial enemies. He is selling snake oil.
He goes on to write:
The writer of the New Testament Book of Hebrews says that, “faith is being sure of what we hope for…” (Hebrews 11:1).
I wonder what the Christians are so sure about concerning their hope? Are they sure that Jesus is God?
I still believe that hoping for a better future thanks to Obama is more realistic than hoping in God.
November 9, 2009 at 3:23 PM #480291GuestHere’s what Cal Thomas said about Obama and hope.
The “hope” being sold by Obama and his true believers is misplaced. Obama cannot deliver; he cannot save; he cannot improve individual circumstances by redistributing wealth and talking to America’s dictatorial enemies. He is selling snake oil.
He goes on to write:
The writer of the New Testament Book of Hebrews says that, “faith is being sure of what we hope for…” (Hebrews 11:1).
I wonder what the Christians are so sure about concerning their hope? Are they sure that Jesus is God?
I still believe that hoping for a better future thanks to Obama is more realistic than hoping in God.
November 9, 2009 at 3:45 PM #479466ParticipantBrian: Cal Thomas? Really? You’re going with Cal Thomas? And, you’re representing that Cal Thomas speaks for the ENTIRE Right? Wow. Talk about broad brush.
How about Michelle Malkin? Does she speak for me, too? Ann Coulter?
This is exactly what I mean about indoctrination and propaganda. If I’m a conservative, then I must certainly be listening to Rush and Hannity and Beck everyday, right? WRONG.
I don’t watch Fox News. Nor do I watch CNN or MSNBC for that matter (since, in truth, Olberman is as vile as Beck).
I don’t listen to Rush. I never have and I never will. Nor do I listen to Beck, whom I consider something out of a Sinclair Lewis novel, circa 1935.
The problem you have, Brian, is an unwillingness to accept that there are thinking conservatives out there. You’re also unable to admit that Obama and the hard left wing of the Democratic Party are capable of error. When confronted with the Administration’s various missteps and bungles, you throw out excuses or blame the Bush Administration.
This is called demagoguery and its intellectually dishonest, to say the least. You can put your hope in Obama, or the Easter Bunny, for that matter. Its your business. But, don’t try to sell “hope” and “change” when being pushed by an administration that’s filled with sneering, tin-eared, ham-handed rhetoricians who have all lost touch with their own country (the “Kansans”).
To argue that “hope” (as sold by Obama) is bringing “peace” to millions in the world, is to willfully close one’s eyes to the realities. If you’re going to push your intellect, USE it. Start by being honest with yourself and see facts, not opinions or talking points. Admit to your own bigotry and biases, especially against people of faith (after all, you have your own religion, its called Leftism). Realize that History (the one with the capital H) is replete with lessons and failing to learn them, means we get them again and again.
November 9, 2009 at 3:45 PM #479636ParticipantBrian: Cal Thomas? Really? You’re going with Cal Thomas? And, you’re representing that Cal Thomas speaks for the ENTIRE Right? Wow. Talk about broad brush.
How about Michelle Malkin? Does she speak for me, too? Ann Coulter?
This is exactly what I mean about indoctrination and propaganda. If I’m a conservative, then I must certainly be listening to Rush and Hannity and Beck everyday, right? WRONG.
I don’t watch Fox News. Nor do I watch CNN or MSNBC for that matter (since, in truth, Olberman is as vile as Beck).
I don’t listen to Rush. I never have and I never will. Nor do I listen to Beck, whom I consider something out of a Sinclair Lewis novel, circa 1935.
The problem you have, Brian, is an unwillingness to accept that there are thinking conservatives out there. You’re also unable to admit that Obama and the hard left wing of the Democratic Party are capable of error. When confronted with the Administration’s various missteps and bungles, you throw out excuses or blame the Bush Administration.
This is called demagoguery and its intellectually dishonest, to say the least. You can put your hope in Obama, or the Easter Bunny, for that matter. Its your business. But, don’t try to sell “hope” and “change” when being pushed by an administration that’s filled with sneering, tin-eared, ham-handed rhetoricians who have all lost touch with their own country (the “Kansans”).
To argue that “hope” (as sold by Obama) is bringing “peace” to millions in the world, is to willfully close one’s eyes to the realities. If you’re going to push your intellect, USE it. Start by being honest with yourself and see facts, not opinions or talking points. Admit to your own bigotry and biases, especially against people of faith (after all, you have your own religion, its called Leftism). Realize that History (the one with the capital H) is replete with lessons and failing to learn them, means we get them again and again.
November 9, 2009 at 3:45 PM #480000ParticipantBrian: Cal Thomas? Really? You’re going with Cal Thomas? And, you’re representing that Cal Thomas speaks for the ENTIRE Right? Wow. Talk about broad brush.
How about Michelle Malkin? Does she speak for me, too? Ann Coulter?
This is exactly what I mean about indoctrination and propaganda. If I’m a conservative, then I must certainly be listening to Rush and Hannity and Beck everyday, right? WRONG.
I don’t watch Fox News. Nor do I watch CNN or MSNBC for that matter (since, in truth, Olberman is as vile as Beck).
I don’t listen to Rush. I never have and I never will. Nor do I listen to Beck, whom I consider something out of a Sinclair Lewis novel, circa 1935.
The problem you have, Brian, is an unwillingness to accept that there are thinking conservatives out there. You’re also unable to admit that Obama and the hard left wing of the Democratic Party are capable of error. When confronted with the Administration’s various missteps and bungles, you throw out excuses or blame the Bush Administration.
This is called demagoguery and its intellectually dishonest, to say the least. You can put your hope in Obama, or the Easter Bunny, for that matter. Its your business. But, don’t try to sell “hope” and “change” when being pushed by an administration that’s filled with sneering, tin-eared, ham-handed rhetoricians who have all lost touch with their own country (the “Kansans”).
To argue that “hope” (as sold by Obama) is bringing “peace” to millions in the world, is to willfully close one’s eyes to the realities. If you’re going to push your intellect, USE it. Start by being honest with yourself and see facts, not opinions or talking points. Admit to your own bigotry and biases, especially against people of faith (after all, you have your own religion, its called Leftism). Realize that History (the one with the capital H) is replete with lessons and failing to learn them, means we get them again and again.
November 9, 2009 at 3:45 PM #480081ParticipantBrian: Cal Thomas? Really? You’re going with Cal Thomas? And, you’re representing that Cal Thomas speaks for the ENTIRE Right? Wow. Talk about broad brush.
How about Michelle Malkin? Does she speak for me, too? Ann Coulter?
This is exactly what I mean about indoctrination and propaganda. If I’m a conservative, then I must certainly be listening to Rush and Hannity and Beck everyday, right? WRONG.
I don’t watch Fox News. Nor do I watch CNN or MSNBC for that matter (since, in truth, Olberman is as vile as Beck).
I don’t listen to Rush. I never have and I never will. Nor do I listen to Beck, whom I consider something out of a Sinclair Lewis novel, circa 1935.
The problem you have, Brian, is an unwillingness to accept that there are thinking conservatives out there. You’re also unable to admit that Obama and the hard left wing of the Democratic Party are capable of error. When confronted with the Administration’s various missteps and bungles, you throw out excuses or blame the Bush Administration.
This is called demagoguery and its intellectually dishonest, to say the least. You can put your hope in Obama, or the Easter Bunny, for that matter. Its your business. But, don’t try to sell “hope” and “change” when being pushed by an administration that’s filled with sneering, tin-eared, ham-handed rhetoricians who have all lost touch with their own country (the “Kansans”).
To argue that “hope” (as sold by Obama) is bringing “peace” to millions in the world, is to willfully close one’s eyes to the realities. If you’re going to push your intellect, USE it. Start by being honest with yourself and see facts, not opinions or talking points. Admit to your own bigotry and biases, especially against people of faith (after all, you have your own religion, its called Leftism). Realize that History (the one with the capital H) is replete with lessons and failing to learn them, means we get them again and again.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.