Straw men shredded on Baptist Board daily!

[church mouse guy]

Straw men being torn to shreds daily on Baptist Board.

Speaking off the record and under the cloak of anonymity several knowledgeable observers of the Baptist Board are whispering in hushed tones that straw men don't stand a chance on the Baptist Board anymore.

It seems that several straw men are introduced regularly in various threads. And in almost the very next sentence, and sometimes in the very same sentence, the hapless straw man is ripped into confetti and then people jump up and down on the confetti and all but posting in all capital letters.

Noted one commentator on the human condition, there is just no pity for straw men anymore--straw men are the new cannon fodder of blogs and message boards, the disposable man of the internet. Sadly, you just have to stand back and watch because the slaughter is so intense that it defies logic. It is an example of the depravity of the human mind and how Americans are drifting away from the belief that there is a freedom of conscience and that discussion and debate do not involve attacking defenseless straw men.

Isn't America being lost? Don't straw men deserve better?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I heartily concur! :thumbsup:

 

[poncho]

The hypocrisy on this board is more popular than ever. Seems like lately the biggest hypocrites have all been hanging together and covering for each other. Apparently they are now united in their cause.

I guess that deserves some kind of self congratulatory celebration on they're part. Bravo. :applause:

 

[preachinjesus]

If we can ever properly identify straw men, that might be a step in the proper direction.

 

[Crabtownboy]

If we can ever properly identify straw men, that might be a step in the proper direction.

Agree. I would like to know what the author of the OP understands straw man to mean.

 

[poncho]

Agree. I would like to know what the author of the OP understands straw man to mean.

I can answer that. Anything a certain few here disagree with. More specifically . . . anything that doesn't fit neatly into the false left vs right paradigm. Looks like they've formed their own little club to cover each other's butt and pat each other on the back and of course to protect the left vs right paradigm at all costs. I bet they made a pact that if one starts to see beyond the false paradigm and media manipulation the others will rush to the rescue to pull them back in and fend off the evil one's spreaking the truth.

Any argument framed within the strict boundaries of the false left vs right paradigm is a straw man.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I can answer that. Anything a certain few here disagree with. More specifically . . . anything that doesn't fit neatly into the false left vs right paradigm. Looks like they've formed their own little club to cover each other's butt and pat each other on the back and of course to protect the left vs right paradigm at all costs. I bet they made a pact that if one starts to see beyond the false paradigm and media manipulation the others will rush to the rescue to pull them back in and fend off the evil one's spreading the truth.

Thanks for the reply. In your opinion does this work in both directions?

 

[InTheLight]

If we can ever properly identify straw men, that might be a step in the proper direction.

the false left vs right paradigm.

There's one right there!

 

[poncho]

Thanks for the reply. In your opinion does this work in both directions?

Like the old saying goes, it takes two to tango. Toss all the leftie vs rightie garbage out of all the arguments between the "left" and the "right" and it becomes evident both sides favor an authoritarian fascist government that intervenes in everyone's affairs. The only real disagreement between the "opposing sides" is which political party should be in control of it.

It's all straw man vs straw man 24/7/365 while the government grows ever more corrupt and totalitarian no matter which party is in power.

But don't try to look beyond the curtain and try to see who really benefits from it all. They got a name for people that do and both sides use it all the time to keep any debate well within the framework of the false paradigm.

There is no "rule of law, freedom and justice" party in this country and if there were the lefties and righties would start holding hands to attack it and everyone in it relentlessly.

 

[preachinjesus]

There's one right there!

That's not a straw man argument.

Let me help us all out: a straw man argument is where someone misrepresents a, or the, weak/est point of an opponent's argument and sets it up as the main point that their opponent is trying to make. Then the person disproves the misrepresented point and states that they have defeated the entire argument. Poncho didn't do that.

For example: "Atheists believe in nothing." Well that simply isn't true. Atheists believe in many things, they have cognitive assent of many things in the material world. Another would be when creationists asserted that Charles Darwin was a racist and supported superiority of certain races as a grounds for dismissing his position. That isn't sound argumentation but is, instead, a diversionary tactic.

The straw man is present on this board, but it is often not properly identified.

 

[Winman]

That's not a straw man argument.

Let me help us all out: a straw man argument is where someone misrepresents a, or the, weak/est point of an opponent's argument and sets it up as the main point that their opponent is trying to make. Then the person disproves the misrepresented point and states that they have defeated the entire argument. Poncho didn't do that.

For example: "Atheists believe in nothing." Well that simply isn't true. Atheists believe in many things, they have cognitive assent of many things in the material world. Another would be when creationists asserted that Charles Darwin was a racist and supported superiority of certain races as a grounds for dismissing his position. That isn't sound argumentation but is, instead, a diversionary tactic.

The straw man is present on this board, but it is often not properly identified.

That Darwin was a racist is not a straw-man, because he might have truly been a racist (and reportedly was), it's just that fact is irrelevant to the discussion. It neither proves nor refutes evolution.

A straw-man is attributing something completely false to your opponent, which he doesn't believe at all, and then tearing that straw-man down.

For instance, because I believe that no one has to sin, some will say that I believe a man could be sinless, when I believe no such thing. That is a straw-man they have created that doesn't represent my view at all.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Here is a straw man argument/fallacy

1st person: Trinitarians believe that three equals one.
2nd person: Three does not equal one.
2nd person: So the trinity is wrong.

Pretty easy to see the fallacy of this line of argument ... right?

 

[Winman]

Here is a straw man argument/fallacy

1st person: Trinitarians believe that three equals one.
2nd person: Three does not equal one.
2nd person: So the trinity is wrong.

Pretty easy to see the fallacy of this line of argument ... right?

Yes, Trinitarians do not believe three equals one. They believe there is one God, who appears or manifests himself as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

 

[InTheLight]

That's not a straw man argument.

Let me help us all out: a straw man argument is where someone misrepresents a, or the, weak/est point of an opponent's argument and sets it up as the main point that their opponent is trying to make. Then the person disproves the misrepresented point and states that they have defeated the entire argument. Poncho didn't do that.

Yes, that is one example of a straw man argument. Another is when a person ignores someone's argument and substitutes a distorted or misrepresentation of the original argument.

Example:
ThisNumberDisconnected: "As leftists, Democrats favor government intervention in markets and in people's lives to implement policies, whereas conservative Republicans favor market forces to sort things out without resorting to government programs."

Poncho: "Toss all the leftie vs rightie garbage out of all the arguments between the "left" and the "right" and it becomes evident both sides favor an authoritarian fascist government that intervenes in everyone's affairs. The only real disagreement between the "opposing sides" is which political party should be in control of it."

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes, Trinitarians do not believe three equals one. They believe there is one God, who appears or manifests himself as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

That is not what Trinitarians believe. We believe that there are three separate and distinct person in one Godhead. What you communicated was modalism.