'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?

[smokedout]

No.

But the messenger certainly influences my evaluation of the argument. When one reads page after page in which one side presents its case calmly and rationally, and the other simply rages and rants using copious obscenity and abuse, that naturally affects my response to the argument itself.

And that is what has happened here.

so the truthers who've harrassed survivors of both 7/7 and 911, publicly accused myself and other posters on these boards of being MOD/MI5/MOSSAD and are now accusing people who lost loved ones of either lying or being very stupid

that doesnt affect your view of the argument at all?

 

[William of Walworth]

Why do people assume Phil is trolling when he is clearly just a bit dim?

Wrong on evey level. He's not dim at all, he's ferociously canny at adopting 'postions' (inverted commas deliberate) for maximum contrariness.

The vast majority of his track record on these forums is a that of a troll.

 

[Blagsta]

You are simply mistaken. A "straw man" argument can be one that has actually been made by your opponent. As Jazzz said, to attack a "straw man" is to attack one of your opponent's weakest arguments. It does not necessarily involve attributing to them something that they did not say. And so you are wrong:

"A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

And so you are wrong.

No, a straw man is where "an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue." (as you said). That is not the same thing as actually engaging with your opponents points!

Poor show. 2/10

 

[8den]

http://www.metaglossary.com/meanings/964287/

Jesus Phil you're trolling or you're just fucking thick.

i.e. to select weak arguments to knock down.

Your link

a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=straw+man
Helpful? 0

an effigy in the shape of a man to frighten birds away from seeds
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=straw+man
Helpful? 0

a contrived argument that seems like the one to beat, but lacks the substance of the real argument it hides
http://we-sell-online.com/detail.php/Books/0689818769/Frindle.html
Helpful? 0

a distorted caricature of an opposing viewpoint which is easy to refute, making the other side seem ridiculous
http://www.thingstocome.org/logic.htm
Helpful? 0

a false characterization of an argument, designed to be easily refuted
http://www.csuchico.edu/psu/archive/baloney.html
Helpful? 0

a kind of argument used in a refutation wherein one distorts an opponent's position or argument in order to make it easier to refute
http://skepdic.com/comments/iqracecom.html
Helpful? 0

a literary term used to describe an argument proposed simply to be knocked down
http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/textfiles/humor/
Helpful? 0

a lot easier to knock down than a real man is
http://cyber.com/whitepapers/papers/print/zoo_print.html
Helpful? 0

a misrepresentation of an opponents argument in order to make it easy to refute
http://www.biblelight.net/gift_of_rest_rebuttal.htm
Helpful? 0

a misrepresentation of a point another person made
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/39309975/m/537003397...
Helpful? 0

an attack on an argument different from the opposing argument
http://humanknowledge.net/thoughts.html
Helpful? 0

an example that one person sets up and then knocks down
http://www.livewhatibelieve.com/blog/2006/02/death_penalty_p.html
Helpful? 0

an inaccurate representation of an actual argument that, thanks to its new straw form, resembles but is much easier to destroy than the original
http://carapace.weblogs.us/archives/2005_08.html
Helpful? 0

occurs when presenting an opponent's position in a weak or misrepresented version so that it can easily be refuted. This implies an intent to misrepresent the opponent's position, but straw man may also occur from misinterpreting the opponents position. M attributes to N the view or position, Q. N's position is not Q, but a different one, R. M criticizes Q as though it were the view or position actually held by N (Angeles, 1992, p. 109; Hughes, 1996, p. 152-153; Johnson & Blair, 1977, pp. 34-41).
http://www127.pair.com/critical/gloss.htm
Helpful? 0

A straw man or man of straw is a dummy in the shape of a human created by stuffing straw into clothes. Straw men are used as scarecrows, combat-training targets, effigies to be burned, and as rodeo dummies to distract bulls. In otherwords, a disposable target. In the context of an argument, it is a distraction, a target presented to sidetrack the discussion from one area onto it with the purpose of derailing the discussion/debate/argument. A target intended to be destroyed.
http://davensjournal.com/wordpress/glossary/
Helpful? 0

A fallacy in which a point of view is attacked by first creating a “straw man” version of the position and then “knocking down” the straw man created. The fallacy lies in that the straw man does not reflect an accurate representation of the position being challenged.
http://college.hmco.com/english/chaffee/critical_thinking/2e/students/gloss...
Helpful? 0

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. 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. 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Helpful? 0

A straw man is a dummy in the shape of a human usually made up entirely out of straw material, or created by stuffing straw into clothes. Straw men are commonly used as scarecrows, combat training targets, swordsmiths' test targets, effigies to be burned, and as rodeo dummies to distract bulls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_(literal)
Helpful? 0

The Scarecrow, later named Straw Man, is a fictional character appearing in the Marvel Comics universe. He is a magical entity (possibly a demon), and was invited by Dweller-in-Darkness to join the Fear Lords, but he betrayed them to Doctor Strange.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_Man_(comics)

NONE OF THOSE THINGS MATCH JAZZZ's claims about "a weak argument easy to knock down."

You are fucking useless Phil. Whats your specialisation some bullshit nonsense in post modern philosophy?

 

[Blagsta]

Why do people assume Phil is trolling when he is clearly just a bit dim?

Because he has admitted that he trolls in a blog about one of his academic books.

 

[free spirit]

You are simply mistaken. A "straw man" argument can be one that has actually been made by your opponent. As Jazzz said, to attack a "straw man" is to attack one of your opponent's weakest arguments. It does not necessarily involve attributing to them something that they did not say. And so you are wrong:

"A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

And so you are wrong.

erm, but all the arguments addressed by popular mechanics are ones that have at one point or another been made by one conspiracy theorist or another. They may be irrelevant to the current strain of CT argument, but it wasn't popular mechanics who constructed the straw men (if that's what they are), it was the CTers who came up with the incredibly weak arguements which Popular mechanics proceded to demolish.

also, if popular mechanics had decided the weakest arguements were too weak to bother with, and had only addressed the ones CTers now consider more relevant, are you really suggesting the the CTers would have simply conceded the point on the weak arguements?

Experience indicates otherwise, hence the need to address all the points, even the most ridiculous, because CTers have consistently shown themselves to be like drowning men gladly clutch at any straw available and hold it aloft for all the world to see as an example of their troof seeking prowess, regardless of how utterly ridiculous they look holding said straw and expecting it to keep them / their argument afloat.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I dunno, I'm really starting to think he's got himself into a position not dissimilar to a fading rock star, one who has started to believe his own hype, having nothing original left in him but to try and come out with ever more outlandish routines in a desperate attempt to entertain and be loved by a public that got bored years ago.

 

[phildwyer]

No, a straw man is where "an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue." (as you said). That is not the same thing as actually engaging with your opponents points!

Nor is it the same as misrepresenting your opponent's position, as you wrongly claimed.

 

[William of Walworth]

Jazzz's claims, sources and analysis are anything but rational.

For just one example out of many, his citation of Gen Stubblebine as some sort of reputable authority on '9/11', a little while ago :

Major General Albert Stubblebine maybe retired from the U.S. Army, but he's the founder and director of 'Natural Solutions Foundation' - that campaigns against vaccines and prescription drugs, that have been so successful in extending life expectancy over the last few generations, on the basis that they are Weapons of Mass Destruction!

You can visit the NSF site and make a donation, buy natural supplements, power foods, homeopathic crap or some Valley of the Moon Chemical Free Coffee!

The Valley of the Moon Chemical Free Coffee is the World's First Friendly Food Certified Coffee, and who issues this certificate? Step forward Stubblebine's Natural Solutions Foundation.

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/

The above is typical of the thoroughly sloppy approach to source selection indulged in by Jazzz and other '9/11' CTers.

The idea that dwyer, supposedly an academic, has become converted towards '9/11' conspiracism by Jazzz's way of arguing, and in the face of Jazzz's use of sources like the above (and there are many other similar examples in this thread and elsewhere) is to say the least unconvincing .....

 

[William of Walworth]

I dunno, I'm really starting to think he's got himself into a position not dissimilar to a fading rock star, one who has started to believe his own hype, having nothing original left in him but to try and come out with ever more outlandish routines in a desperate attempt to entertain and be loved by a public that got bored years ago.

 

[Blagsta]

Nor is it the same as misrepresenting your opponent's position, as you wrongly claimed.

Give it up phil. You're beat and you know it.

 

[kyser_soze]

OI! No dissing Professor Brian May!!! He's a good populariser of science now he's got round to doing his phd in astrophysics...

 

[William of Walworth]

I thought he was an astronomer by background ... at least he's not an astrologer (or conspiracy theorist ) anyway

OK, slack and speedy use of first image coming to mind for a cheap laugh, holding up my hands, guilty!

 

[fogbat]

Trim the hair, and the resemblance is uncanny

 

[8den]

Nor is it the same as misrepresenting your opponent's position, as you wrongly claimed.

Ahem Phil from your link about the definition of strawman

a misrepresentation of a point another person made
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/grou...75/m/537003397...

So to be clear.

Your definition of "strawman" doesn't include Jazzz's interpretation of the term, but it does include Blagstas.

Oh Noes Dwyer Duble fce palm.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

There really has been some epic self pwnage on this thread

 

[editor]

Nor is it the same as misrepresenting your opponent's position, as you wrongly claimed.

You, sir, are drowning in an epic sea of pure pwnage.

 

[phildwyer]

See, this is the kind of argument that is convincing me that Jazzz's claims have some truth to them.

I prove Blagsta wrong, with perfect and irrefutable citation. Just to remind everyone: Blagsta claims that to make a "straw man" is to misrepresent your opponent: to claim that he has said something he has not.

Now (and this is easily verified) I point out that Blagsta is wrong. To construct a "straw man" is to choose a weak or irrelevant argument to counter. It does not necessarily involve putting words in one's opponent's mouth.

The response of our denialists is eerily similar to their response to Jazzz. They refuse to check the evidence and oafishly boast that they have been victorious.

It becomes clear that such people are not interested in the truth at all. And so, despite the apparent implausibility of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, reasonable people will start to look at such theories more closely.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

See, this is the kind of argument that is convincing me that Jazzz's claims have some truth to them.

I prove Blagsta wrong, with perfect and irrefutable citation. Just to remind everyone: Blagsta claims that to make a "straw man" is to misrepresent your opponent: to claim that he has said something he has not.

Now (and this is easily verified) I point out that Blagsta is wrong. To construct a "straw man" is to choose a weak or irrelevant argument to counter. It does not necessarily involve putting words in one's opponent's mouth.

The response of our denialists is eerily similar to their response to Jazzz. They refuse to check the evidence and oafishly boast that they have been victorious.

It becomes clear that such people are not interested in the truth at all. And so, despite the apparent implausibility of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, reasonable people will start to look at such theories more closely.

My god, you really are starting to believe your own bullshit.

 

[Knotted]

See, this is the kind of argument that is convincing me that Jazzz's claims have some truth to them.

I prove Blagsta wrong, with perfect and irrefutable citation. Just to remind everyone: Blagsta claims that to make a "straw man" is to misrepresent your opponent: to claim that he has said something he has not.

Now (and this is easily verified) I point out that Blagsta is wrong. To construct a "straw man" is to choose a weak or irrelevant argument to counter. It does not necessarily involve putting words in one's opponent's mouth.

The response of our denialists is eerily similar to their response to Jazzz. They refuse to check the evidence and oafishly boast that they have been victorious.

It becomes clear that such people are not interested in the truth at all. And so, despite the apparent implausibility of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, reasonable people will start to look at such theories more closely.

Now that's trolling.

 

[phildwyer]

My god, you really are starting to believe your own bullshit.

Look, this is very easily settled.

Bees: do you (A) think (as Blagsta does) that to construct a "straw man" is to argue against a point that your opponent has not made.

Or do you (B) think (as I and everyone who knows anything about rhetoric does) that to construct a "straw man" is to choose a weak and irrelevant argument to counter?

There is no room for ambiguity here, there is no matter for discussion. You can simply look this up in a dictionary.

Let us see if you are capable of admitting the truth, even about such a trivial point.

Which is it: (A) or (B)?

 

[kyser_soze]

I have to say, there has been a magnificent comeback on the quality of troll here. It was dead as a dodo around the 6-800 mark, but he's come out swinging...

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I personally go with:

c) a known troll and self confessed internet windup merchant ends up desperately wriggling as people point and laugh at his utterly transparent attempts to be controversial

 

[Maidmarian]

Look, this is very easily settled.

Bees: do you (A) think (as Blagsta does) that to construct a "straw man" is to argue against a point that your opponent has not made.

Or do you (B) think (as I and everyone who knows anything about rhetoric does) that to construct a "straw man" is to choose a weak and irrelevant argument to counter?

-------

Which is it: (A) or (B)?

Is THIS a strawman ?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Is THIS a strawman ?

Our survey says....

 

[phildwyer]

I personally go with:

c) a known troll and self confessed internet windup merchant ends up desperately wriggling as people point and laugh at his utterly transparent attempts to be controversial

No, Bees. You're not getting off this hook.

Is it (A) or (B)?

Answer, or expose yourself as an oaf who has not interest in the truth. Thus also discrediting the more important cause you have been trying to espouse.

 

[kyser_soze]

Our survey says....

You could at least have put an NSFW warning against a picture of a cunt, bees.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

No, Bees. You're not getting off this hook.

Is it (A) or (B)?

Answer, or expose yourself as an oaf who has not interest in the truth.

Tell you what phil, you answer my question first:

I think it is a comment on his character

And you think that comment is.....

and then we'll look at your query.

I asked first, so it seems only fair.

 

[phildwyer]

Tell you what phil, you answer my question first:



and then we'll look at your query.

I asked first, so it seems only fair.

OK, you've got yourself a deal.

Let's just be clear about the terms. I answer your question here, then you will say whether your answer to my question above is (A) or (B).

Is that correct? Read over the terms carefully before agreeing, for I have no intention of allowing you to renege on this.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

OK, you've got yourself a deal.

Marvellous.

Let's just be clear about the terms.

Agreeing to a deal, then then trying to agree terms?

You're a poor businessman phil