I'm not talking about groups. I'm talking about ideologues.

Yes, I think that what many of these religious types do regarding money is absurd. But they are hardly worth mentioning in the grand scheme of things, when you have scientific types engaging in similar activities that can harm EVERYONE regardless of their personal choices.

And yet, people from one side of the spectrum just love to level attacks on those religious frauds while completely ignoring/supporting the scientific frauds, who are attempting to do far more damage to our global economy than any hokey preacher could hope to do.

So my point was simple: obviously those leveling the "morality" complaints about those in religious garb while avoiding those in lab coats are, in and of themselves, morally clouded.

When it went to Rome, it organized and became a business with huge land holdings and political clout, as in the Holy Roman Empire.

Strawman. And the heirs of family money given to this Hellbound mofo certainly are affected, and they didn't choose to give that money.

Some people also think the Earth is flat. Do you feel the need to point out that the Earth is flat, or just dismiss it for the stupidity it so clearly is?

Strawman, again

Strawman, yet again.

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

Straw man arguments often arise in public debates even when less flawed arguments could be found to support the same position.

• (Hypothetical) prohibition debate:

Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer. Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification. The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., "unrestricted access to intoxicants".Debating around a straw man

Strictly speaking, there are three ways to deal with a straw man setup.
1. Using the terms of the straw man and refuting the theory itself. (Note: A weakness of this retort is that agreeing to use the terminology of the opponent may deflect the debate to a secondary one about the opponent's assumptions).
2. Clarifying the original theory. This may involve explicitly pointing out the straw man. In the example above, such a response might be: I said relax laws on beer but nothing about other stronger intoxicants.
3. Questioning the disputation.

Funny Torvald - I see you doing nothing but CLAIMING a straw man arguement - yet not using any of the real ways to demonstrate it as one. Specifically - your trying to ignore points and dismiss them because you have no real rebuttal - rather than pointing out how the response was not accurately portraying your own position.

I have no problem with calling out a straw man arguement when there is one - but show it for what it is when its there, instead of using the normal, liberal approach of yelling "straw man!' every time there is no real, factual rebuttal possible.

Liberal approach????? WTF? :doh:

Platapus, that was intended purposely as a generalization of what is seen here on this forum, and not an overarching generalization of all "liberals".

Many here, and I won't name names since they demonstrate the point enough, do exactly what was done here. Instead of saying "this is a straw man arguement becase I said X and your debating Y", many here just dismiss points they cannot handle with "Strawman" and think that they score some magical point or something because they then ignore the issues raised.

I simply am rather disappointed that instead of tackling a debate head on, some try to dismiss them with the strawman claim because they have no other recourse.

People are being conditioned to do that in our sound-bite sized world of instant everything. And, it's in the way children are schooled today.

Discworld road trip? Count me in!

Umm, heirs are legally entitled nothing prior to the death of whom holds the estate. Ergo, heirs lose nothing because nothing is theirs to lose.Hilarious how (a) either my point is way beyond your capabilities of comprehension; or (b) you feel there that your parallel applies more to YOUR argument than it does to mine.

Let me enlighten you, shall I? I'm an atheist, scientific, centrist who believes in congruity and semi-deontological moralities. The fact is that, the belief in either of these absurdities (extortionist robe or extortionist lab coat) is misguided. Furthermore, the fact is that, belief in the robe is a personal decision, but belief in the lab coat is currently the topic of international interest and will affect our economies in ways unprecedented.

Either way, I suppose you probably just "copied and pasted" that response of yours from some other troll forum because it neither addresses the point nor does it actually make sense in context.First of all, you obviously have no idea what a "strawman argument" is. Here, because you like to use the term so much, I'll define it for you: its a fallacy based upon an opponent's position misrepresented.

I am not misrepresenting an opponent's position. Furthermore (and more importantly) I am not proposing any fallacy.

In fact, I believe that these exploiters of religion have a special place in hell reserved for them if there is such a thing. But that's no matter. My point was merely that the same people who spend so much time and energy focusing on the untruths of religious practicioners willingly IGNORE the untruths of those who support their agendas.

But, alas, I highly doubt that someone who clearly has no clue as to even the definition of a "strawman argument" would have been able to understand such a point. As such, it wasn't for you.

Dammit, how did I miss this?

You beat me to it, Haplo. :salute:

LOL!!! React to an accusation of a strawman w/another strawman? Truly pathetic.

Did it ever occur to you that our time is finite, and one might not want to waste it?

As has been demonstrated, you have no idea what a strawman argument is. That is what is truly pathetic. :yep:

The last I heard the strawman wanted a brain. :hmmm:

:up::yeah::up:

Hope you don't mind if I bring my Luggage.

I mean, it's not like I can stop him from coming anyway.