Invasion of US Capitol building

[Jacob]

 

[selectortone]

I find it strange and bizarre when my views - which I happily acknowledge are non conventional and possibly extreme - are more moderate and less extreme than the concensus presented here. I am supposed to be the one wearing the tinfoil hat, not everyone else. It's odd, and unsettling. It usually means I have misunderstood something.

Sometimes it only means the concensus has disappeared up its own bottom. The alt-left is just as deranged as the alt-right, except pointing out the emperor might be naked gets you into serious hot water, deplatformeded, or even cancelled. Got to love the left - so accepting and welcoming of differences of opinion.

Classic. I criticise, you characterise me as some kind of foaming-at-the-mouth deranged liberal. Mate, I'm just a 70-year old crusty popping in from the workshop while I take a break from me woodturning. But of course you know all that, you're just having fun with a bit of trolling.

 

[RobinBHM]

Classic. I criticise, you characterise me as some kind of foaming-at-the-mouth deranged liberal. Mate, I'm just a 70-year old crusty popping in from the workshop while I take a break from me woodturning. But of course you know all that, you're just having fun with a bit of trolling.

Hey, 70 is now the new 50 something these days

 

[bansobaby]

Oh well done, there's at 3 in that post

Ad hominem
Appeal to extremes
Strawman

Are you actually able to debate without logical fallacies?
I guess honest debating would cramp your style

Could you explain your repeated use of the term “straw man”. It doesn’t really equate to my understanding of the term. But perhaps I’m just being a bit thick.

 

[doctor Bob]

Don't forget whataboutery ............. another favourite.

 

[Jake]

Could you explain your repeated use of the term “straw man”. It doesn’t really equate to my understanding of the term. But perhaps I’m just being a bit thick.

There is a classic straw man argument in the post Robin was responding to. It starts with the subtle (but entirely wrong and deceptive) "you seem to be inferring", which TN uses to pivot away from the points he is responding to and instead towards a made-up easy target for himself to argue against, which isn't anything anyone had actually said. Easy win.

Indeed Bob, whatabout whataboutery.

 

[RobinBHM]

Could you explain your repeated use of the term “straw man”. It doesn’t really equate to my understanding of the term. But perhaps I’m just being a bit thick.

It is where a debater creates a new argument, which can be defeated....not the principle argument.

 

[RobinBHM]

Don't forget whataboutery ............. another favourite.

Guns in America kill 10,000 people a year......"yeah but what about people dying from alcohol"


Don't blame me for pointing out the endless logical fallacies used in these debates......point your finger at those doing it.

 

[RobinBHM]

hardly a colossal victory for Biden, Justice and the American Way, is it? You seem to be inferring (and if you have watched the BBC and read the Guardian I quite understand why) that Trump is universally reviled and despised by virtually everyone in the world except a few lonely nutters and racist loonies

Take the above:

1. ""Hardly a colossal victory for Biden" well Jacob never said it was so it's a strawman

2. "You seem to be inferring Trump is universally reviled and despised by virtually everyone in the world. well that wasn't the point Jacob was making so it's another strawman

3 "if you have watched the BBC and read the Guardian....." that's an ad hominem attack against Jacob.


As I've said, TNs posts are littered with interwoven logical fallacies. It is basically unpleasant trolling, which is why I'm calling it out.

 

[Jacob]

I don't mind TNs trolling - he needs the exercise as he's obviously not used to talking to people with opinions different from his own. This is often a right-wing thing, coming from a closed world.
"Attacking a straw man" is a bit like attacking Br'er Rabbit's tar baby.
"A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". Wikipedia"

 

[MikeK]

All good things ultimately must end, and this thread is no different. The conversation has been enlightening, but lately has migrated from the original and directly related topics.