i'm getting really tired of lectures on logic from people who can't see what they're doing.
even if you "win" (which i am not conceding), who have you persuaded?
if no one, then what's the fucking point?
j
^^^^
You claim that I made a strawman argument and that I can't see what I am doing. So, how exactly is it that what I said did not respond to Carrol's argument, but to some other one that he didn't make ?
Your discussion of "win", "persuaded" and "what's the point" is somewhat ambiguous. "Win" in the sense that I didn't make a strawman argument ? "Win" in the sense that using the term "fundie" would win a lot of people to oppose fundies ?
Charles
^^^^^
Original exchange:
Jeffrey Fisher:
no, they're not, but
(a) that's not an argument against carrol's point, and
^^^^^
CB: How is it not an argument against Carrol's point ?
Our target audience is not the fanatics, but others who we want to make angry with the fanatics. Disciplining ourselves to use polite language in referring to the fanatics is not going to be more persuasive to the non-fanatics. We want to get the non-fanatics to call the fanatics names like "fanatic".
Lets not misuse the term "strawperson" shall we ? Strawperson argument means arguing with a point that the speaker didn't make. I am arguing with the point Carrol made, so it's not a strawperson argument.
^^^^^^
(b) it's not the fanatics we're trying to turn off the road to fascism, at least in the first instance. so let's let go of that little straw person, shall we?
J