Posted on 03/25/2014 3:49:43 PM PDT by Voice of Reason88
Edited on 03/25/2014 4:48:25 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Post 72. I have already answered all of your questions and then some.
Post 72. I have already answered all of your questions and then some.
Double post surprise!!!
“he’s declared himself victorious”
Just where did I explicitly say that?
Actually, that source does support what I’m saying, and I never disputed red being the color of communism. It’s important for me tokeep arguing this because your very tone indicates you have an absurd belief that somehow, the assignation of colors in the 2000 election cycle is some grand conspiracy being used to demonize the right, and it isn’t. I make it a point to highlight the absurdity of conspiracy theories. You haven’t destroyed a thing, you’ve been flailing about from point to point, and like all internet arguers who declnare themselves winning, you are wrong.
Is that your best – a expanded reiteration of you strawman argument? 1). The source supported my assertions.
2). Where did I say it was a conspiracy?
Careful – your credibility is on the line.
You attempted to use a strawman argument and failed.
It is your credibility on the line perpetrating a falsehood, not mine.
You can write a 500 word screed on the subject and it won’t make it any more true that it is now.
From the linked article:
Throughout the rest of the world, specific colors carry very specific designations and are widely understood by the general population:
Blue - The color of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and British conservatives of the UK. "Tory blue" is associated with more right-wing, conservative political thought.Red - Canada's "Liberal red" and Britain's Labor Party are considered more socialist, or left-wing. In some cases, red is associated with communistic governments. During the McCarthy era in the U.S., pink was the color of socialist ideology.
“he’s declared himself victorious”
Just where did I explicitly say that?
Seems like you make a lot of things up out of whole cloth don't you?
It’s not a strawman. Your use of the word or lack thereof is irrelevant. YOU suggested a conspiracy. Period. And you are lying if you say you did not. And I don’t continue communication with liars.
Seeing that the facts are out there and they aren’t in your favor, you might not want to start slinging clearly unfounded accusations around.
We often time get caught up in the anger of the moment and say things we don’t mean, so if you wish to take that back here is your opportunity.
Here are the facts:
First of all, this is an explanation of a strawman:
straw man
Definition: A fallacy in which an opponent's argument is overstated or misrepresented in order to be more easily attacked or refuted.
Examples and Observations:
“When he was really rolling in February, Barack Obama would close every speech with a peroration about the importance of hope. The setup always seemed a bit defensive to me—an attack on the pundits and party elders who thought he was too idealistic, a ‘hopemonger’ who needed to have the ‘hope boiled out of me.’ Having knocked down that straw man, he would soar through an American history of hope, from the colonists to civil rights marchers.”
(Joe Klein, “The Patriotism Problem.” Time, April 3, 2008)
“The straw man fallacy often misrepresents the context from which a quotation is taken. More often, however, it takes place without a quotation; the straw man usually occurs when the point of view is paraphrased or summarized.”
(Jon Stratton, Critical Thinking for College Students. Rowman & Littlefield, 1999)
http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/strawmanterm.htm
In this case, you misrepresented my observation as a “crazy conspiracy” – that is a fact borne out in the written record and something you cannot run from.
Second, you compounded the error by trying to deny it.
But let’s hear your side of the story.
On what exactly is that charge based on?
What facts is it based on?
I never tried to deny any such thing, and your flailing response has been to ask who used a word first. Whether you used THE WORD is not relevant. Accept it.
Oh, and it’s still not a misrepresentation. You WERE making the accusation. Period. Accept that as well.
Piece of advice – when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
I proved that is was you that used first used that word, and you don’t have the integrity to admit that fact.
And it is was you that misrepresented what I said.
No you mean Ray Romano from Everyone Loves Raymond.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.