It is not a straw dog. You saying it is a straw dog does not make it one.
Salvation, it looks like you’re going to have to make these threads caucus to keep the Usual Suspects from trashing them. They put their muddy footprints all over a decent meditation and prayer time. The LAST thing anyone needs here on this beautiful thread is people trying to start an argument.
See below re straw dogs and straw men.
I gather, given the context, recent threads etc.
that you think the thread itself was not kicking sand in Prottys eyes.
Now, if RC’s could persuade the FR PTB to have a sheltered caucus category/option wherein only members of the caucus COULD SEE such threads, that would be wonderful. Prottys would not feel so duty bound to state the Biblical, psychological, sociological, historical, spiritual Truths by contrast.
1. MOST of y’all have the horse sense to KNOW that Prottys are NOT talking about fitting honor of Mary.
2. MOST of y’all have the horse sense to KNOW that an unknown percentage of those who go by the name Roman Catholic et al DO HAVE AN INORDINATE, IDOLATROUS, BLASPHEMOUS FOCUS ON [the caricatured pseudo-personage labeled] “Mary, MOTHER OF GOD.”
3. MOST of y’all have the horse sense to KNOW that MOST of us Prottys are addressing THAT percentage of Roman Catholics et al about THAT level of idolatry and blasphemy.
3. MOST Prottys have the horse sense to know that probably MOST RC’s are understandably terrified that to the degree that Prottys accurately-before-God identify a serious level of idolatry and blasphemy for ANY significant percentage of RC’s—to that degree, the Vatican house of cards begins to collapse.
4. MOST Prottys have the horse sense to know that MANY to MOST RC’s hereon, are going to persist in being willfully blind, throw dust in the air, drag out packs of straw dogs/straw men interminably, obfuscate, shuck and jive, slip and slide, run and hide about such truths, facts, realities.
5. MOST Prottys have the horse sense to know that MANY RC’s hereon, are going to do more or less everything in their power to coerce FR into a sub-agency of the Vatican and to silence every significantly posting Protty possible by almost any means possible.
6. MOST Prottys hereon likely have the horse sense to know that the rabid clique types of RC’s hereon will rarely to never address meaningfully, factually, logically most of the points Dr E, &/or Outership, Manic_Episode, Godzilla, Marbren, MetMom, Roamer_1, RNMomOf7, wmfights, GameCock, HarleyD, Iscool, Alex Murphy, Quix et al post.
7. MOST Prottys hereon likely have the horse sense to know that meaningless, hollow, shallow, unrelated hogwash will continue to be proffered by the rabid clique and other types of RC’s hereon because that’s the best they can do to defend the house of cards aspects of the Vatican Institution.
8. However, some of us occasionally find it amusing when y’all display such outrageous silliness, shallowness, emptyness, straw dogs/straw men for the lurkers to take note of, if not guffaw uproariously with us about.
9. Besides, it may help keep some RC’s off the streats or help them drink less to busy themselves with hollow straw dogs/ straw men, & other shallow, empty replies.
re straw dog, straw man:
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:
1.Person A has position X.
2.Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent’s actual position has been refuted.
2.Quoting an opponent’s words out of context i.e. choosing quotations which are intentionally misrepresentative of the opponent’s actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).
3.Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person’s arguments thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
4.Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5.Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3.Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (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 in a debate:
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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the logical fallacy. For other uses, see Straw man (disambiguation).
“Man of straw” redirects here. For the novel by Heinrich Mann, see Der Untertan.
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent’s argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one other statement, being presumably easier to refute than the original position, must be true. If one refutes this weaker proposition, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a “straw man” argument.
Re: Straw Dog
Posted by Bob on July 11, 2003
In Reply to: Re: Straw Dog posted by ESC on July 11, 2003
: : Can someone help with the meaning and derivation. Have heard it used in a context of setting up a straw dog. Many Thanks
: STRAW DOGS — Heaven and Earth are not humane./ They regard all things as straw dogs. Lao-tzu (c. 604 - c. 531 B.C., “The Way of Lao-tzu.”
Note: Straw dogs were used in sacrifices and then discarded. “Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations,” Seventeenth Edition, edited by Justin Kaplan (Little Brown and Co., Boston, 2002)
In business, something (an idea, or plan, usually) set up to be knocked down. It’s the dangerous philosophy of presenting one mediocre idea, so that the listener will make the choice of the better idea which follows. It backfires with some frequency, as the listener (out of sheer perversity) will insist on the straw dog. Moral of the story: if you are required to present two or three alternatives, make sure you can live with any of them.