An older article but a good read.

A complete straw man argument

SYnner - <sigh...> Do you even know what that means? Did you read the article.

Please tell us *in precise language* how this is a "straw man" argument.

It's interesting, because I could use the kafkatrap on you right now -- You, in fact, are guilty of presenting the kafkatrap arguments presented in this article, and your dismissal of the accusation makes you guilty by association - your refusal to address the topic proclaims your guilty conscience.

"A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.["

As this article is discussing a FORM of argument (the kafkatrap) how can it be a straw man argument - which is a FORM of argument?

Wow...

Yes, green is orange is the same....

It's straw man becuase it portrays liberal arguments as being a certain way that they are not, although if they were, the article would be very witty and justified.

Fine -- how about if we correct it this way: VERY OFTEN a Liberal argument is this way.

SYnner, I can tell you *for a fact* that Thucy uses *precisely* this form of argument when discussing racial issues. I am a racist *BECAUSE* I don't see racism exactly as he defines it. It matter not what language I have used (that is another topic as to how and when and why I use a certain word to enforce a point by example...) -- he blames "the system" for racism, and even though "they system" has all the laws in place to erradicate racism, "the system" is still at fault. He says people are not responsible for their actions, because they are behaving improperly because of "the system" they were brought up in, etc etc etc....in other words, racism exists, it can not be defeated (because noone is guilty and everyone is guilty) and if you don't accept his definition *exactly* as he defines it, you are racist, and don't even know it.

Thucy is a 100% *perfect* example of the kafkatrap. I dare you to go back and read the discussions. And yes...I will apologize up front for my obnoxious blather in the threads...but focus on his particular arguments and you will see this thing precisely.

But - a kafkatrap is not a straw man, and the article *is* a little heavy handed in labeling all Liberal arguments are kafaktraps - and that is unfortunate - and yes, the Republipukes do the same thing -- so all are at fault at one time or another.

I think the most important thing, though, is to *recognize* this style of argument and be able to call it out for what it is when you see it, so that you can refute an argument based upon illogical premises, rather than batter your head against the wall (as people do with Thucy)

Ok but the problem is that when I agree with something Thucy said or show a liberal viewpoint, you assume that this is my argument ie. "THE liberal argument" and don't even listen to my actual points

"The subject must at all costs be prevented from noticing that it is not ultimately possible to be responsible for the behavior of other free human beings."

Ah yes, because people have no effect on each other. In fact, all people are islands unto themselves. What I do has no impact on my neighbor.

This is a ridiculous and callous solipsism that is pervasive among people who refuse to allow any self-criticism into their lives.

And...there it is...Thucy crawls out of his hole...100% predictable.

Thuc-wad - *most* rational people are mature enough to *admit* that the kafkatrap is a valid argumentative construct. You...your guilt welling up within you as you recognize yourself within the article...instantly reject the notion of the construct. You dont' defend your own arguments individually, but instead attack the very premise that a kafkatrap can exist.

But you use neeto big words...we are all impressed and now think you must be right....errrr....yeah....

Thuc-wad is guilty - it is self-evident by his very denial that a kafatrap exists.

Go away now, Thuc-wad...that adults are trying to have a conversation here about how people should, or should not, construct an argument, and how you defend arguments that present logical fallacies. But...thanks for providing us with examples - much appreciated. Now go away, unless you can be a big boy and contribute to the discussion.

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

SYnner - I listen to your argument all the time. I reject them for various reasons. Simply because I label them Liberal doesn't mean I am rejecting them because they are liberal. I reject them because they are wrong, and label them because that's what people do. I think there is *value* is lumping together arguments as "liberal" or "conservative" When you start to put together all of the varied arguments of a "liberal" or a "conservative" you begin to construct an overall picture of the philosophy behind each.

You tried to draw me in to a discussion on another thread - what is Liberal and Conservative. I'll answer it for you in the simplest of terms right here:

Conservative: Believe predominantly in self-reliance, and self-responsibility
Liberal: Believe predominantly in group-reliance, and guilt by association.

SYnner - and in saying I am self-reliant, this in *no way* means I am not a part of a larger construct - of course I am not an island unto myself, but my individual success is largely going to be determined by my actions, my motivations, etc. Does society influence me? Of course, but ultimately, I am responsible for me, period.

I believe in a safety net, for example, but if you have ever watched an acrobat fall on to a safety net, they bounce once or twice, they stabilize, and then they GET OFF the net…see what I did there?

You believe in self-reliance eh?

Ecclesiastes 4:9-12, NLT:

Two people are better off than one, for they can help each other succeed. If one person falls, the other can reach out and help. But someone who falls alone is in real trouble. Likewise, two people lying close together can keep each other warm. But how can one be warm alone? A person standing alone can be attacked and defeated, but two can stand back-to-back and conquer. Three are even better, for a triple-braided cord is not easily broken.

Thucy - when is the last time you stepped in a church? Seriously?

Your misinterpretation of a cherry-picked passage is amusing, little boy

Conservative: Believe predominantly in self-reliance, and self-responsibility
Liberal: Believe predominantly in group-reliance, and guilt by association.

I don't think this is correct. Liberals are the self-reliant one, as they believe that people should be as free as possible without interfering with the rights of others. What your're describing in fact is socialism, which is completely opposite to liberalism...

Elaborate on my misinterpretation.

I'm interested in how it is liberals that believe in guilt by association when I generally see the liberals on this site attempt to address krellin or draugnar or whoever individually whereas krellin will respond with talk about what all the liberals say, or what all the liberals should back, or what all the liberals think.

I'm confused. As far as I know, liberals and conservatives are synonyms? At least in Holland I thought...

I thought they were all generally against progression as well as government influence?

American usage of the terms, steephie. Liberal = leftist, conservative = rightist.

Conservative - Self-reliance

Liberal - Reliance on others.

To imagine that you do not rely on others in the world of today is breathtakingly oblivious.

Even a mountain man "living off the strength of his own back" in the Alaskan frontier relies on shipments of fuel and a few necessities on a pontoon plane, and on the manufactured tools such as axes and so on that he uses in his solitary labors.

And, for that matter, on the accumulated wisdom of his forebears on how to build cabins, start fires, keep warm, stay sane, and on and on and on.

Self-reliance is a myth. You seem to be equated with self-responsibility. This is inaccurate.

Thucy. Dont you mean self sufficiency?

If you are not self-sufficient, you are not self-reliant.

Because if you are not self-sufficient, by definition you rely on someone else. To me they mean the same thing.

But if by self-reliant you mean that you primarily try to take care of things yourself, fine. But to the extent that you're not the best person to do so, this image of self-reliance can quickly become folly.

Think of the guy that electrocutes himself trying to be a DIY electrician.

blather blather blather....yes, Thucy, we get it. If you drive a car you are not self-reliant because you didn't build yourself, blah blah blah. So the Liberal take this to the extreme and says if you can't do one thing by yourself, you shouldn't be self-responsible for ANYthing...everything you do is because of something else, blah blah blah...

Except, he seems to have a *great* deal of hate for people he disagrees with, even though, by his own argument, they are simply the trained chimps of their upbringing, and shold notbe held at fault.

That's the problem with your *idiotic* philosphoy, thucy...there is zero consistency in thought as you wade recklessly rom topic to topic, changing your mind as to what version of truth applies, and therefore you overlay everything with this repulsive, mushy philosphy of nothingness, wherein we are all cogs in the machine and nobody is responsbile and everyone is responsible.

It's a wonder you can wipe your own ass.

No, krellin, we are all partially responsible for everyone, including ourselves. This is not inconsistent. I am responsible for myself because I am a person. I am responsible for other people because they are also people.

The doctrine that you are not responsible to other people, even strangers, is repugnant to even the most traditional and conservative forms of morality.

Each and every one of us has a mutual obligation to protect each other and care for each other.

Without resorting to political name calling, look at what I have just written and tell me whether you agree or disagree.

I will be shocked indeed if you disagree.

Ahh....so let me sum it up as an example...if Thucy shits himself while waking down the street, it is not Thucy's fault that he shit himself, but it is somehow societies fault that nobody noticed the urgent look on his face and directed him towards a rest room.

Thanks for clarifying thucy.

Did I get that quite right, Tuhucy? That is how your personal philosophy of distributed guilt plays out, right?

Except....I'll bet...and I'll be shocked if you disagree...I'll just *bet* that you are responsible for your own shits, aren't you.

Go ahead...I dare you to disagree...

/\
Somebody plus one +1 that shit up there...

the 'crapping his pants' analogy was classic...lol