On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:18:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Don" wrote in message
.. .


Then you would have no problem with all of my dogs ****ting on your couch
repeatedly?

Warning, Don: You've just suggested a hypothetical situation. Dave Hall
likes to call that a "straw man", which he's incapable of dealing with. He
doesn't realize that virtually every legal debate in the higher courts
involves lawyers and judges trading a series of "straw men" to test the law.
So, he uses the term to dismiss other peoples' arguments.


Doug, you REALLY need to spend more time studying logic and fallacious
argument techniques. Most of those fallacious arguments are nothing
more than attempts at deflection. As such, a "strawman" argument is
commonly defined as:

"Strawman Argument: (np) 1. Stating a misrepresented version of an
opponent's argument for the purpose of having an easier target to
knock down. A common, but deprecated, mode of argument".

Including, but not limited to, building up an exaggerated set of
extreme circumstances which, while intended to better illustrate the
position of one side of the debate, rarely occur in reality, and it's
therefore generally discarded as little more than an endless circular
debate over "what-if" scenarios.

I don't mind, and have no problem dealing with hypothetical
situations, as long as they bear some semblance to reality. The
likelihood of a neighbor's dogs opening the door to my house and then
"relieving" themselves on my couch, is about the same as you getting
hit by a falling meteor while tending your garden.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:18:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Don" wrote in message
.. .


Then you would have no problem with all of my dogs ****ting on your
couch
repeatedly?

Warning, Don: You've just suggested a hypothetical situation. Dave Hall
likes to call that a "straw man", which he's incapable of dealing with.
He
doesn't realize that virtually every legal debate in the higher courts
involves lawyers and judges trading a series of "straw men" to test the
law.
So, he uses the term to dismiss other peoples' arguments.


Doug, you REALLY need to spend more time studying logic and fallacious
argument techniques. Most of those fallacious arguments are nothing
more than attempts at deflection. As such, a "strawman" argument is
commonly defined as:

"Strawman Argument: (np) 1. Stating a misrepresented version of an
opponent's argument for the purpose of having an easier target to
knock down. A common, but deprecated, mode of argument".

Including, but not limited to, building up an exaggerated set of
extreme circumstances which, while intended to better illustrate the
position of one side of the debate, rarely occur in reality, and it's
therefore generally discarded as little more than an endless circular
debate over "what-if" scenarios.

I don't mind, and have no problem dealing with hypothetical
situations, as long as they bear some semblance to reality. The
likelihood of a neighbor's dogs opening the door to my house and then
"relieving" themselves on my couch, is about the same as you getting
hit by a falling meteor while tending your garden.

Dave



Have you ever read transcripts of the way judges and lawyers debate the
validity of laws in the Supreme Court or appellate courts? Yes, or no?

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:33:20 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:18:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Don" wrote in message
.. .


Then you would have no problem with all of my dogs ****ting on your
couch
repeatedly?

Warning, Don: You've just suggested a hypothetical situation. Dave Hall
likes to call that a "straw man", which he's incapable of dealing with.
He
doesn't realize that virtually every legal debate in the higher courts
involves lawyers and judges trading a series of "straw men" to test the
law.
So, he uses the term to dismiss other peoples' arguments.


Doug, you REALLY need to spend more time studying logic and fallacious
argument techniques. Most of those fallacious arguments are nothing
more than attempts at deflection. As such, a "strawman" argument is
commonly defined as:

"Strawman Argument: (np) 1. Stating a misrepresented version of an
opponent's argument for the purpose of having an easier target to
knock down. A common, but deprecated, mode of argument".

Including, but not limited to, building up an exaggerated set of
extreme circumstances which, while intended to better illustrate the
position of one side of the debate, rarely occur in reality, and it's
therefore generally discarded as little more than an endless circular
debate over "what-if" scenarios.

I don't mind, and have no problem dealing with hypothetical
situations, as long as they bear some semblance to reality. The
likelihood of a neighbor's dogs opening the door to my house and then
"relieving" themselves on my couch, is about the same as you getting
hit by a falling meteor while tending your garden.

Dave



Have you ever read transcripts of the way judges and lawyers debate the
validity of laws in the Supreme Court or appellate courts? Yes, or no?

No, I haven't to any great degree. But I have studied some case law on
subjects that were of interest to me. I especially enjoy the reasoning
process that is often used. On the other hand, I get steamed when
sleazy defense attorneys attempt to use legal loopholes to win cases.

In any case, I can be reasonably sure that they aren't off in the
outer limits when they present their arguments. Their arguments are
well thought out, reasonable, relevant, and, most importantly, reflect
reality.

This is in sharp contrast to the strawman arguments which are
presented here.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Have you ever read transcripts of the way judges and lawyers debate the
validity of laws in the Supreme Court or appellate courts? Yes, or no?

No, I haven't to any great degree. But I have studied some case law on
subjects that were of interest to me. I especially enjoy the reasoning
process that is often used. On the other hand, I get steamed when
sleazy defense attorneys attempt to use legal loopholes to win cases.

In any case, I can be reasonably sure that they aren't off in the
outer limits when they present their arguments. Their arguments are
well thought out, reasonable, relevant, and, most importantly, reflect
reality.

This is in sharp contrast to the strawman arguments which are
presented here.

Dave


Reading case law is not the same as the transcripts - what the people
actually say. Judge: "Are you saying that if insert strawman here, he
should be considered in violation of the law?" This is how real people
debate the law and test its limits. Listen to NPR a little more often and
you'll hear these things. I'm sure there are web-based sources.

Your statement about being "reasonably sure" is, in fact, completely wrong.
Legal scholars are OFTEN in the outer limits when debating law. They MUST
push debates to the extreme to test validity because if they don't, it's
fairly certain that someone else will. Witness the use by prosecutors of the
RICO statutes in situations for which it was never intended.