Quote:
Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie
Speaking of developed,, a strawman is a developed form, so how and why a statement is a strawman is the evidence for such an assertion.
Fair enough:
Quote:
Originally Posted by you
Are appeals to popularity among a prejudice's last gasp or a first?
A "strawman" is a misrepresentation of one position by replacing it with another one that's much easier to defeat. My position is the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
Not really. You just hold unpopular beliefs in a popularity contest. By your logic, any time you hold an unpopular belief, you can claim that the popular view has established a test based on that particular belief.
An "appeal to popularity" is a specific informal logical fallacy that's tied to believing a statement is true based on other people believing it's true. You've literally taken my statement and replaced it with a direct logical fallacy. My statement has nothing to do with the truth value of any particular statement, but rather that popular statements win contests of popularity. My statement is basically true by definition, and is hence a non-evidentiary claim. So by replacing my true claim about popular statements with an incorrect representation of my position (that I am claiming something to be true based on popularity), you have created a strawman.
Quote:
A false dichotomy requires a demonstration of what is true and what is false related to a comparison or division.
No, this is simply wrong. A false dichotomy is an either-or statement that denies the possibility of other positions. You've presented something to be an exhaustive two item list when there are clearly other possibilities.
Quote:
Clearly, like one can see an ad hominem ( insult) and state that it is a meaningless yet sensational distraction from an absence of a discussion point or argument.
An ad hominem is not an insult. Ad hominem is the rejection of a specific argument based on the person making the argument as opposed to the merits of the argument itself. I've challenged your various challenges to my position by identifying specific flaws.
And then I insulted you because you appear to me to be that bad at making and understanding basic argument forms, which makes me doubt your intellectual capacity.
Quote:
Far less interesting than considering the pride and prejudices of political religiosity and Donald Trump.
You're the one who has chosen this route.
I challenge your concept of "political religiosity" as being ill-defined. Would you like to elaborate on that in a meaningful way, or will you continue demonstrating the limitations of the processing power of your brain?