Strawman fallacy

Post Reply New Topic

Its not the violins.

It's when they combine violins with...SAX!

this skit was a direct ripoff of a rocky and bullwinkle sketch from over a decade earlier.

The great, late Gilda Radner

It think all satire are strawman.

Let's talk about another aspect of the strawman. I'm using I in a generic sense.

I'm entitled to nothing and i'm not owed a living whether I'm disabled or not. In other words, no one is obligated to provide me a living and to say otherwise is to force someone to provide me a living which is slavery. These are maxims the world seems to accept as true. Let's make the argument that I can't work and no one is obligated and willing to provide me a living. Let's make the argument and say person requires food, clothing and shelter to survive. Let's accept these maxims as truths.

Now, if there is no obligation by others to provide me a living and I have no right to be provided a living if I can't work and I require food, clothing and shelter to survive then I won't survive. Isn't this a form of forced suicide?

Isn't suicide wrong at least according to Biblical conservatives? Yet, I'm forced to sin? If I'm truthfully owed nothing and no one will provide me a living if I can't work then am I not forced to sin by committing a slow suicide?

Let's take this from a different tact. If I'm owed nothing and others won't provide me a living and to force someone to provide someone else a living is wrong because it is a form of slavery then for those who can't work and others won't willingly provide them a living then doesn't suicide become not only permissible according to the God of the Bible but becomes a moral duty?

The conservative types I've talked to about this would either call me a troll, entitled or I'm making a series of strawman argument. But, if one can logically derive B from A then even the person never made the claim then why can't the claim be automatically derived or entailed from another claim.

All mammals are animals.

All cats are animals.

So, why can't I claim that all cats are animals then?

Why won't conservatives on their various forums have this discussion in a civilized manner without resorting to name calling like liberal, etc? Why can't we have an intellectual discussion on their forums without all the drama and BS?

Sounds like a logical non strawman argument to me.

because if they had their way, in their heart of hearts, they would find ways to eliminate us, or like self-appointed Torquemada's, systematically torture us until we confess our sins [i.e. renounce our belief and swear to honor and emulate their backwards ways].

If an idiot decided to sit on a rail that is 8 stories up and then they lost their balance and fell down, is that a suicide they did? There have been people that died from trying to do a selfie because they were doing something stupid they thought was thrilling but instead it would lead to their death. I would not call this a suicide. To me suicide implies planned and deliberate. If I got in my car and I decided to take my eyes off the road to loo for something and I crashed and died, I did not commit suicide. It would be a suicide if I actually planned to crash my car so I decided to drive my car off the road and drive into a barrier hoping it would kill me. Now if I failed to maintain my car and didn't get my car looked at for any wear and tear and I lost control of my car and crashed, this would not be a suicide. It doesn't matter if I didn't have any money for it to keep it maintained.

I see the same with being homeless. It would be like saying people are committing suicide for not having good health insurance or health insurance because they cannot afford it because what if they end up sick like with cancer or get a serious illness and they don't treat it because they waited too long to go see a doctor because they couldn't afford any medical bills?

Now however, in the UK, then the gov decided to screen people with disabilities to find them fit for work or not, lot of them seemed to be found to be fit to work but were not able to work so they either committed suicide or they just died, not from suicide but due to life. I felt this was done deliberately to kill off any disabled people and I called this a legal genocide. Take away their support and have them starve to death or die from the cold or die from health conditions that was related to their stress of losing support and not being able to support themselves due to lack of income. Some did truly commit suicide because they couldn't handle the stress or didn't want to be homeless. I wouldn't say all of them committed suicide from not eating. They just couldn't afford it or they couldn't afford their care so they died from their medical issue that left them unable to work.

That may be possible but I don't think so. I think this gives them more credit. I think it is actually simpler than that. I think you're dealing with people who are ignorant and who wish to remain ignorant. What they want to remain in their echo chamber where all you have to do is do a,b,c and refrain from doing e,f,g and everything is fine when that is not the case.

Simple terms: They simply want to jerk each other off! That's all!