tampa_griz wrote:crazycat wrote:From wiki:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute, then attributes that position to the opponent. For example, one might deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique -- and succeed in persuading people --it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]
OK, now go ahead and make a misrepresentation of the definition I'm giving of a straw man argument and superficially weave it into something that kind of sounds like what I said and refute that while ignoring the actual definition. This won't take long, you're so good at it.
I didn't say you said anything. I provided a link to your own post. How could I misrepresent it? They're your words crazy. Are you the strawman? Do strawmen like exploring caves?
In that particular post I said I thought it was OK for an adolescent boy to be recruited and signed by MSU despite the accusation that he stuck a finger(s) in a another boy's butt, while in a dogpile in plain view with a handful of other adolescent boys. My rationale being that what he did was in line with other teen hijinx. I didn't see it as something that on its own would detract from his recruitment, since the boy probably didn't know what he was doing was a crime. He would probably know that stealing is a crime or raping a girl is a crime, but not that sticking his finger(s) in another boy's butt is a crime. You then linked that thread to various other threads without stating the rationale behind why it is substantial to anything, which was your origninal strawman.
By linking that thread again here you're presenting an argument that I'm a hypocrit since I think it's OK for the boy to be admitted to a team, but then saying I think the inclusion of the two Griz players, who have exhibited poor conduct, taints any accomplishment the team has.
Which is to argue that my position on two different sets of circumstances should be the same and that since they aren't you may now refute my comment on one, which you didn't. Saying that they are the same without going into any detail is a superficial, shallow argument.
A young boy fingering another young boy in a dog pile does not equal a young man accepting money for work he didn't do or a young man getting a young woman drunk and filming her, without her knowing, in sexual acts. I say this because 15-year old boys are much younger and typically much less experienced than college aged young men. They aren't necessarily expected to know that some of the things, like fingering each other, can be considered a crime, such as sexual assault. They know it is mean, but aren't well versed in criminal code, so many (most) probably don't know they are commiting a crime. Young men may not be able to turn down the tempation of taking large sums of money for work they don't do, however, they do know that what they are doing is breaking a team/school/NCAA code. They also are expected to know that filming women in sexual acts without their consent is a criminal offense.
The latter paragraph provides some depth (relative to a message board) into my statement. If you had done that with any of the other posts you've made that have attached this thread or the many other times you've done that, then you could have (provided you came up with rationale that supported your argument) avoided the superficial side of what you were doing and kept from making a straw man argument.
Not only is attaching that thread to this thread a straw man, but it's also an apples-to-oranges comparison. In that recruiting young boys not able to comprehend that the hijinx they're involved in could be something they can be charged with a crime for isn't the same thing as young men that break codes of conduct or commit crimes that they are fully aware are misconduct or crimes. If you can explain how this case of the young boy and these cases of the young man are comparable, please do.
SUU has some catching up to do in order for your prediction to come to fruition.
