Sunder: Surely what you mean is «Ken may well
employ sophistry to claim that he is not technically in breach of party rules,....
Surely what you mean is «Ken may well
employ sophistry to claim that he is not technically in breach of party rules, because saying that the candidate should not have been dropped, walking around for the TV cameras with the rival candidate (and having a quick chat about why the Labour candidate) did not in fact entail an explicit «vote Rahman» public statement (even though the whole point was to convey precisely that impression to any sentient being).
Not exact matches
Instead of critiquing the straw man accusation in this instance on its merits, instead you «appealed to ridicule,» mocking the concept itself, as if by mocking the concept, «magically» (your word choice) people will no longer see the straw men we
employ, and we can continue with our
sophistries unchecked.
I think this underlines the
sophistry employed by the IPCC and others when attempting to convince policy makers of how «significant» the contribution from anthropogenic greenhouse gases has been with regard to the very moderate warming we have seen since 1951.