Sentences with phrase «in a straw man»

Persistence in the straw man argument of «God sends us to hell so he is a jerk» only advances two thoughts among serious thinkers.

But the word «uncertainties» also appears in a straw man argument used by alarmists.

Not exact matches

What some experts are doing is putting up a straw man, pointing to those extreme cases in which some people let the development of the business plan become an end in itself — something that gets in the way of business rather than helping to optimize it.

Ultimately, that's a straw - man argument that has been made in the face of every new advance in communications technology.

Straw Man is not named thusly in the speech.

Kenney hasn't chosen thus far to do that, and in his only statement raised the straw man that this gay - straight alliance legislation could affect kids as young as five — though the clubs are essentially for junior high and high schools, not kindergarteners in any context anybody imagines.

In reality, they are straw men for corporate performance measurement with no real connection to the economics of the business.

In reality, they are straw men for corporate performance with no real connection to the economics of the business.

Finally, Glass Lewis identified shortcomings with the «straw man» proposal including arbitrary thresholds that could result in perverse incentives for intermediaries as well as risks relating to disputes over subjective eligibility requirements, among other concerns.

In «Ontario's Tax on the Rich: Grasping at Straw Men,» Associate Director of Research Alexandre Laurin finds taxpayers» behavioural responses will reduce revenue over the long run by more than the province can expect to collect from the tax hike.

The classic straw - man argument, which unfortunately is quite common in this neck of the woods.

But Baden, don't let bigger facts or even biology stop you in your grand leaps to conclusions, or from setting up false straw men as your way to refute Genesis.

it is so easy for even a first year theology students to show all the errors of reasoning and the straw men in most of the author's statements.

i have met the silly man in the cartoon many times, so it's not really straw imo.

It is a straw man bibletard ploy that has no basis in reality.

«Have faith» and «It's in the Bible» are both Straw Man arguments.

Others, such as the chapter on «objections» to the claim that we can be certain of at least some moral knowledge, are written in dialogue form, opening the way for hostile critics to suggest that Budziszewski constructs and demolishes his own straw men.

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.

he IS grasping at straws since the singel parent thing wasnt an issue... secondly... you apparently need to go to school and learn that there IS a difference between a woman and a man and that children benefit from BOTH... and hwo a man loves a woman as nature intended... its people like you who are reason for high divorce rates in USA, because they don tknow what love or marriage is..

I see straw men employed all the time, most frequently with the topics of politics and religion, and if you haven't seen it, well, I'm not sure I would have much faith in your sense of discernment.

There's bound to be some sloppy theology or straw men or generalities in there, and I don't want to stifle conversation by claiming that God is somehow responsible for the content.

«A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, [1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Read up on basic evolutionary theory to understand your «blob» questions (though you did a straw man perversion of the concept in a lame attempt to discredit it without actually getting an answer).

I'm sorry that you're not ready yet to discuss this in a rational, calm, dispassionate, and intellectually honest manner that doesn't resort to making straw - man arguments out of the other side's positions.

It just seems to me you are in a struggle to define yourself and taking shots at a bunch of straw men.

Second, your account of Noah is just a straw - man attack, and in fact Canada.com published an article regarding evidence to support a global flood that was revealed in Canada.

We hoped that, in an age of angry online diatribes and weekly public burnings of straw - man arguments, it might be possible to genuinely understand an opposing point of view.

He / she must also be a theology professor in a religious school, because the way he set it up is really a straw man argument.

«The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half - truths, lies, and straw - man arguments that the opponent can not possibly answer every falsehood in real time.

I am perpetually fighting against straw men in this blog, where so many act like the OT Israelites just got bored, and decide, out of the blue to make up «scape - goating» to engage in genocide in the name of God.

Most of these self - proclaimed scientists have no idea what creationism stands for and are very adept at knocking over a straw man which exists ony in their own mind.

In his argument, he posits a definition of «machine» that is something of a straw man (or straw machine, I should say).

Sooner or later, all of us are going to have to pay for our excessive rhetoric and for the ways in which we misrepresent our opponents in a desire to create straw men or to perpetuate the ritual warfare that goes on between rival theological positions.

If you were expecting a photo of a woman in a bonnet or a man with a long beard and straw hat, you're certainly not alone.

As in it being a fiery place of torment that God sends some people who would never had the opportunity to know Jesus never mind «repent» then I think that is a straw man god and I don't think that love condemns anyone to a place of torment with no way out.

I have just recently spoken to a prominient leader within the evangelical community in Scotland about such and his use of rhetoric, and misrepresentation of others and their views by straw man arguments.

I think I lnow why you linked to this and yet I can't help but cry out against the evangelical straw man in the quotes.

For starters, the article is largely attacking a straw man: Those of us who believe we are indeed in a new cold war do not argue that Russia is the Soviet Union or is trying to recreate it.

If I may: I think bob is suggesting you are being dishonest in your argument when you said he said he KNOWS God doesn't exist, and then you proceed to challenge this assertion he didn't make (which is the straw man).

And then our temptation is to turn the other side into a straw man argument to blithely ignore or burn in effigy.

Please, don't try to redefine basic concepts in faith and epistemology in a a vain attempt to build a straw man against faith.

It's called setting up a «straw man» argument, in which you then appear to make an argument in tearing the straw man down, which didn't exist to begin with.

I suspected when I first heard this claim that the Committee on the Status of Black Americans, loaded as it was with social scientists, had demolished a straw man, a bloodless construct so rigidly defined as to be meaningless in terms of the actual lives of the humans who inhabit the nation's ghettos and who, for the most part, make up what has come to be called the underclass.

Rather than saying «Calvinists claim...» or «evangelicals believe...» or «Republicans are...» stick with concrete, documented examples like «John Piper said...» «The Evangelical Theological Society's Web site states...» or «At CPAC this week...» This will protect you from accusations that you're attacking a straw man and will help anchor the conversation in reality.

some of your posts have been straw men arguments against total depravity that are real easy for you knock down and in reality the text has nothing to do with inability and no Calvinist believes it either

«believes in nothing» is merely a common straw man argument put out by theists.

I don't see any point in setting up straw men that are easily knocked down.

The funny thing is that Christians will undoubtedly point this out as a straw man (albeit likely in other terms), yet they'll continue to hold onto beliefs that are every bit as ridiculous or more.

The wise men were there with a handful of shepherds, and of course in the midst of them all the Christ child was there, lying in the straw.

In the realm of logic and argumentation, we call this a «straw man fallacy.»