I had to think about this video and I don't see the example completely out of the question, It looks more of a counter argument than going for the easy win. I understand he was doing it but it seemed he was doing a greatly diminished version of it.
I have recently had a epiphany on what I believe is the "meaning of life" What if the meaning of life is to die a free man/woman? If you die as a slave with a slave name, you do not go to the afterlife and are left in limbo because you were not able to separate the John Doe from JOHN DOE. We need to own our name to go to the afterlife.
Is being a pompous-ass philosopher and not realizing that language is circuitous or that logic is an oxymoronic human invention a straw-man argument to the notion that logic supposedly has some empirical validity in human discourse?
I've actually gotten pretty good at calling people out when they attempt the straw man argument strategy. It's crazy how angry some people get when they realize that you can recognize and avoid a straw man argument.
usually what happens in a straw man argument is that both sides (or more than two sides) continues each other's attack based on numerous strawmans, thus making it impossible to determine who's arguments are valid.
@razblack In this case not playing by the rules is "illogical", not "weak". Debate has nothing to do with strength, that's like saying he who shouts loudest is correct.
Not playing by the rules in a debate makes you stupid or dishonest.
Political argument techniques, since both Liberal and Conservative politicians are the same sleezy corrupt figures. Really it's our collective fault for voting these people in to office.
If you make artificial organisms that were not meant for this type of environment say a carbon based lifeforms paradigm and lets just say that they run out of their not supposed to be alive medication then they go extinct...
Darwin wanted to separate himself entirely from humanity so he could have sex with children, his entire book on evolution copied roman observation and then dodged observed constants like phylum and relative biology, which is evolution.
Basically birds have eyes fish have eyes, but some creatures don't have eyes but they have other common features like needing to breath air and subsist in some way by passing h2o through their organelles cells and organs...
@pjpopper Humans do come from humans. However, we share a common ancestry with primates. Nature doesn't have to 'think' to evolve. Ever heard of environmental pressures? If you had really studied evolution, as you claim you have, something this elementary wouldn't have to be explained to you.
@pjpopper I really doubt that all those millions of people simply lie. That when they go to sleep they think "hehehe those dumbasses still believe us." It is illogical to claim that all those millions of people lie. It would be first such a massive lie in all human history. Another thing would be, if you claimed that they are simply wrong, but to accuse millions of people in lieing is simply wrong
So you guys whizzed on the Active 33rd fence and then got zapped for claiming that you had immunity from some types of Law...
The definition HOMOSEXUAL is a phylum descriptor, for a family of animals in different phylum that have a common evolutionary trait, dual sexual organs and secondary sexual characteristics, but the definition they give is confusing to laymen and religious people...
You guys either escaped prison or the loonie bin and now everyone else has to pay and nothing can be as good until they kill you guys...
Mainly (Throw a "Red Herring" at me) its time for the fourth Reich and unfortunately you guys opted for the Jew (because its more of a hedonistic satisfaction in the moment.) and most of us have to go with out have to kill to have a substandard try at normality and then suppress anything like you afterwards.
@JonesArmandoHoward I think you're replying to the wrong poster. I will, however, compliment you on your delicious word salad. Your posts are fascinatingly bizarre and nonsensical. You jump from 4th Reich to abusing the environment without skipping a beat. Your kind of lunatic dribble is always a pleasure to read.
Oh, and by the way; what the heck is the 4th edition manual? I thought it was a D&D reference but it doesn't fit the rest of your post.
Its a scam manual that started the whole straw man debate...
It seems that like a large percentage of the Felon population got loose and started to hook-up and congregate into the remainders of Freemasonry and Scientology...
Its called the REDEMPTION manual 4th edition...
It just tells people all sorts of ways to get in trouble for abusing contracts stealing identity's and justifying it on the basis of having to live on the run under assumed identity's...
By your own descriptions of red herring and straw-man its like you aren't mentally sound enough to deal with definitions that reveal what you caused to happened to you...
You probably as a group had sex with kids killed people that didn't believe in god enslaved people smarter than you abused the environment and now that its almost kick the negro out of the white house time you guys are going passive aggressive counter productive, which is suicide and sabotage...
@pjpopper well to get pHd, you have to study for 8-10 years MINIMUM. So, do you claim, that people (scientists) who have pHd in field (genetics and biology) are so dumb,that they are unable to figure out that evolution is a lie?My friend have pHd in biology, he sed, that considering everything he have taught during 10 years in university, evolution is correct.
Do you think, that you have more knowledge than my friend 9who spend 10 years in university) to claim that evolution is a lie?
i say just strangle the weaker person in the argument, whether your wrong or right, and cut them up into little pieces. violence is always the correct and true path to enlightenment.
Straw "figure"? Fuck that, just say strawman. There's nothing wrong/offensive with saying mailman, army man, strawman, snowman, etc. What's fucking annoying, though, is when someone has to point out how "sensitive" they are by mucking up perfectly good words to make them more "gender neutral", as if to say, "I felt the need to make it clear that I know women exist! That means I'm not sexist, right, right?"
Buzz off. Women don't need your condescending "sensitivity". I'm not watching this crap.
I can see from this video you must not like the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz. Is it because he didn't have a brain? Why are you against people just because of their lack of intelligence? They should have just as many rights as the rest of us. Your claim against these "fallacies", as you call them, is just a way to restrict stupid people from expressing themselves. We should accept these straw man fallacies so as not to leave the dullards and dimwits out of debates.
Knowing where the phrase comes from really helps understand it, and therefore makes it a lot easier to explain to other people. I already knew what a straw man was, but I was having a hard time explaining it clearly to people who use it. This video really helps me in this regard.
What about vagueness of arguments? Many arguments have sufficient vagueness in them to warrant different interpretation. In this case the different interpretations can be thought of as equally valid. So, if a person critiques one interpretation of the argument, can we call it a straw man?
What if someone does call it a straw man. How should we respond to it?
@rogerdpack What the f#%* is this? I thought this was Straw man "illiusion". good point though, best to have all the facts, but it is hard to know somtimes if you have all the facts. All our information comes from others unless you are using the scientific method, and even that came from someone eles.
This is a straw man representation of the straw man argument. In most cases it is not deployed in a dialog with a stronger argument, but it is used by a sole author to create an argument - for example, a student or academic trying to write a paper will start off by creating a straw man.
Fuck I have a friend that does this all the time with little arguments!! I guess he can't even handle the little arguments then lol that's why he creates the straw figure argument...I never knew it had a name
is bringing up the flat earth society or the holocaust deniers in a debate about whether intelligent design/creationism should be thought in schools considered a strawman fallacy.
@AWEF321 Not by itself. It really depends on how these are used. To be guilty of a straw many you first need an argument. The straw man is a distorted misrepresentation of that argument. You commit the straw man fallacy when you criticize the straw man version and claim that you've refuted the original argument. So the devil is in the details, as they say.
@AWEF321 Depending how it was phrased, it could have been a slippery slope fallacy. The best argument for this is (ime) is "Only testable, repeatable peer reviewed science should be taught in science class." If you watch 'Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial' I believe a Scientist who supports ID had to admit before the judge that ID is to evolution what astrology is to astronomy. In other words, not science.
@scooma Using words until they no longer sting is simply wrong. I knew a man who called his son 'Critter' and most everyone went along, thinking it 'cute' until the child became 3 1/2 and demanded that is NAME be used. The unwittingly hurtful name-calling caused the boy to realize his inherent sense of worth & autonomy years before it would have naturally occurred.
Whether this was character-building or permanently scarring remains to be discovered.
Any reason why you chose the manditory prayer arguement there? I have many people use straw man arguements to try and refute my religious beliefs, claiming that I share the view of a white power american protestant simply because I am a Christian.
@UniverseOffspring Wow thanks man, i really appreciate you feel at least some whites are not inherently evil(until you let your guard down). Is this video linked to some black supremacist website?
Some strange comments here. Anyways, nice video Philosophyfreak.
@PhilosophyFreak: Could I request a video about the fallacy of "arguments from intuition"? Seems quite hard to find much about that online, and yet it's so often used by pseudoscientists, cranks, quacks and religious apologists. Would be very handy. Thanks.
@ChiTsumai Same, I related to you comment. Racists, Fascists, Bigots use this fallacy all the time. When I point it out to them and tell them to research this fallacy I never get a reply. I love critical thinking and thinkers. Power to the truth!
I concur with Turin999: I enjoyed your informative video; however, I found the reference to "straw figure" versus "straw man" as very distracting. No need to wrap yourself in the blanket of political correctness for a neutral term like "straw man."
Gail Collins from the New York Times is a strawman factory. Almost every editorial/paper she makes is a strawman against the NRA and she sometimes does not even address the real issue. She also uses false premises and half truths in her strawmen. Creation "science" is another place where you can find strawmen. The dishonesty is nauseating. I stopped reading the NY Times after the 30th strawman
I thought that a straw man argument derived from an old practice in Western courts in which people called strawmen would come with a piece of straw (or something like that) and make a "vow" on the actual events that happened. The judge used the strawmen as portrayers of absolute proof, even thought their testimonies could easily be made up. A strawman argument is when someone puts up an unprovable but irrefutable argument like "the Bible is true" and bases his argument off of that.
An excellent video but....I was put off by the term "straw figure". Don't reinvent the wheel and keep you PC views to yourself... Everyone knows that strawMAN arguments can apply to all MANkind... You injected an unneeded distraction which broke rapport w/ many of the viewers you were attempting to influence....
This is crap! For one to educationally inform another of the fallacy of their opinion and its possible implications is always a valid form of argument! Straw man theory is by definition intellectually dishonest. To make an unproven, opinionated statement and then automatically refute the validity of an argument against it which may or may not be a FACT is the same as straw man fallacy!!!! This is a bullshit idea that someone with a weak mind invented, obviously!
out of temptation i just want to counter that guys argument because it is bothering me. She isn't advocating atheism per say but more like asking that people who may not agree have their opinion respected. Atheism is not guilty for those bad things people are, just like any other crime. it is commited by people. Belifes are just concepts, they can't hurt anyone.
@angryafghan You are right. In a past exchange i had with a detractor he accused me of using a "strawman" so I challenged him point it out where the strawman in my argument was and never got a reply. Now many people understand what it is.
LOL The term straw man is thrown around so lightly on YT and more often than not applied incorrectly, and when have you ever heard someone use it in real life?
my wife does this all the time! I've been calling it "the bugs bunny switch" for over 10 years! she pulls this stunt in every argument we've ever had. im going to force feed her this video. i'll bet she pulls it again, and explains it away in a revolving door of nonsensical comments until i give up once again. but thanks for proving to me that I'm not crazy. this is mint.
Sadly the "illusion" of winning, can actually lead to a win in a real debate where your comments are timed. Some of the best debaters I've seen know exactly when to use a logical fallacy and if pulled off correctly, can win with it.
i heard that the origin came from british troops setting up "straw men" on a hill in the US colonies, then attacking the straw men, and then reporting a resounding, overwhelming victory to the royal crown in britain.
I don't get the anger over "political correctness" here. Political correctness is an *excessive* deference to particular sensibilities *at the expense of other considerations*. How is this *excessive*? This example borders on insignificance. Let me just add that using gender-neutral language isn't a sign of weakness or being a pussy, it's about understanding and caring about the power of words. It's a critical thinking issue for me, not a political issue, and that's why I used it.
@PhilosophyFreak An interesting concept and I understand why you changed the name, I think thought as Confucius stated that changing words which mean the same thing can lead to both confusion for later generations and the eventual destruction (I couldn't think of a subtler word) of said practice, eg we must be very careful with rewriting words, the English language was written without the consideration of gender and we must respect that or lose the language all together.
@PhilosophyFreak Of course you don't get it. That would require empathy. PC is anti-free speech. And universities are leading the way disciplining students who violate PC speech codes. Free speech is a political issue. And the PC Nazis have shown their true colors too many times.
@Schragmeister Thanks! re your question, I don't think so. Straw man involves distorting or misrepresenting an argument. Circular arguments are bad for a different reason. They're bad because they assume as a premise precisely what's at issue in the argument. E.g. "Capital punishment is wrong. Why? Because the state doesn't have the right to take someone's life as punishment for a crime." But this premise is just a restatement of the conclusion using different words. That's circular.
@PhilosophyFreak Got it, thanks. I love philosophy, but when I started, it was pretty rough. Back then, if I had one wish, I'd have gone back 400 years and strangle Descartes with my bare fucking hands
@Schragmeister but modern medicine still embraces the Descartes view of life, sum of parts etc. they treat every illness or disease locally, in distinction and isolated, no symbiosis. This is great for gunshot wounds and acute trauma, that has come on loads. Everything else like the vaccine myth is well stuck in the dark ages, it is only the bucks that keeps it going.
@PhilosophyFreak Bit like 'vaccines save lives'. As they are exempt from RCT placebo trials with follow up studies, no matter how many times you point out this fact, the people who support vaccine mythology go all blank like scientologists, put your posts in spam and carry on repeating. Apart from the anti creationist stance which is fairly obvious this blog doesn't have anything remotely near a scientific dialogue. In England we call these people Septics or pretent scientists. Easy to spot
Though your choise of example are subjective (And i like them XD )
I've been having problems with strawmen, I am not got at debates. I can most of the times see what is good and bad argumentation, but i often have troubles with explaining why.
i don't know if anyone has heard of this guy called the truthfulchristian but he's so full of shit and uses arguments with a lot of major logical fallacies. i also think of him as a 'straw man'. lmfao.
Why do you think that this example was used in a Textbook?
Why not have the woman says "we should have the pledge of allegance in schools" then the man says, " You might as well promote Religion, do you realize that every major war was caused by Religion?
@PORTUGAL1010 Your misreading my example. I am NOT saying Religion caused all wars. Stalin, Mayo and Pol Pot were all Atheists and killed more people than anyone. I am trying to say this video is a straw man argument to inject a view that the girl is correct about prayer in school and the man is incorrect by the Atheist comparison.
Your example of a straw figure argument is in fact a straw figure argument. There is no "Separation of Church and State" anywhere in the founding documents or in any of the writings of any of the founders arguments for or against the founding documents of this nation. The "Separation of Church and State" itself is a straw figure argument that is over 100 years old.
@PatriotsRepublic I hope that disagreement on the interpretation of church-state separation doesn't undermine the example in the video as an illustration of straw figure reasoning. Even if you're right and there is no such thing as separation of church and state, the woman in the video thinks there is, and his response misrepresents her reasoning. Whether she's right is a separate question.
@PhilosophyFreak Her argument is still a strawman argument in comparison to the truth. The Constitution was in fact a trust that formed a government to carry out specific duties for the people of the Union which are so defined in said trust document (must read the originals). It specifically recognizes and secures inherent God given rights that cannot be trespassed against. Today, even Corp. U.S. recognizes the Bible to be the Word of God in Public Law 97-280. The deception is deep.
@PhilosophyFreak No, PatriotsRepublic has got it all wrong. He is straw-manning this video by denying evidence of any doctrine of separation of Church and State. Of course, there's plenty of evidence in the establishment clause, the Barbary Treaty, and Jefferson's letters to the Baptists. He's not even correct that this video is a straw man when he argues it has been created out of nothing--that's the opposite of straw man!!
@PhilosophyFreak If you can not refute the straw man in the example about Atheist countries, you're just not good enough to be engaging in a debate for Atheists. If anyone use the straw man on me, i would make them look like fools. In my opinion, straw man is fair game, i welcome it. Not to be arrogant or anything, I really mean it. So instead of saying" you're just doing the straw man thing" when theists bring that argument up, you should study and learn how to refute that argument outright.
@PatriotsRepublic Actually the first ammendment does include the ideology of "separation of church and state", although it doesn't say those words, it says that the government may not force any one religion on its subjects and therefore that separates church from state
@calanio455 At the same time, the trust document the Constitution for the United States of America recognizes inherent God given rights. It also secures the freedom to worship God Almighty how one sees fit. Therefore, the document surely recognizes a Creator and the authority he granted to man. It really depends on what person means when they say church; which, could mean a building, an organization, a group of spiritual people, etc.
@calanio455 sorry, but you cannot just change the meanings of words or phraseology to meet your ideological requirements. First, if you've even read the whole correspondence between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association, you'd know that your interpretation is totally wrong, second, the language of the first amendment only does two things, it bars government from making a state religion, and it bars government from making laws that prohibit any religious practice.
@PatriotsRepublic Actually, the first amendment bans congress from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion.
Quite ironic to start your post admonishing someone to not "change the meanings of words of phraseology to meet your ideological requirements", and then proceed to do that yourself by the end of your post.
There are a lot of things not explicitly stated in the original consitution. But that doesn't mean that a seperation of church and state does not exist. Much like we do not have the right to privacy, but it is up to us to decide how the constitution applies to us in the current time. There is no Straw man fallacy is saying that the consitution has the implied definition of seperation of church and state.
@Killafiction There are no implied rules, ordinances or laws in our Constitution. If it does not say it directly, it isn't there. Contracts have meaning and if one party decides they can start reading between the lines and put crap into a contract that does not exist except in their own mind, then the original contract is meaningless and we might as well scrap the whole experiment and start a war.... because I'm NOT going to let someone INFER what is Constitutional. Its there or its not.
@PatriotsRepublic First of all, the "separation" argument isn't a straw man by your reasoning, because the definition of "straw manning" an argument is taking a robust, complex argument and weakening it to the point of the absurd. You are saying there is no evidence for separation of church and state in the founding documents. So your original characterization of the video is, I think, incorrect. As to whether your argument is a straw man or not, I think it is (continued).
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Not sure if you were agreeing with me, or saying the 9th Amendment is implying something. If it is the latter, the 9th Amendment is very clearly stating that just because some rights are written down and others are not does not mean that those rights not written down can be infringed upon or regulated by government.
@sailornaruto39 I believe you misunderstand what I was clarifying. The Constitution is very clear, and there is to be no inferring or interpreting of the Constitution whatsoever. The Constitution is to be chains on the government, not a free pass to unlimited power. But people look at the 9th Amendment and assume that a right can be anything they want it to be... like health care, or abortion.... yet they cannot see that these cannot be rights, because they kill and enslave.
@sailornaruto39 It means quite clearly that just because some rights are written down in the Constitution does not mean that those are the only rights government cannot violate. All other rights belonging to the people are also protected from violation by government. The right to do commerce, the right to marry, the right to tease people or the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, or the right to hold someone accountable for causing harm to you or others. Each of these rights is protected.
@sailornaruto39 all speech and expression are covered by the First and Ninth Amendments, don't let them tell you any different. We all have the right to yell fire in the crowded theater, and the owner of the theater has the right to tell us to leave, and if we don't, he has the right to have us arrested for trespassing. If our yelling fire in the crowded theater results in injury to people, then we should be held responsible for that. But making any speech illegal is a slippery slope.
@sailornaruto39 If you come on to my property, you must operate by my rules, or (because of property rights) I can ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave, I can have you arrested for trespass. Your freedom does not trump mine. You can do whatever you want on your property, but not on mine. Also, for some clarification, you CAN pretty much do and say anything you want, but if you commit fraud and scream fire, and people panic and get hurt, you can be held criminally liable and tried for that.
@PatriotsRepublic then that isn't really freedom. freedom would be to do it without punishment. It basically means you only have the right to say those things when you are the only one around.
@sailornaruto39 No, it does not mean that. The limits of freedom are this. My freedom to move my arm ends at the tip of your nose (for lack of a better analogy). If you were the only man on Earth, you could do anything you want within your abilities... and no else would have their freedoms infringed upon, but we live in a community where others also exist. We cannot just do anything we like on someone else's property without permission. On public lands (owned by no individual) you're very free.
@sailornaruto39 I think it is just that we have (as a nation "WE") given too much credence, validity and power to the SCOTUS as the ultimate arbiter over the Constitution and what it means. Most Americans are smart enough to know exactly what it means, but for political gamesmanship or nefarious reasons, they twist it to mean what they want OR in the case of Congress, they abdicate their responsibilities as the protectors of the Republic and Constitution by allowing the SCOTUS to define it all.
I had to think about this video and I don't see the example completely out of the question, It looks more of a counter argument than going for the easy win. I understand he was doing it but it seemed he was doing a greatly diminished version of it.
kikook222 1 day ago
I have recently had a epiphany on what I believe is the "meaning of life" What if the meaning of life is to die a free man/woman? If you die as a slave with a slave name, you do not go to the afterlife and are left in limbo because you were not able to separate the John Doe from JOHN DOE. We need to own our name to go to the afterlife.
otpteg 4 days ago
sounds like the government - no point arguing with them, need to make the changes we want, ourselves...
cjl85uk 4 days ago
Yeah, well dig this! A straw man is a person who says the opposite opinion of his friend's argument by agreeing with the same thing.
Hoobifta 1 week ago
Comment removed
Hoobifta 1 week ago
Is being a pompous-ass philosopher and not realizing that language is circuitous or that logic is an oxymoronic human invention a straw-man argument to the notion that logic supposedly has some empirical validity in human discourse?
sfetbrandt 2 weeks ago
Oh so this is why ron paul is hard to understand... Assholes pulthe straw man on ron
CIassicR0CK 2 weeks ago
Can you break down ecological fallacy?
PBreeze84 3 weeks ago
Is the use of analogies, to help the other see the argument from a different perspective, considered a type of strawman?
yomeyo99 3 weeks ago
adhominem, appeal to emotion, straw man and red herirng in one example. Man it's hard arguing for this one.
thebrosnhoes 3 weeks ago
I've actually gotten pretty good at calling people out when they attempt the straw man argument strategy. It's crazy how angry some people get when they realize that you can recognize and avoid a straw man argument.
kuunami 3 weeks ago
usually what happens in a straw man argument is that both sides (or more than two sides) continues each other's attack based on numerous strawmans, thus making it impossible to determine who's arguments are valid.
MrBigEnchilada 1 month ago
@MrBigEnchilada for an example of this, see Politicians.
MrBigEnchilada 1 month ago
@MrBigEnchilada
I was going to say that but you beat me to it.
AbstractUniversals 4 weeks ago
@MrBigEnchilada
true. Those kind of debates usually end up full of ad hominems.
kuunami 3 weeks ago
At 2:41 Bob also seems to have mistaken a lack of a state sanctioned religion as a state sanctioned lack of religion.
Gameguy602 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
one of the best explanations to this problem that i've ever seen. Well done
mahina1963 1 month ago
one of the best explanations to this problem that i've ever seen. Well done
mahina1963 1 month ago
i don't like to play by the rules... playing by the rules makes you weak.
razblack 1 month ago
@razblack In this case not playing by the rules is "illogical", not "weak". Debate has nothing to do with strength, that's like saying he who shouts loudest is correct.
Not playing by the rules in a debate makes you stupid or dishonest.
ReignbowSmite 3 weeks ago
Liberal argument techniques.
Ok ok I'll be fair.
Political argument techniques, since both Liberal and Conservative politicians are the same sleezy corrupt figures. Really it's our collective fault for voting these people in to office.
vjm3 1 month ago
@pjpopper
If you make artificial organisms that were not meant for this type of environment say a carbon based lifeforms paradigm and lets just say that they run out of their not supposed to be alive medication then they go extinct...
Darwin wanted to separate himself entirely from humanity so he could have sex with children, his entire book on evolution copied roman observation and then dodged observed constants like phylum and relative biology, which is evolution.
JonesArmandoHoward 1 month ago
@JonesArmandoHoward
Basically birds have eyes fish have eyes, but some creatures don't have eyes but they have other common features like needing to breath air and subsist in some way by passing h2o through their organelles cells and organs...
Relational Organism Paradigm, food-chain, Eco system...
Evolution is the theory that man is the peak of evolution and I mean human beings...
Which is untrue.
And for religious people that relate everything to god it makes them crazy.
JonesArmandoHoward 1 month ago
@pjpopper Humans do come from humans. However, we share a common ancestry with primates. Nature doesn't have to 'think' to evolve. Ever heard of environmental pressures? If you had really studied evolution, as you claim you have, something this elementary wouldn't have to be explained to you.
Asganoth 1 month ago
@pjpopper I really doubt that all those millions of people simply lie. That when they go to sleep they think "hehehe those dumbasses still believe us." It is illogical to claim that all those millions of people lie. It would be first such a massive lie in all human history. Another thing would be, if you claimed that they are simply wrong, but to accuse millions of people in lieing is simply wrong
GamerEnterprise 1 month ago
STRAMINEUS HOMO...
So you guys whizzed on the Active 33rd fence and then got zapped for claiming that you had immunity from some types of Law...
The definition HOMOSEXUAL is a phylum descriptor, for a family of animals in different phylum that have a common evolutionary trait, dual sexual organs and secondary sexual characteristics, but the definition they give is confusing to laymen and religious people...
The Anti-Christ wins again...
JonesArmandoHoward 1 month ago
@JonesArmandoHoward Wait that doesn't even... What?
Asganoth 1 month ago
@Asganoth
I read the 4th edition manual...
You guys either escaped prison or the loonie bin and now everyone else has to pay and nothing can be as good until they kill you guys...
Mainly (Throw a "Red Herring" at me) its time for the fourth Reich and unfortunately you guys opted for the Jew (because its more of a hedonistic satisfaction in the moment.) and most of us have to go with out have to kill to have a substandard try at normality and then suppress anything like you afterwards.
JonesArmandoHoward 1 month ago
@JonesArmandoHoward I think you're replying to the wrong poster. I will, however, compliment you on your delicious word salad. Your posts are fascinatingly bizarre and nonsensical. You jump from 4th Reich to abusing the environment without skipping a beat. Your kind of lunatic dribble is always a pleasure to read.
Oh, and by the way; what the heck is the 4th edition manual? I thought it was a D&D reference but it doesn't fit the rest of your post.
Asganoth 1 month ago
@Asganoth
Its a scam manual that started the whole straw man debate...
It seems that like a large percentage of the Felon population got loose and started to hook-up and congregate into the remainders of Freemasonry and Scientology...
Its called the REDEMPTION manual 4th edition...
It just tells people all sorts of ways to get in trouble for abusing contracts stealing identity's and justifying it on the basis of having to live on the run under assumed identity's...
It's bizarre...
JonesArmandoHoward 1 month ago
@Asganoth
By your own descriptions of red herring and straw-man its like you aren't mentally sound enough to deal with definitions that reveal what you caused to happened to you...
You probably as a group had sex with kids killed people that didn't believe in god enslaved people smarter than you abused the environment and now that its almost kick the negro out of the white house time you guys are going passive aggressive counter productive, which is suicide and sabotage...
JonesArmandoHoward 1 month ago
@JonesArmandoHoward I said happened try to get over it...
JonesArmandoHoward 1 month ago
@pjpopper well to get pHd, you have to study for 8-10 years MINIMUM. So, do you claim, that people (scientists) who have pHd in field (genetics and biology) are so dumb,that they are unable to figure out that evolution is a lie?My friend have pHd in biology, he sed, that considering everything he have taught during 10 years in university, evolution is correct.
Do you think, that you have more knowledge than my friend 9who spend 10 years in university) to claim that evolution is a lie?
GamerEnterprise 1 month ago
@pjpopper Woah, careful with that bong.
battousai9439 1 month ago
i say just strangle the weaker person in the argument, whether your wrong or right, and cut them up into little pieces. violence is always the correct and true path to enlightenment.
lorentsmful 2 months ago
Good content, however I find the political correctness an unnecessary distraction.
Morahg 2 months ago
@Morahg Agreed!
jackcoogan 2 months ago
well done video
ADAMOLOGY 2 months ago
This is where things get twisted because Jennifer could really be advocating for atheism and she is just sugar coating her facts.
tonyblackops 2 months ago
suck my straw cock
dkthg 2 months ago
(quit being so politically "correct")
Definition of Man:
an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.
-a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex: prehistoric man.
-the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind: Man hopes for peace, but prepares for war.
-a human being; person: to give a man a chance;
Kaasperav 2 months ago
@Kaasperav yes man is more of common noun to mention the whole human beings rather than indicating male of the species
sad :(
hellobal100 2 months ago
Straw "figure"? Fuck that, just say strawman. There's nothing wrong/offensive with saying mailman, army man, strawman, snowman, etc. What's fucking annoying, though, is when someone has to point out how "sensitive" they are by mucking up perfectly good words to make them more "gender neutral", as if to say, "I felt the need to make it clear that I know women exist! That means I'm not sexist, right, right?"
Buzz off. Women don't need your condescending "sensitivity". I'm not watching this crap.
IntarwebUser 2 months ago
interesting.
NIKONGUY1960 2 months ago
Honestly, I think this could have been explained better. Shit they should have taught us in school.
jumbabrother 2 months ago 17
@jumbabrother this is actually a sample, it says in description you can purchase the whole lecture
M000tube 2 months ago
thanx man. im gunna use this in my next rap battle.
MelloPhunkV3 2 months ago
I can see from this video you must not like the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz. Is it because he didn't have a brain? Why are you against people just because of their lack of intelligence? They should have just as many rights as the rest of us. Your claim against these "fallacies", as you call them, is just a way to restrict stupid people from expressing themselves. We should accept these straw man fallacies so as not to leave the dullards and dimwits out of debates.
Pelcurus 2 months ago 2
@Pelcurus wonderful implementation of the straw man fallacy.
sebastianmerino 2 months ago
@Pelcurus Dohohohoh, I see what you did there, And I like it.
Xenoforge78 2 months ago
Brilliant, thank you!
oxmach91 2 months ago
Knowing where the phrase comes from really helps understand it, and therefore makes it a lot easier to explain to other people. I already knew what a straw man was, but I was having a hard time explaining it clearly to people who use it. This video really helps me in this regard.
Umagula 3 months ago
What about vagueness of arguments? Many arguments have sufficient vagueness in them to warrant different interpretation. In this case the different interpretations can be thought of as equally valid. So, if a person critiques one interpretation of the argument, can we call it a straw man?
What if someone does call it a straw man. How should we respond to it?
npa992 3 months ago
Who would thumb down this video? Are there people who think strawmaning is a-ok?
Malthus0 3 months ago
@Malthus0 "Who would thumb down this video?"
Anyone who watches FOX News.
MethodicalMadness 2 months ago
Wow! I think this guy must have dated my last girlfriend. He just described her lameness perfectly.
jamescs1969 3 months ago
Good video! A really easy to understand explanation. Seems like these arguments are becoming more and more prevalent these days.
naerials 3 months ago
Great example.
OnlinePhilosophy 3 months ago
if I dislike this does it mean I'm disliking it, or a misrepresentation of it ?
rogerdpack 4 months ago 25
@rogerdpack What the f#%* is this? I thought this was Straw man "illiusion". good point though, best to have all the facts, but it is hard to know somtimes if you have all the facts. All our information comes from others unless you are using the scientific method, and even that came from someone eles.
TrainingStream 2 months ago
This is a straw man representation of the straw man argument. In most cases it is not deployed in a dialog with a stronger argument, but it is used by a sole author to create an argument - for example, a student or academic trying to write a paper will start off by creating a straw man.
rutlandpeter 1 week ago
16 dislikes HAHAHA we all know which way the trolls & illumanti have voted.. LOL.
kritsnu31 4 months ago
Fuck I have a friend that does this all the time with little arguments!! I guess he can't even handle the little arguments then lol that's why he creates the straw figure argument...I never knew it had a name
Th3Kiidniice 4 months ago
WOW so thats what it means, seriously, now i have a better idea! Thanks for explaining!
Mulletboi86 4 months ago
@mothertounge11 :)
PhilosophyFreak 4 months ago
is bringing up the flat earth society or the holocaust deniers in a debate about whether intelligent design/creationism should be thought in schools considered a strawman fallacy.
AWEF321 4 months ago
@AWEF321 Not by itself. It really depends on how these are used. To be guilty of a straw many you first need an argument. The straw man is a distorted misrepresentation of that argument. You commit the straw man fallacy when you criticize the straw man version and claim that you've refuted the original argument. So the devil is in the details, as they say.
PhilosophyFreak 4 months ago
@AWEF321 sounds like it could be one, except it is a bit of stretch.
MrBigEnchilada 3 months ago
@AWEF321 That would be Red Herring.
idricool 2 months ago
@AWEF321 Depending how it was phrased, it could have been a slippery slope fallacy. The best argument for this is (ime) is "Only testable, repeatable peer reviewed science should be taught in science class." If you watch 'Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial' I believe a Scientist who supports ID had to admit before the judge that ID is to evolution what astrology is to astronomy. In other words, not science.
No fallacies in that argument :)
ReignbowSmite 3 weeks ago
Welcome to American Politics.
clockguy2 5 months ago
this is very helpful! thanx!
MusicOfTheSystem 5 months ago
@scooma Using words until they no longer sting is simply wrong. I knew a man who called his son 'Critter' and most everyone went along, thinking it 'cute' until the child became 3 1/2 and demanded that is NAME be used. The unwittingly hurtful name-calling caused the boy to realize his inherent sense of worth & autonomy years before it would have naturally occurred.
Whether this was character-building or permanently scarring remains to be discovered.
One man's 'man' is another man's 'nigger.'
ponyhead 5 months ago
Any reason why you chose the manditory prayer arguement there? I have many people use straw man arguements to try and refute my religious beliefs, claiming that I share the view of a white power american protestant simply because I am a Christian.
AngelOfSephiroth 6 months ago
@11mac11s Not all of them are complete asshole, a small minority can be alright( until you let your guard down).lol
UniverseOffspring 6 months ago
@UniverseOffspring Wow thanks man, i really appreciate you feel at least some whites are not inherently evil(until you let your guard down). Is this video linked to some black supremacist website?
Some strange comments here. Anyways, nice video Philosophyfreak.
Hypedhopes19 6 months ago
This and red herring are the single reason I still have my xbox. I can't thank you enough man.
purplederple 6 months ago
Republicans are experts
codywrite 6 months ago
@PhilosophyFreak: Could I request a video about the fallacy of "arguments from intuition"? Seems quite hard to find much about that online, and yet it's so often used by pseudoscientists, cranks, quacks and religious apologists. Would be very handy. Thanks.
LukeScientiae 6 months ago
Very good video.
Bear5177 6 months ago
you're a fool
Marxin81 6 months ago
@ChiTsumai Same, I related to you comment. Racists, Fascists, Bigots use this fallacy all the time. When I point it out to them and tell them to research this fallacy I never get a reply. I love critical thinking and thinkers. Power to the truth!
darrouken 6 months ago
I concur with Turin999: I enjoyed your informative video; however, I found the reference to "straw figure" versus "straw man" as very distracting. No need to wrap yourself in the blanket of political correctness for a neutral term like "straw man."
0gods 6 months ago
older woman: with age comes wisdom; wisdom is an attractive quality; therefore, a woman's beauty is like wine, it improves with time.
guy: oh yeah, i dont see trump or hef marrying 80 yr olds
like that?
mephatboi 6 months ago
The word "man" is gender neutral. Look up both "man" and "woman" in the dictionary to get a better understanding of this misconception.
creamrising 7 months ago
Gail Collins from the New York Times is a strawman factory. Almost every editorial/paper she makes is a strawman against the NRA and she sometimes does not even address the real issue. She also uses false premises and half truths in her strawmen. Creation "science" is another place where you can find strawmen. The dishonesty is nauseating. I stopped reading the NY Times after the 30th strawman
SexyArcanine666 7 months ago
I thought that a straw man argument derived from an old practice in Western courts in which people called strawmen would come with a piece of straw (or something like that) and make a "vow" on the actual events that happened. The judge used the strawmen as portrayers of absolute proof, even thought their testimonies could easily be made up. A strawman argument is when someone puts up an unprovable but irrefutable argument like "the Bible is true" and bases his argument off of that.
LiFam2 7 months ago
Mankind? Oh, no can't use the word "man". Humankind? Oh no, has the word "man" in it. Personkind? Now that sounds good!
I hope my girlfriend likes me now. Where else can I grovel?
MrRussellskybyrd 7 months ago
Stop making Bob look bad.
PresAndrewJackson 7 months ago
i enjoy arguing with people on youtube, only to see this sort of rebuttal from the people im arguing with :D
heroindog 7 months ago
An excellent video but....I was put off by the term "straw figure". Don't reinvent the wheel and keep you PC views to yourself... Everyone knows that strawMAN arguments can apply to all MANkind... You injected an unneeded distraction which broke rapport w/ many of the viewers you were attempting to influence....
nlpjohn 8 months ago
This is crap! For one to educationally inform another of the fallacy of their opinion and its possible implications is always a valid form of argument! Straw man theory is by definition intellectually dishonest. To make an unproven, opinionated statement and then automatically refute the validity of an argument against it which may or may not be a FACT is the same as straw man fallacy!!!! This is a bullshit idea that someone with a weak mind invented, obviously!
notanythingful 8 months ago
out of temptation i just want to counter that guys argument because it is bothering me. She isn't advocating atheism per say but more like asking that people who may not agree have their opinion respected. Atheism is not guilty for those bad things people are, just like any other crime. it is commited by people. Belifes are just concepts, they can't hurt anyone.
sailornaruto39 8 months ago
Straw figure, eh? The straw feminists must be really proud of you.
Rovinpiper 9 months ago
thanks man! finally got it
xx1Xochitl1xx 9 months ago
I would lick your armpit if you put some english subtitles here. It helps people a lot and you could get more views. Cheers ;)
PrawdaUnia 9 months ago
Evolutionists often use straw mans, I've noticed.
Not a fan of the creationists either though.
buffboynick 9 months ago
@angryafghan You are right. In a past exchange i had with a detractor he accused me of using a "strawman" so I challenged him point it out where the strawman in my argument was and never got a reply. Now many people understand what it is.
esiosan 9 months ago
i have a logical fallacies test tmr and this helped me understand it VERYY CLEARLLLY THANKSS :DDD
jungjihoonlover12 9 months ago
LOL The term straw man is thrown around so lightly on YT and more often than not applied incorrectly, and when have you ever heard someone use it in real life?
angryafghan 9 months ago
why is alice a man?
randomwitchdoctor 10 months ago
@randomwitchdoctor Alice is behind the man (he represents her argument.)
Nilsy1975 9 months ago
my wife does this all the time! I've been calling it "the bugs bunny switch" for over 10 years! she pulls this stunt in every argument we've ever had. im going to force feed her this video. i'll bet she pulls it again, and explains it away in a revolving door of nonsensical comments until i give up once again. but thanks for proving to me that I'm not crazy. this is mint.
aquahealer 10 months ago
Sadly the "illusion" of winning, can actually lead to a win in a real debate where your comments are timed. Some of the best debaters I've seen know exactly when to use a logical fallacy and if pulled off correctly, can win with it.
punchdrunkatheist 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
llatino make your whole life happy busizz4me.info
xdfgsdgflastname 10 months ago
You just described the antagonistic and inflammatory argument method of every Troll on the Internet, lol.
ricogoldstar 10 months ago
So what's it called when people pretend to be offended by a tiny, insignificant part of a larger subject? Divert and avoid? lol.
Thanks for the vid!
bshwalker 10 months ago
So you call it "straw figure" and then go on to show the man doing it twice?
Booo! :D
Thanks for providing me with the term for a phenomenon I didn't have a name for yet.
Cityj0hn 10 months ago
'man' is gender neutral. or, it is until someone makes a deal out of it. just saying.
Turin999 11 months ago 26
rubbish video, strawman is no fallacy you obviously work for the feds
dnbmonster1 11 months ago
"Man" is the acceptable neutral gender word....
KaletheQuick 11 months ago
i heard that the origin came from british troops setting up "straw men" on a hill in the US colonies, then attacking the straw men, and then reporting a resounding, overwhelming victory to the royal crown in britain.
smp156 11 months ago
Troll children often lunge at scarecrows then try to tell their parents they're ready for humans.
OnionTrollsAlliance 11 months ago
I don't get the anger over "political correctness" here. Political correctness is an *excessive* deference to particular sensibilities *at the expense of other considerations*. How is this *excessive*? This example borders on insignificance. Let me just add that using gender-neutral language isn't a sign of weakness or being a pussy, it's about understanding and caring about the power of words. It's a critical thinking issue for me, not a political issue, and that's why I used it.
PhilosophyFreak 1 year ago 22
@PhilosophyFreak An interesting concept and I understand why you changed the name, I think thought as Confucius stated that changing words which mean the same thing can lead to both confusion for later generations and the eventual destruction (I couldn't think of a subtler word) of said practice, eg we must be very careful with rewriting words, the English language was written without the consideration of gender and we must respect that or lose the language all together.
anarchyfever 8 months ago
@PhilosophyFreak Of course you don't get it. That would require empathy. PC is anti-free speech. And universities are leading the way disciplining students who violate PC speech codes. Free speech is a political issue. And the PC Nazis have shown their true colors too many times.
nlpjohn 8 months ago
Comment removed
UniverseOffspring 6 months ago
"straw figure"? are you fucking serious?
theres a point where this tip toeing to avoid being politically incorrect is just annoying.
volound 1 year ago 2
they tried to use the straw man fallacy alot on Malcolm X.
REZA1nr 1 year ago
"Straw figure?" If only your balls were as big as your brains.
Herv3 1 year ago
an example would help to understand it
Tommy4216 1 year ago
Comment removed
Tommy4216 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Choose a big beautiful woman as your partner naneedj.info
jennykopra 1 year ago
Why if your trying to be politicaly correct,why not hav Bob on the left and alice on the right.Sad!
TheBarnacleBob1 1 year ago
Great video. Does circular reasoning fit the description of a straw man argument?
Schragmeister 1 year ago 4
@Schragmeister Thanks! re your question, I don't think so. Straw man involves distorting or misrepresenting an argument. Circular arguments are bad for a different reason. They're bad because they assume as a premise precisely what's at issue in the argument. E.g. "Capital punishment is wrong. Why? Because the state doesn't have the right to take someone's life as punishment for a crime." But this premise is just a restatement of the conclusion using different words. That's circular.
PhilosophyFreak 1 year ago 2
@PhilosophyFreak Got it, thanks. I love philosophy, but when I started, it was pretty rough. Back then, if I had one wish, I'd have gone back 400 years and strangle Descartes with my bare fucking hands
Schragmeister 1 year ago 7
@Schragmeister Ha! This made me smile. :)
PhilosophyFreak 1 year ago
@Schragmeister but modern medicine still embraces the Descartes view of life, sum of parts etc. they treat every illness or disease locally, in distinction and isolated, no symbiosis. This is great for gunshot wounds and acute trauma, that has come on loads. Everything else like the vaccine myth is well stuck in the dark ages, it is only the bucks that keeps it going.
swingvalse 1 year ago
@PhilosophyFreak Bit like 'vaccines save lives'. As they are exempt from RCT placebo trials with follow up studies, no matter how many times you point out this fact, the people who support vaccine mythology go all blank like scientologists, put your posts in spam and carry on repeating. Apart from the anti creationist stance which is fairly obvious this blog doesn't have anything remotely near a scientific dialogue. In England we call these people Septics or pretent scientists. Easy to spot
swingvalse 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Most excellent Be Naughty lady benaughtyman.info
kumuduniponseeka 1 year ago
i love you!
evershield 1 year ago
Thank you for this objective example =)
Though your choise of example are subjective (And i like them XD )
I've been having problems with strawmen, I am not got at debates. I can most of the times see what is good and bad argumentation, but i often have troubles with explaining why.
RavenofDenmark 1 year ago
i don't know if anyone has heard of this guy called the truthfulchristian but he's so full of shit and uses arguments with a lot of major logical fallacies. i also think of him as a 'straw man'. lmfao.
FallofDarkness55 1 year ago
This video is anti men
redtreen 1 year ago
Is "argumentation" a legitimate word in the contexts used in the clip?
I engage in argument, not in argumentation. A higher syllable count does not add gravitas.
Otherwise a good clip.
rjlchristie 1 year ago
Why do you think that this example was used in a Textbook?
Why not have the woman says "we should have the pledge of allegance in schools" then the man says, " You might as well promote Religion, do you realize that every major war was caused by Religion?
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 Religion NEVER caused any war, religion like guns don't kill people...PEOPLE START WARS and PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE not religion or guns.
PEOPLE start WARS not religions.
PORTUGAL1010 1 year ago
@PORTUGAL1010 Your misreading my example. I am NOT saying Religion caused all wars. Stalin, Mayo and Pol Pot were all Atheists and killed more people than anyone. I am trying to say this video is a straw man argument to inject a view that the girl is correct about prayer in school and the man is incorrect by the Atheist comparison.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thanks for this, I get it now.
Jcm9991 1 year ago
Your example of a straw figure argument is in fact a straw figure argument. There is no "Separation of Church and State" anywhere in the founding documents or in any of the writings of any of the founders arguments for or against the founding documents of this nation. The "Separation of Church and State" itself is a straw figure argument that is over 100 years old.
PatriotsRepublic 1 year ago
@PatriotsRepublic I hope that disagreement on the interpretation of church-state separation doesn't undermine the example in the video as an illustration of straw figure reasoning. Even if you're right and there is no such thing as separation of church and state, the woman in the video thinks there is, and his response misrepresents her reasoning. Whether she's right is a separate question.
PhilosophyFreak 1 year ago 21
@PhilosophyFreak Her argument is still a strawman argument in comparison to the truth. The Constitution was in fact a trust that formed a government to carry out specific duties for the people of the Union which are so defined in said trust document (must read the originals). It specifically recognizes and secures inherent God given rights that cannot be trespassed against. Today, even Corp. U.S. recognizes the Bible to be the Word of God in Public Law 97-280. The deception is deep.
SimplyThinkDreams 1 year ago
@PhilosophyFreak No, PatriotsRepublic has got it all wrong. He is straw-manning this video by denying evidence of any doctrine of separation of Church and State. Of course, there's plenty of evidence in the establishment clause, the Barbary Treaty, and Jefferson's letters to the Baptists. He's not even correct that this video is a straw man when he argues it has been created out of nothing--that's the opposite of straw man!!
Neoprag1 1 year ago
@PhilosophyFreak If you can not refute the straw man in the example about Atheist countries, you're just not good enough to be engaging in a debate for Atheists. If anyone use the straw man on me, i would make them look like fools. In my opinion, straw man is fair game, i welcome it. Not to be arrogant or anything, I really mean it. So instead of saying" you're just doing the straw man thing" when theists bring that argument up, you should study and learn how to refute that argument outright.
DaveBlackism 9 months ago
@PhilosophyFreak You're all hurr durr dis be a strawman fallacy. And I'm all like NO IT ISN'T WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!
FightBack96 9 months ago
@PatriotsRepublic Actually the first ammendment does include the ideology of "separation of church and state", although it doesn't say those words, it says that the government may not force any one religion on its subjects and therefore that separates church from state
calanio455 1 year ago
@calanio455 At the same time, the trust document the Constitution for the United States of America recognizes inherent God given rights. It also secures the freedom to worship God Almighty how one sees fit. Therefore, the document surely recognizes a Creator and the authority he granted to man. It really depends on what person means when they say church; which, could mean a building, an organization, a group of spiritual people, etc.
SimplyThinkDreams 1 year ago
@calanio455 sorry, but you cannot just change the meanings of words or phraseology to meet your ideological requirements. First, if you've even read the whole correspondence between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association, you'd know that your interpretation is totally wrong, second, the language of the first amendment only does two things, it bars government from making a state religion, and it bars government from making laws that prohibit any religious practice.
PatriotsRepublic 1 year ago
@PatriotsRepublic Actually, the first amendment bans congress from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion.
Quite ironic to start your post admonishing someone to not "change the meanings of words of phraseology to meet your ideological requirements", and then proceed to do that yourself by the end of your post.
AntiTheocracy 1 year ago
@PatriotsRepublic
There are a lot of things not explicitly stated in the original consitution. But that doesn't mean that a seperation of church and state does not exist. Much like we do not have the right to privacy, but it is up to us to decide how the constitution applies to us in the current time. There is no Straw man fallacy is saying that the consitution has the implied definition of seperation of church and state.
Killafiction 1 year ago
@Killafiction There are no implied rules, ordinances or laws in our Constitution. If it does not say it directly, it isn't there. Contracts have meaning and if one party decides they can start reading between the lines and put crap into a contract that does not exist except in their own mind, then the original contract is meaningless and we might as well scrap the whole experiment and start a war.... because I'm NOT going to let someone INFER what is Constitutional. Its there or its not.
PatriotsRepublic 1 year ago
@PatriotsRepublic First of all, the "separation" argument isn't a straw man by your reasoning, because the definition of "straw manning" an argument is taking a robust, complex argument and weakening it to the point of the absurd. You are saying there is no evidence for separation of church and state in the founding documents. So your original characterization of the video is, I think, incorrect. As to whether your argument is a straw man or not, I think it is (continued).
Neoprag1 1 year ago
@PatriotsRepublic "There are no implied rules, ordinances or laws in our Constitution. If it does not say it directly, it isn't there"
9th amendment
sailornaruto39 8 months ago
@sailornaruto39 You mean:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Not sure if you were agreeing with me, or saying the 9th Amendment is implying something. If it is the latter, the 9th Amendment is very clearly stating that just because some rights are written down and others are not does not mean that those rights not written down can be infringed upon or regulated by government.
PatriotsRepublic 8 months ago
@PatriotsRepublic yeah i know, that was what i was saying. you made it sound like just because something isn't wirtten it isn't rule
sailornaruto39 8 months ago
@sailornaruto39 I believe you misunderstand what I was clarifying. The Constitution is very clear, and there is to be no inferring or interpreting of the Constitution whatsoever. The Constitution is to be chains on the government, not a free pass to unlimited power. But people look at the 9th Amendment and assume that a right can be anything they want it to be... like health care, or abortion.... yet they cannot see that these cannot be rights, because they kill and enslave.
PatriotsRepublic 8 months ago
@PatriotsRepublic but then what does the 9th mean. it isn't very clear.
sailornaruto39 8 months ago
@sailornaruto39 It means quite clearly that just because some rights are written down in the Constitution does not mean that those are the only rights government cannot violate. All other rights belonging to the people are also protected from violation by government. The right to do commerce, the right to marry, the right to tease people or the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, or the right to hold someone accountable for causing harm to you or others. Each of these rights is protected.
PatriotsRepublic 8 months ago
@PatriotsRepublic i don't think that fire one is covered, certain things aren't proteceted under freedom of speech
sailornaruto39 8 months ago
@sailornaruto39 all speech and expression are covered by the First and Ninth Amendments, don't let them tell you any different. We all have the right to yell fire in the crowded theater, and the owner of the theater has the right to tell us to leave, and if we don't, he has the right to have us arrested for trespassing. If our yelling fire in the crowded theater results in injury to people, then we should be held responsible for that. But making any speech illegal is a slippery slope.
PatriotsRepublic 8 months ago
@PatriotsRepublic then that isn't really freedom. i have read on a sight that certain things aren't covered for.
If that is that guys right why is he being punished for it? contradiction?
sailornaruto39 8 months ago
@sailornaruto39 If you come on to my property, you must operate by my rules, or (because of property rights) I can ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave, I can have you arrested for trespass. Your freedom does not trump mine. You can do whatever you want on your property, but not on mine. Also, for some clarification, you CAN pretty much do and say anything you want, but if you commit fraud and scream fire, and people panic and get hurt, you can be held criminally liable and tried for that.
PatriotsRepublic 8 months ago
@PatriotsRepublic then that isn't really freedom. freedom would be to do it without punishment. It basically means you only have the right to say those things when you are the only one around.
sailornaruto39 8 months ago
@sailornaruto39 No, it does not mean that. The limits of freedom are this. My freedom to move my arm ends at the tip of your nose (for lack of a better analogy). If you were the only man on Earth, you could do anything you want within your abilities... and no else would have their freedoms infringed upon, but we live in a community where others also exist. We cannot just do anything we like on someone else's property without permission. On public lands (owned by no individual) you're very free.
PatriotsRepublic 8 months ago
@PatriotsRepublic lol i know
I think we were arguing on somethong we agreed on.
like saying "the shoe is red" "no it is red!"
sailornaruto39 8 months ago
@sailornaruto39 I think it is just that we have (as a nation "WE") given too much credence, validity and power to the SCOTUS as the ultimate arbiter over the Constitution and what it means. Most Americans are smart enough to know exactly what it means, but for political gamesmanship or nefarious reasons, they twist it to mean what they want OR in the case of Congress, they abdicate their responsibilities as the protectors of the Republic and Constitution by allowing the SCOTUS to define it all.
PatriotsRepublic 8 months ago