txvet2 said:

Could be because it wasn’t an “online” dictionary. I keep trying to avoid using derogatory terms for your apparent inability to read and comprehend even the simplest text, but it’s getting harder. And my transcription was exact. Your interpretation is what is at variance.

It was a nice attempt, txvet2. I applaud your effords. I really do. I did the unthinkable which triggered this chain- I “distorted” Obummer by using a strawman argument. I used an “illustration” of what the state department and the Peace Corps have been doing in the past and what will be done again, no matter the president.

Oh, well, honest engagement doesn’t always suit Chaps’ purposes or those of other liberals who like to think themselves “evolved” because they post their errant musings on conservative blogs.

Just remember: facts don’t matter.

Who said I made that statement without regard to the following? I said socio-economic are a contributing factor. That means there can be other underlying causes. One can point out/describe one piece of a jigsaw puzzle without making mention of the others on the table.

I just noticed something interesting. You tacked on the word “contributing.” Can you link where you said this? I know that you like to put on your sociological hat on in times like this but I’d rather see such assertions backed up with actual facts (you know those pesky things you accuse me of not having). Could you possibly either link or provide actual examples of these contributing factors?

Whatever, this is stupid. I am sorry your feelings were hurt because I pointed out your error. I didn’t mean to pick on you. It was actually the first good example I came across when I google searched the site.

Ummm… dude…stop being so silly. You’re not sorry about anything and really don’t seem the type. You’ve said some very generalized things in the past and think they are FACT. Just like your theory about the causes of terrorism. Man, is this a past conversation with Rusty?

And if want to keep using the term at best lazily and at worst incorrectly, by all means. I have no doubt you will continue to be in good company.

This is why, at best, I never take anything you say at face value. I don’t use any term “lazily” (I grew up with academics) and I don’t appreciate the condescension. Is it possible that you can actually stop for a second and just realize that your broad/general statements are either unsubstantiated or unsupported?

I admit I don’t know it all but having dealt with academics (and not amateur ones on the net) I’ve learned not to take one’s theories as facts.

I am done with this. Accept that you used the term wrong. Or don’t. I don’t care enough to continue trying to explain it to you.

No, you simply haven’t the patience to actually understand that some of your broad, generalized statements, be they strawman or NOT, are not well estimated or fleshed out. If you really want to understand the socioeconomic implications of terrorism (or the factors of such) perhaps, you should actually read a journal and see what experts actually say.

Or you can spout off some generalized theory to your heart’s content over a good bottle of your favorite wine to make you feel good about how much you don’t know about the things you talk about.

On May 6th, 2009 at 9:21 am, chapoutier said:

In any case I am not so sure about txvet’s definition. I am curious how many different links txvet had to click on to find a source that would marginally back up what definition he was trying to say. I tried to find his “Random House Online Dictionary” (not Websters as I had incorrectly stated before).

Could be because it wasn’t an “online” dictionary. I keep trying to avoid using derogatory terms for your apparent inability to read and comprehend even the simplest text, but it’s getting harder. And my transcription was exact. Your interpretation is what is at variance.

I find it quite curious that one has the confidence to make such a statement without regards to the following:

Who said I made that statement without regard to the following? I said socio-economic are a contributing factor. That means there can be other underlying causes. One can point out/describe one piece of a jigsaw puzzle without making mention of the others on the table.

If I had made such a broad statement in any of my college or graduate school papers, I would have been critiqued for it as I’m doing now to Chaps. I also find it quite interesting that social and economic factors that Chaps attributes to terrorism in general doesn’t necessarily equate to the elite leadership of Al Qaeda.

Oh please. let’s not start on that whole “you didn’t write a dissertation on an internet message board so you’re wrong” crap. Happens to be that we are not turning in a paper for college or graduate school. Funny that standard of excellence is only thrown out against the lib posters here.

Whatever, this is stupid. I am sorry your feelings were hurt because I pointed out your error. I didn’t mean to pick on you. It was actually the first good example I came across when I google searched the site.

And if want to keep using the term at best lazily and at worst incorrectly, by all means. I have no doubt you will continue to be in good company.

In any case I am not so sure about txvet’s definition. I am curious how many different links txvet had to click on to find a source that would marginally back up what definition he was trying to say. I tried to find his “Random House Online Dictionary” (not Websters as I had incorrectly stated before). The only thing I can find is this:

a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument: The issue she railed about was no more than a straw man.

This is attributed to Random House’s Dictionary. And is not the same as txvet’s purported definition. And in fact is quite different. It is not saying it is simply a bad argument. it is stating that it is “fabricated” or “conveniently weak” i.e., an intentionally bad argument that is set up as an adversary, i.e., YOU CANNOT CALL SOMEONE’S OWN ARGUMENT A STRAWMAN!

And, if you look at all the other definitions there, you won’t find any that say a straw man is simply a weak argument someone is making.

I am done with this. Accept that you used the term wrong. Or don’t. I don’t care enough to continue trying to explain it to you.

It’s interesting that you never responded. Why is that, Chaps?

Never responded? To what? That thread was certainly long enough.

It’s also interesting that you don’t let traveler in on the ENTIRE conversation (which I’m sure he can scroll throughout).

Because the substance of the argument (which was a good one, looking back on it) was absolutely irrelevant for purposes here. I said you used the term strawman incorrectly. Which you did. I don’t care what Webster’s online, third choice definition says. A strawman, when criticizing an argument, means deliberately distorting an opponent’s position. You said I was setting up a strawman when I claimed Obam thinks that the underlying roots of terrorism is socio-economic conditions. You are more than welcome to disagree with my opinion, but it is not a strawman in any conventional sense. What was a classic case of a strawman, was when you took this:

We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.

and claimed Obama’s argument was this:

Ohhhh, does that mean he’ll send a bunch of social workers and Peace Corps volunteers over to the Middle East to hold their hands, give ‘em a hug, and pat their hands and say, “there, there, I’ll wear your burqa if you wish it.”

See. That is a REAL straw man.

Anyway, you content yourself thinking that that whole CONVERSATON was in anyway an ilustration in how not to apply a strawman argument.

I do.

I simply pointed out that your view of social work/monetary aid as prevention was a strawman (meaning weak theory or argument).

It isn’t. Unless you use the lazy definition.

So, yes, you yourself did present a strawman (which happens).

You still don’t get it.

Thanks for reminding me. I think you actually need a better example. Try again.

I thought it was perfect.

But if you think that social and economic conditions in Middle East countries does not contribute to terrorism (or lack thereof), you are incredibly wrong.

I would say that this is a rather unsupported and broad comment to make, wouldn’t you Chaps? How ’bout you Traveler? Chaps seems to think I need to be schooled on strawman arguments so I wanted a finding on this statement that Chaps himself has made (in the same conversation he linked).

I find it quite curious that one has the confidence to make such a statement without regards to the following:

1. Religion
2. Economic aid already given to said region
3. Who would be counted among the socially and economically disaffected? Could it be those upper middle class and wealthy members of Al Qaeda?
4. Is there anything to back up this assertion? Any evidence to suggest that this is a norm?
5. Which countries within the Middle East can you attibute such economic and social factors to increased/decreased terrorism? Rich Gulf States? Saudi Arabia?
6. Are those who are more socially/economically disaffected more prone to terrorism than those who aren’t?

If I had made such a broad statement in any of my college or graduate school papers, I would have been critiqued for it as I’m doing now to Chaps. I also find it quite interesting that social and economic factors that Chaps attributes to terrorism in general doesn’t necessarily equate to the elite leadership of Al Qaeda.

I daresay, Chaps, you did make your own strawman argument. Nicely done.

/back to regularly scheduled programming

chapoutier said:
traveler,

Well, here is a classic example between me and emjem in which she tries to tell me that the argument I myself am trying to make is a strawman.

I did not know one could strawman one’s own argument.

Wow, can’t let go that conversation all these months later. It’s interesting that you never responded. Why is that, Chaps?

It’s also interesting that you don’t let traveler in on the ENTIRE conversation (which I’m sure he can scroll throughout). The conversation was more about your belief that I had somehow misrepresented Obummer’s take on terrorism and its root causes, not on a a straw man per se.

While we’re on the straw man argument, I think I did reference a statement that you had made regarding prevention. I didn’t know you were making an argument seeing as that you were propping up misrepresentation of Obummer as the ultimate stopgap in fleshing out what the hell he stood for in the first place.

Anyway, you content yourself thinking that that whole CONVERSATON was in anyway an ilustration in how not to apply a strawman argument. I simply pointed out that your view of social work/monetary aid as prevention was a strawman (meaning weak theory or argument).

So, yes, you yourself did present a strawman (which happens). Thanks for reminding me. I think you actually need a better example. Try again.

Also that its all a witch hunt