Reply #157: Wrong. The Straw Man fallacy defined for you: [View All]

[ExPatLeftist]

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

from http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

In this particular case, YOUR illogical and fallacious Straw Man argument is that Hillary has the RIGHT to continue, presented as if people here are actually claiming that she does not have the RIGHT. NO ONE that I have heard is making that argument, but you use it as a STRAW MAN to make the point that she does, in fact, have the right - which no one is disputing. Another point about logic: You need to back up your argument with sources. You CLAIM that "plenty of people here would deny her the RIGHT to continue running". I want some links, because I am calling bullshit on your Straw Man, so a proper response, if you were actually trying to argue that it is not a Straw Man would be to provide some proof rather than turning to another fallacy (Ad Hominem attack: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html) basically saying "Nu-UH, you STOOPID! Go to skool!". So let's see your evidence.

No one is arguing that Clinton does not have the RIGHT to run, they are saying that they think she should DROP OUT. Two completely different things. Can you see the difference? I really mean that as a question, because you seem completely incapable of seeing the difference between stripping someone's rights and stating an opinion. Is the fact that I think that you should study fallacies more closely and that I express that opinion the same as me stating that you are in violation of the law and need to be legally forced to study fallacies?

So prop up your Straw Man with concrete links to "plenty of people here" arguing that Clinton does not have the legal right to continue, or we will know your "argument" for what it is.

Yes, Hillary is legally allowed to run as long as she wants. I have seen NO ONE argue against that. What people have said is that it is not what is best for the party, and I would argue also that it is tarnishing her image, perhaps irreparably. See that? Nothing about her "not having the right". Obviously (unless you provide "plenty of" links), your argument is therefore "distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented" and therefore a Straw Man.

BTW Despite your personal opinion that she would be the best candidate for the party, she is not and will not be the nominee this year. So I hope you get behind the actual nominee and join us in taking back the White House for the Democrats.