06-25-2015, 03:52 PM
|
|
|
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Posts: 3,068
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo
i'm going to help you out again, since you like fancy concepts like strawman. the debate position you should have taken was that i took rochard's comment out of context.
he claimed
"This is a classic example of what's wrong with our government - Instead of fixing the problem, the Republican party decided to invest five years of fighting this. They should have improved the flaws in this law to fix it, not fight to remove it."
this, as it is used here, has nothing to do with the thread, the topic or even the actually SC decision.
not a strawman fallacy but the fallacy of quoting out of text.
next, neither of us know wtf he meant. for all we know, he very well may think the republicans brought this to the courts.
you're welcome.
|
"This", as used by Rochard, does have something to do with the topic. Because both the legal case, as well as Republicans in the legislature, attempted to destroy Obamacare. That is how they are related. And since they are both related via that similarity, then they both necessarily have something to do with each other.
And one can reasonably ascertain what Rochard meant by the word "this", since if you read his whole posting, it is clear he meant "this" as referring to the entire Obamacare situation and the resulting political fight, not just merely the SCOTUS ruling or case.
By the way, "strawman" is not a fancy concept. It's pretty basic and elementary. |
|
|