Misrepresenting that another said for the purpose of dismissing (which it appears that you did) it is employing a strawman fallacy.
Now you only need to show that I actually
did misrepresent what Magenta said. Here's what she said: "Velcro? It's called gravity."
How did the questions I asked, or my polite request for further explanation,
misrepresent anything she said? And if you cannot present proof of me actually misrepresenting anything that she stated for the purpose of dismissing it...
1. Your accusation of me employing a strawman is a baseless and false accusation.
2. Your apology to me should be forthcoming.
Misrepresenting what you did is lying.
Whoa! Now you know my heart and my mind - and are able to know unequivocally that I'm currently lying by saying I simply asked questions and politely requested further explanation - when the evidence is right there for anyone to see that this is exactly what I did do?
Dude, you've been biting off way more than you can chew since you joined this discussion. But this? Accusing me of INTENTIONALLY claiming what I know to be false in an attempt to PURPOSELY deceive others? As if you have any idea of what goes through my heart and my mind? Wow. Just wow.
As with the above, since such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I shall assume that one of the following is forthcoming...
1. Your extraordinary PROOF that I have INTENTIONALLY claimed what I KNOW to be false in an attempt to PURPOSELY deceive others.
2. A very repentant and heartfelt apology for bearing false witness against me and defaming my name by accusing me of something I most certainly haven't done - and that which you couldn't possibly KNOW or PROVE even if I had.
You didn't ask valid questions.
That is yet another false accusation against me. My questions were absolutely valid, and remain valid still. A blind-faith believer in Scientism cannot reasonably expect to just parrot the claim, "Gravity did it!", without a truth seeker asking HOW exactly they believe gravity actually did that thing. Keep in mind that Magenta didn't offer any explanation at all for HOW gravity keeps the atmosphere rotating along with the earth, right? She just made the blanket claim.
So asking how that actually works (Does gravity hold the air molecules firm to the earth - and to each other?) is exactly what a Bible-believing truth seeker who is able to think logically for himself SHOULD do. And those exact questions STILL remain just as valid as they did when I first asked them.
And yes, they are indeed simple valid questions asked to someone who made an authoritative - but clearly not explanatory - claim. Those simple and valid
questions could not possibly be construed as an argument at all (let alone a strawman argument that somehow misrepresented some "explanation" by someone who didn't actually
explain anything in the first place) by any rational mind.
This is how I've (jokingly) worked it out in my own mind:
Magenta: Uh oh. I said the magic word 'gravity', but Mike didn't just bow down and accept it. He's asking valid questions! What should we do?
Dino: Tell him that you're not required by forum rules to actually explain that which you've authoritatively claimed as fact.
Magenta: Great idea! I'm going to do that in the snarkiest manner possible that I can think of. And I think I'll even thrown in a strawman accusation - just to muddy up the waters.
Dino: Fantastic! I'll also call his valid questions a strawman to add support. Maybe if a few more members pipe in using the term 'strawman', there'll be enough of us to make it 'true' - even though it's clearly not. Btw, do you mind if I borrow your phrase 'muddy up the waters' when I make my accusation? That way I can project onto him what we're actually doing.
Magenta: Perfect! Let's make it happen Cap'n.
Yep, in my mind, Magenta says things like, "Make it happen, cap'n".
😅😂🤣
All joking aside, one would have to be a very ignorant person to think that asking questions about an authoritative (but certainly not explanatory) claim made by someone else was "making a strawman argument".
One would have to be insecure/unknowledgeable about the claim that they themselves made with authority to immediately find ways to NOT explain their own claim - as opposed to simply answering some questions and actually explaining it.
And one would have to be more bent on diversion than respectable discourse to keep on making post after post about their baseless strawman accusation instead of just answering some questions and doing a little bit of explaining.
But, as one-eyed maxwel pointed out, the rules of the forum apparently don't forbid anyone from making an incredible claim, and then hiding behind things like, "You committed some logical fallacy so I'm not going to explain my claim", and, "I'm not required by law to actually explain the thing I've just claimed as a fact".
To each their own. The OP is still having a fantastic time in this thread nonetheless. 🙂
Politeness after employing a logical fallacy does not undo the logical fallacy.
Then I suggest you get busy digging up your proof that I actually did employ a logical fallacy. And when you finally admit that you can't provide any such proof, your statement above boils down to, "Well Mike, you asked some questions and politely asked for further explanation for the authoritative claim made by Magenta."
Of course, I'm certain that a God-fearing and honest man such as yourself will follow that acknowledgement up with a sincere apology, right? 😉
Okay, now to address the part where you FINALLY attempt to actually ANSWER my simple questions (aka: my 'strawman argument' 😎), and EXPLAIN the authoritative statement about gravity that you and Magenta made. I'll address that in another post.
1
1
