Would you mind explaining your comment?
I'd love to.
Here's the original post -- the board software wipes it out...
Yep you libtards are all about choice right?
Soda - no
Types of Alcoholic Drink Mixes - no
Light blubs -no
Right to Work (right not to join a Union) - no
School Choice - no
Right to Choose one's healthcare - no
Right to carry guns provided by the constitution - no
The first line "you libtards" not only drops ad hominem but lumps whatever group he's talking about into a single monolith. That's two fallacies right there, and we haven't even got to the strawmen yet.
The next is a litany of seven bullshit strawmen put into the collective mouth of the aforementioned entity -- speaking for them of course. As if somewhere on earth there's this, I dunno, species that just robotically spews all this in toto. Only a dolt who believes himself in such roboticity could entertain such a notion. Thus, "Seven Strawmen for Seven Dolts", a play on the play "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers".
![]()
I understood the reference to Seven Brides...
I (mistakenly, it seems) assumed that you would be commenting on the post to which you were responding rather than the preceding post. Since my post was merely a comment on the YouTube video contained in the previous post, your response seemed slightly out of place.
In any case, the video purports to show Democrats (at the Democratic National Convention) answering questions about positions that seem common to those who support the Democratic party. Perhaps "libtards" is a overgeneralization (I try not to use such terms myself,) but Democrats, like any other group of voluntary association, do tend to support some common positions. The video, again purports, to show Democrats supporting the positions in question.To say that the above positions are fallacious for no reason other than, "not all liberals think that" is similar to saying, "nuh uh!" If you doubt the authenticity of the video, you could point that out. If you do not support the positions described, you can point that out. You, however, cannot speak for others any more than the previous poster can. Since his post at least purports to show evidence that Democrats support the described positions and yours lacks any evidence at all, I'd say he came out ahead in that.
I didn't even watch the video. My comment was on the original list of seven strawmen, which addressed "libtards". Which I have to assume refers to Liberals -- not Democrats. Therefore whatever's in a video of a Democratic convention, if your starting point is Liberals, is irrelevant.
If the first poster is addressing Liberals, and then switches to Democrats, then that's moving the goalposts, which is yet another fallacy. And they remain strawmen anyway. So no, a poster who can't even decide which blanket he's statementing with, I don't think he "comes out ahead" of anything. That's a fallacy within another fallacy.
Last edited: