Obama's speech nothing but strawmen..

[Bigfoot]

That’s ten straw men in slightly under 20 minutes. In other words, one logical fallacy every 2 minutes, on average.

Unfortunately, another characteristic was also in evidence in Obama’s speech: namely, his tendency to argue against positions that nobody holds (and by extension, to mischaracterize his opponents’ views so as to make them easier to argue against). In logic, this unfortunate tendency is referred to as a “straw man fallacy” and it was well-worn in President Obama’s speech today – so well-worn that at times, he seemed to cough up a new straw man fallacy with every sentence. How many of these arguments in bad faith did the President use? Read on as we list each one and explain their fallacious nature.

Straw Man #1:

“For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias.”

The President’s line about muskets and militias is a rhetorical flourish more than an argument, but the first part of this line is an obvious straw man. No one in the current political climate is arguing for a complete dissolution of government power such that only the American people as a collective would be responsible for defending the country or performing any other task. Rather, the question is how much responsibility should be left to private citizens. Saying “private citizens cannot handle all responsibilities” is not the same as saying “private citizens cannot handle any responsibility at all.”

Straw Man #2:

“No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores.”

Like the first straw man, this one argues against something which is obviously false, and which no one believes. A single, individual person obviously cannot do all of this alone, but again, that does not imply that if someone cannot do something alone, the government must step in and do it for them. For instance, an architect cannot build a skyscraper alone. He needs laborers, engineers, and other people. But saying he can’t do this alone is not the same thing as saying that private citizens cannot cooperatively agree to do this without help from the government.

Straw Man #3:

“We reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn.”

No one is proposing completely giving up caring for older generations, nor is anyone proposing completely ignoring young people’s needs. The question is how much government can afford to spend on each. More to the point, no one on either side is proposing complete abolition of programs that help the elderly or the disabled.

Straw Man #4:

“We do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few.”

This particular straw man presumably is meant to apply to income inequality. At least, that’s the only public policy issue that this author can see it relating to. However, as with the others, it is a misreading of people who argue against greater income equality. For one thing, freedom and happiness are not necessarily the same as money, and luck is not the only thing that makes a person wealthy. Moreover, people who argue that income inequality is not necessarily a problem are not defending the idea that only a few can be wealthy, which is a question of income mobility, not equality.

Straw Man #5:

“Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.”

This straw man, which deals with global warming, is actually two fallacies in one. It is a straw man because no one believes they can avoid the impact of natural disasters completely, and it also begs the question by assuming that solving global warming will solve the problem of fires, drought and storms, while simultaneously trying to prove that by solving global warming, natural disasters will be lessened.

Read more...Can You Guess How Many Straw Man Arguments Were in Obama?s Speech? | TheBlaze.com

.

I think most everyone but the dreamy eyed also noticed a lot of this.

 

[SniperFire]

I can never bring my self to listen to what that asshole says, much less read it.

LOL

 

[Oldguy]

Ah, another Beckbot weighs in with the same article quoted by the other Beckbot.

The propaganda machine churns on!

Can You Guess How Many Straw Man Arguments Were in Obama?s Speech? | TheBlaze.com

 

[Bigfoot]

Actually it was written by Mytheos Holt.

 

[Oldguy]

Actually it was written by Mytheos Holt.

Wow! Almost exactly the same response!

Do y'all Beckbots co-ordinate with each other or something?

 

[Bigfoot]

Actually it was written by Mytheos Holt.

Wow! Almost exactly the same response!

Do y'all Beckbots co-ordinate with each other or something?

Heh, no comment on the speech strawmen arguments..

 

[SniperFire]

Actually it was written by Mytheos Holt.

Wow! Almost exactly the same response!

Do y'all Beckbots co-ordinate with each other or something?

Heh, no comment on the speech strawmen arguments..

Well, 'Old guy' did say 'baaaa baaaaaaa.'