The Terri Schiavo Thread

“The courts did not re-look at the evidence. They only ruled on the previous decision.”
Sarge
1:36:37 PM
3/28/05

As it relates to the District Court's decision, that is a totally false statement.”

“chili - The "fact" that it truly was de novo is one of the things that was contested. Plus, they didn't allow all evidence in.

Anyways, I'm not here to debate the court's rulings. There are too many problems with that as well. In fact, that's my point. So to reference their decision is pointless. That's like referencing what Michael said to back him up. There are too many issues with his testimony.”

“So, what should we do Sarge?

Just say "screw the Courts" and do our own thing?”

“chili - Of course not. But we need to look at this case as citizens from both sides and look at where mistakes were made.

Let me ask you something chili. Anytime a court decision goes on appeal, it do so why? Because somebody feels that somebody screwed up - that important informatio wasn't allowed in, or considered, or there was a bias, or something was amiss. Same here. You don't say "screw the courts" just because something was appealed and lost. This is not different. This isn't unusual to find fault in the courts decision. Appeals are made all of the time.”

“One thing to remember about going to court....


One half of the litigants win......the other half loses.

You can always come up with issues. But when the Appellate process is over, the decision becomes final.”

“Amen.......chili !!”

“Ahhhh, wonderful Christian holiday was spent with Parents, 5 brothers and sister in laws, 8 nephews, 2 nieces.

Couldn't avoid the Shiavo debate.
For the record, our adult family has made our wishes known to each other in the case that one of us were to end up like Mrs Shiavo.

Our family debate took many twists and turns.
We have an Uncle who's wife had a rough pregnancy and it took 12 years for him to secure a divorce from the woman who was left with the mind of a 3rd grader.
Twice, My mother wouldn't be alive today if it were not for machines.
One of my sis-in-laws grandfathers was not expected to live to see the sun rise today because he refused to be hooked up to a machine.
A feeding tube should be considered a machine. Ya gotta plug the thing into the wall so that the moving parts can do their part.

Our family view goes like this.
11 adults are with Mr Shiavo
2 adults are with Mrs Shiavo's parents. Most of the family has strong Christian values.”

“chili - Do you have equal enthusiasm for death penalty cases?”

“As on many subjects, reasonable minds will differ.

Our system of Justice may not be perfect, but it does lend itself to finality of disputes.”

“Can you answer the question directly please?

(off topic - A very liberal coworker/friend of mine read this just now and asked if you are a professor of Beating Around the Bush 101?)
last edited: 3/28/05 1:18:36 PM”

“I don't what kind of enthuisasm I have for any of the cases any more.

However, I use the same standard. The Law is the Law (no matter how much I disagree with it) and when the Death Penalty is imposed and appeals expire, the sentence has to be carried out.”

“You're repeating what we both know is law, but you won't speak out and answer my question directly. That's how I feel about your argument regarding the courts too, it's not one I'd want to stand behind either.”

“Frankly Sarge --

You have tossed the accusation about that many folks have used staw man argument tactics on several occasions.


It seems to be one of your old standbys.

Here is the funny part:


1. YOU don't seem to know what a straw man arguement is. I haven't seen you refer to someone's arguemnt correctly as a classic straw man arguement YET.

2. (THIS IS THE FUN ONE). As you are using it, the accusing someone of using a straw man argument . .is, in fact, a straw man argument on your part.


To understand the logical fallacy that I have accused you of, you will need to know what a true straw man argument is.

By try to follow along.

A straw man argument is when, in the course of debate, you set up an argument on behalf of your opponent which is then easily torn down.

Instead of attacking your opponent's REAL argument, you attack this ficticious side arguement, or restated argument, that is more easily defeated.

That is, instead of attacking the man . . you attack a straw man.



Now Sarge. Stay with me.

BY ACCUSING EWKER AND OTHERS OF MAKING STRAW MAN ARGUEMENTS . . .YOU ARE NOT ATTACKING OR ANSWERING THE MEAT OF THEIR ARGUMENT . . .YOU ARE DEFLECTING . . YOU HAVE SET THIS ACCUSATION UP AS THE STRAW MAN . . .

You see???? You aren't answering Ewker's points . . .you are merely accusing him of incorrect arguements . . .you setting up, and then taking apart a straw man.



You have, Sarge, provided us with the perfect example of what a strawman arguement is.


Thank you.


Two points.

1.

I may not always demonstrate it on this board, but I got an A in undergrad logic at Colby College in Waterville ME.


2.

The definition of a strawman argument, which at least one of us, could use some help with before we use it in a sentence:

Straw Man

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition:
The author attacks an argument which is different from, and
usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

Examples:
(i) People who opposed the Charlottown Accord probably just
wanted Quebec to separate. But we want Quebec to stay in
Canada.
(ii) We should have conscription. People don't want to enter
the military because they find it an inconvenience. But they
should realize that there are more important things than
convenience.

Proof:
Show that the opposition's argument has been
misrepresented by showing that the opposition has a stronger
argument. Describe the stronger argument.”

““You're repeating what we both know is law, but you won't speak out and answer my question directly. That's how I feel about your argument regarding the courts too, it's not one I'd want to stand behind either.”
Sarge
2:40:42 PM
3/28/05


In my bouncing in and out of this thread I must have missed the underlying question.

For my benefit, will you repeat it again?”

“I don't think I've ever seen anyone who could stir the masses like Sarge. He even beats Vilink. Yeah I said it...VIOLINK!

Yur the best Sarge!”

“lee - Couple things wrong with your logic.

1. I didn't attack an argument when I said they were using a straw man. I was merely pointing out that that was not a valid argument, or one in which the premise was incorrect.

2. For me to have attacked a "weaker argument", one in which a correct premise was made would have had to been made. Otherwise in a debate, you must point out that the premise is wrong, which is exactly what I did.

3. Your point about your "A" is in itself a fallacy known as appeal to authority.

4. If you got an "A", maybe (and I'm just making a suggestion here) you go back and review your notes. It would be pointless to debate an argument in which the premise is incorrect.

5. Your premise is incorrect that I was using a straw man for another reason. You left out an important part of a straw man argument in your definition, namely, the part where the attacker actually "sets-up" the other positions argument. I never did that, yet that is a necessary aspect of a straw man.”

“chili - Don't worry about it. If you have time later feel free to revisit this.”

“When I get time I will re-read the posts and try to find the question I must have missed.”

“Sarge --


Well. That's somewhat better. But still not quite there.



First:

1. I didn't attack an argument when I said they were using a straw man. I was merely pointing out that that was not a valid argument, or one in which the premise was incorrect.


{Emphasis mine}

Right. My point exactly. Rather than addressing their arguments, for which I can't only presume you didn't have an adequate answer, you instead chose to address the structure of their argument, by accusing them of strawman tactics.


You dodged their arguement by attacking something else.

Sarge --- You don't have to agree with me. You can dodge this too. You haven't learned anything yet on this thread, I don't expect you to learn this.

My post wasn't as much for your benefit as for the amusement of Ewker and others.


Your second point. I don't understand at all. I think you had a typo or something in it.

I will go back to my first point, which is that the "weaker arguement", or the "set up straw man" for in your case is the accusation of a straw man. By only addressing that , you haven't addressed their real arguement. I take your point that your straw man doesn't stem from the same set of premises as their original arguement. But still . . .it has provided a convinient cover for you to avoid arguments for which you have no answer.

3. Of course it was an appeal to authority bonehead. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an appeal to authority. Appealing to objective third party fact. Of course, you don't have to accept that I got an A. Don't much care.


4. I got that A in 1985. I ain't got dem notes no more.

5.

where the attacker actually "sets-up" the other positions argument. I never did that, yet that is a necessary aspect of a straw man

Again. [If I sound reptetive, it is because your points are repetitive. But i didn't want you to accuse me of dodging or obfuscating on any of them.]

You did "set up" the arguement, albeit not the classic "restatement in weaker light" manner . . .you merely dodged their arguement altogether by setting it up as a straw man, and tearing that down.”

“I realize now that I misnamed this thread.

matt - could you please change it to "Sarge & His Dead Horse"?

Thanks.”

“That's great vioLIN! Really it is! That's so funny. Honestly, that's just great! You got a winner there vioLIN. That's classic. Really classic. Oh boy. That's funny. (and so on)”

“Thanks. I was afraid you'd become a totally humorless bore.”

“The Vatican has acquired Terri's Feeding Tube for use on a yet to be named patient....
















Should I stop praying for a job?”

“Sarge--

My understanding of your original premise. I could be wrong. But this is what I thought you were arguing from the beginning:

Michael Schiavo is NOT the right person to make healthcare decisions for Terri. He lost his primacy in this capacity by committing adultery. At that point he should have been removed as decision maker for his wife. Her parents should be calling the shots.



Is that it?



Okay.


Here's my answer. Every court on the east coast. Florida, Atlanta and Washington DC has affirmed that Michael Schiavo, adulterous affair notwithstanding, is legally the primary healthcare decision maker for Terri. I believe the courts had the option to appoint a guardian for her as well. And over the years there have in fact been three guardian ad litems appointed to represent her interests, independent of either the family or her Husband.


So. Bottom line. In the law of this land. The law the governs all of our actions and interactions. Affirmed some 20 times now.

You. Are. Wrong.


On your premise, if I stated it correctly: you. are. wrong.



Have a nice day. Thanks for playing.”

“lee - On your premise, you are wrong.

Wow. That was easy. I'll have to start using that argument from now on. I'll win every argument. Thanks for that tip lee.”

“vioLIN - Do you know what's a "bore"? Someone who continually makes personal attacks to win an argument. That is, unless you're on the playground. Then you'll probably get a lot of cheers.

PS - If you're "bored", feel free to don't read the posts. I find it funny you are so bored by my posts, yet you read them anyways. Get some fresh air dude.”

“"Wow. That was easy. I'll have to start using that argument from now on. I'll win every argument."

I think Oryx hold the patent on that line...”

“sorry ... I'm new here.”

“Sarge ---


YOU DID IT AGAIN. EITHER ADDRESS OR ADMIT IT.

Look.


1. Either tell me that I got your premise wrong, and restate it correctly,

or

2.

Tell me, clearly and succintly, why your logic, (as I expressed in the statement of your premise) is RIGHT, and all of the court's loigc is wrong.”

“blah blah blah Blah BLAH BLAH BLAH!”

“Am I the only one who figured out Sarge's debating style?

”

“we're pushing a thousand posts, here, people! what will be the special prize?”

“I hope someday this happens to someone I care about. What a benefit to have the whole World chime in and give its opinion. What a resource that would be!

Plus - while half the world would hate my decision and vilify me......and assume I was being an ahole..... as is there right......especially since they have a vested interest.......

the other half would be for me! I wish I was one of Terri's relatives. Or at least one of the judges getting death threats.....”

“Once again, anybody have a personal problem with me, email me at rb_allen@hotmail.com with the words "Trail Talk" in the header.

We'll meet to discuss. Understand Nigal?”

“Its black and white Sarge.


If I got your premise wrong. Just say so. restate it. Tell me in 100 words or less exactly what your arguement is.


If I got it right.


Then tell me why anyone on this page should conclude that the court's are wrong, and you are right. Just on your facts. Just on the basis of the argument as you've stated it.



The fact is: You are wrong. Go ahead and call my reference to 20 court decisions an "appeal to authority". It IS an appeal to authority.

On matters of interpretation of existing law there is no higher authority in this land than the court system. And NO court has challenged or overturned Michael Schiavo's authority. None.


You are wrong.”

“lee - You apparently didn't read my response. A straw man requires things that you didn't use in your definition.

Why change the subject? You accused me of using a straw man myself, yet after I responded, you totally avoided the subject. What's up?

Are you afraid to revisit your own logic and the faults I pointed out in it?”

“You spend more time clarifying and reposting stuff than staying on the issue Sarge. Round and round and round and round and round...”

“We'll meet to discuss. Understand Nigal?”
sarge
4:24:16 PM
3/28/05


I udderstand I might could be making some cement Galoshes (sp???) for youz to wear. I think I need to meet you at da Potomac River. Will go fishin....”

“WTF are you talking about Nigal? You are saying that I don't stay on issue?

You've got to be kidding. That's all I've asked on this thread. Get real.

If I "clarified" it's because people take things out of context and use straw man arguments. Is that somehow my fault? Apprently you think so.”

“WIll he make me an offer I can't refuse?”

“I take it you are threatening to beat up people who disagree with you now sarge?

What a putz.”

“Not to change the subject, but how long will it be before one of the "right to lifers" puts a bullet in the husband?”

“LMAO @ Violin and Nigal.”

“Sarge.

That is BS.

I addressed everyone of your points, and I conceded that your use of straw man as an accusation did NOT fit an exact classic defintion of strawman. Conceded. Said I was not strictly speaking correct.

Nonetheless, your use of the accusation has allowed you to time and time again dodge and leave unanswered arguments put to you.



So here it is again Sarge:


If I got your premise wrong. Just say so. restate it. Tell me in 100 words or less exactly what your arguement is.


If I got it right.


Then tell me why anyone on this page should conclude that the court's are wrong, and you are right. Just on your facts. Just on the basis of the argument as you've stated it.



The fact is: You are wrong. Go ahead and call my reference to 20 court decisions an "appeal to authority". It IS an appeal to authority.

On matters of interpretation of existing law there is no higher authority in this land than the court system. And NO court has challenged or overturned Michael Schiavo's authority. None.





What's up Sarge. Gonna weasel away from this, or address it?”

“and MY big brother is bigger than YOUR big brother and will kick his a$$.

It that the intent of meeting to discuss "anybody have a personal problem with me"

That sounds so like the "step outside" heard in bar discussions LOL.

I think Nigal's post just above accurately describes this thread.”

“"If I "clarified" it's because people take things out of context and use straw man arguments. Is that somehow my fault? Apprently you think so.”

Well, like, yeah! :) The one person everyone seems to have a hard time understanding is you. I agree she shouldn't die and even I can't figure out waht the hell you're talking about. So yeah, I'd say it's you and not us.”

“YOU ARE NOT ADDRESS DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR ORIGINAL PREMISE.



YOU ARE AGAIN DODGING.”

“is it me? is it me? am i one thousand?”

“lee - "I addressed everyone of your points, and I conceded that your use of straw man as an accusation did NOT fit an exact classic defintion of strawman."

When did you do that? What time was the post?”

“one thousand!”