Amazes me how many don't know what straw man means.
If there exists somebody who believes x and y, then it's not only acceptable to talk about, but it aught to be encouraged to talk about these people. Even better if by a comedian.
You dont get to identify with the person that is being made fun of, and then say your version is different; so therefore the speaker is wrong.
That, is what you are doing, and it actually is a fallacy.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
He fabricates an imaginary argument. Then he shuts down the argument he fabricated for himself to shut down.
You dont get to identify with the person that is being made fun of
The person being made fun of is the strawman.
it actually is a fallacy.
1. That's not what I'm doing. You're strawmanning. 2. What fallacy is it?
The comedian doesn't know who the heck you are. Got it?
So - How can he be "exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating [Kozel's] argument?
Think about it.
Another thing:
One doesnt have to officially categorize a fallacy, to recognize a logical fallacy.
If you believe all the fallacies are already carefully defined then you don't understand the meaning in the first place.
By placing yourself the victim of a red herring; to somebody who has never met your argument (and wasnt even talking to you), is, for lack of a defined word: fallacious.
Hang out with me for a few months. I can identify 3 or 4 more fallacies that aren't officially in the books; (on the shoulders of giants, of course.)
P1: criticisms that don't represent my argument are "strawman arguments"
P2: strawman arguments are fallacies
C: ergo, this misrepresentation of my arguments are also a fallacy
However your 1st premise is false. That's the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument.
Specifically you have time traveled the comedian's argument, 'ex post processus' (after the trial). [Note, this fallacy doesn't have an official name published in Logic 101 material, so don't bother to look it up. We can submit it for review. The 'kozel observation fallacy.' Or let's not do that because I annoy you, I suppose. So a better description, right now, is actually what @facelessone perfectly describes above: 'the niggerfaggot kike fallacy.']
Effectively you are the one scarecrowing their argument in the first place, but by accusing it of misrepresenting an argument that hasn't even happened yet.
Personally? I'd call it "back to the future fallacy" That name aught to get us published.
I digress..
So, listen up. The comedian was talking about people who specifically believe nothing created the universe and who also believe nothing happens when you die. So that may or may not be your argument. I know people who think that. It certainly is an accurate representation of some argument, because that's what I have been told by some. I also understand this is not a perfect example of all athiest-scientist-evolutionist beliefs.
Perhaps there is an amphiboly or equivocation fallacy at play, but there is no scarecrow.
Not to harp on the subject but flat-earthers use this one so frequently that it's worth fleshing out, because i keep seeing it everywhere.
The difference is that when flat earthers use it; its just a hail mary fallacy [name also doesnt exist, dont look it up]. In that they lost the argument: so they plainly cite any fallacy in a last ditch effort to poison your argument. @love240 does this, zealously. But we notice its a different kind of fallacy, then what I describe above. If you make any analogy, love240 will just say "red herring." No matter how accurate the analogy is, so he finds an exit and thinking is cut short.
It's almost like these are both symptoms of what should be called a "mirror fallacy" in that the speaker is precisely guilty of which they accuse others of. Or, better, the "Pelosi/Schumer Fallacy"
So maybe you tell me: What else did you mean when you said this comedian committed a strawman, if not, then, how I just explained it?
Thats like complaining about Ad Hominem, and then saying "i never accused you of attacking me."
Um. Yes you did. By the definition of what that fallacy means. You just literally said they misinterpreted your argument. You don't get to go back and say you never said that. You said it. So explain yourself or forever be niggerfaggot kike.
He created a strawman. Upon the strawman he pinned a fabricated argument. An argument that he himself created. And then he destroyed this strawman that he created.
He also set a number of very specific set of conditions to the argument he has with his strawman as fact when they are not fact. He purposely ignored variables such as mathematics.
He further spoke on behalf of his strawman in the conclusion claiming to know what the "nothing" strawman would say in response to his loaded question, then took a noncongruent logical leap, and concluded with this "joke" with an appeal to emotion of his christian audience.
Its only funny if you're emotionally invested in a system of faith as it reinforces those feelings. Upon logical analysis it falls short. It was not funny. It made me upset that the followup laughter wasn't a laugh track.
I mean... The essence of his argument works even better for a no-god proposition:
There's an infinite regression problem of where 'god' came from, if we agree that 'nothing' is only a concept and doesn't concretely exist. To which the theist's response would be something like "God always was/always will be..."
Isn't it much more parsimonious then to negate the 'creation' part entirely (it doesn't seem to be required, if there is no 'nothing') and just say that existence is the default state—that it always was and always will be?
That's one of the major issues with the arrogant religious types. They think the big bang was an actual explosion (usually because they can't determine the difference between explosion and expansion), and they think the universe came from nothing.
No, the matter was always there. It was densely compacted into a singular mass that collapsed upon itself. The expansion started and hasn't stopped since.
You can believe "book" all you want; just stop trying to force your ideologies onto others, that's jew behavior, stop it.
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 2 daysMay 26, 2025 21:47:22 ago (+2/-2)
Some guy smuggled out a VHS tape:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gAW3jmPWcE
[ + ] NoRefunds
[ - ] NoRefunds 1 point 2 daysMay 27, 2025 00:12:41 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 1 dayMay 27, 2025 07:37:29 ago (+1/-1)
Ride to Valhal instead.
Heil Odin! o/
[ + ] NoRefunds
[ - ] NoRefunds 0 points 1 dayMay 27, 2025 09:07:10 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo -1 points 1 dayMay 27, 2025 16:13:02 ago (+0/-1)
Why do you believe Jews?
[ + ] CoronaHoax
[ - ] CoronaHoax 3 points 2 daysMay 26, 2025 21:52:00 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] boekanier
[ - ] boekanier 2 points 2 daysMay 27, 2025 01:08:21 ago (+3/-1)
[ + ] Prairie
[ - ] Prairie 2 points 2 daysMay 27, 2025 05:50:42 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Indoctrinated_USA
[ - ] Indoctrinated_USA 1 point 2 daysMay 26, 2025 23:48:09 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Kozel
[ - ] Kozel 0 points 2 daysMay 26, 2025 22:17:39 ago (+2/-2)
xcucks always arguing with their own made up boogeymen
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 6 points 2 daysMay 26, 2025 22:28:59 ago (+6/-0)
If there exists somebody who believes x and y, then it's not only acceptable to talk about, but it aught to be encouraged to talk about these people. Even better if by a comedian.
You dont get to identify with the person that is being made fun of, and then say your version is different; so therefore the speaker is wrong.
That, is what you are doing, and it actually is a fallacy.
[ + ] Kozel
[ - ] Kozel 0 points 2 daysMay 27, 2025 00:52:48 ago (+0/-0)
He fabricates an imaginary argument. Then he shuts down the argument he fabricated for himself to shut down.
The person being made fun of is the strawman.
1. That's not what I'm doing. You're strawmanning.
2. What fallacy is it?
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 3 points 2 daysMay 27, 2025 01:07:16 ago (+3/-0)*
The comedian doesn't know who the heck you are. Got it?
So - How can he be "exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating [Kozel's] argument?
Think about it.
Another thing:
One doesnt have to officially categorize a fallacy, to recognize a logical fallacy.
If you believe all the fallacies are already carefully defined then you don't understand the meaning in the first place.
By placing yourself the victim of a red herring; to somebody who has never met your argument (and wasnt even talking to you), is, for lack of a defined word: fallacious.
Hang out with me for a few months. I can identify 3 or 4 more fallacies that aren't officially in the books; (on the shoulders of giants, of course.)
[ + ] FacelessOne
[ - ] FacelessOne 2 points 2 daysMay 27, 2025 02:29:20 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Kozel
[ - ] Kozel 1 point 2 daysMay 27, 2025 02:46:27 ago (+1/-0)
I never said he's representing my argument. What the fuck are you talking about?
I've not placed myself anywhere. Stop being a faggot.
No, you will annoy me by being stupid.
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 1 point 2 daysMay 27, 2025 03:26:52 ago (+1/-0)*
P1: criticisms that don't represent my argument are "strawman arguments"
P2: strawman arguments are fallacies
C: ergo, this misrepresentation of my arguments are also a fallacy
However your 1st premise is false. That's the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument.
Specifically you have time traveled the comedian's argument, 'ex post processus' (after the trial). [Note, this fallacy doesn't have an official name published in Logic 101 material, so don't bother to look it up. We can submit it for review. The 'kozel observation fallacy.' Or let's not do that because I annoy you, I suppose. So a better description, right now, is actually what @facelessone perfectly describes above: 'the niggerfaggot kike fallacy.']
Effectively you are the one scarecrowing their argument in the first place, but by accusing it of misrepresenting an argument that hasn't even happened yet.
Personally? I'd call it "back to the future fallacy" That name aught to get us published.
I digress..
So, listen up. The comedian was talking about people who specifically believe nothing created the universe and who also believe nothing happens when you die. So that may or may not be your argument. I know people who think that. It certainly is an accurate representation of some argument, because that's what I have been told by some. I also understand this is not a perfect example of all athiest-scientist-evolutionist beliefs.
Perhaps there is an amphiboly or equivocation fallacy at play, but there is no scarecrow.
Not to harp on the subject but flat-earthers use this one so frequently that it's worth fleshing out, because i keep seeing it everywhere.
The difference is that when flat earthers use it; its just a hail mary fallacy [name also doesnt exist, dont look it up]. In that they lost the argument: so they plainly cite any fallacy in a last ditch effort to poison your argument. @love240 does this, zealously. But we notice its a different kind of fallacy, then what I describe above. If you make any analogy, love240 will just say "red herring." No matter how accurate the analogy is, so he finds an exit and thinking is cut short.
It's almost like these are both symptoms of what should be called a "mirror fallacy" in that the speaker is precisely guilty of which they accuse others of. Or, better, the "Pelosi/Schumer Fallacy"
So maybe you tell me: What else did you mean when you said this comedian committed a strawman, if not, then, how I just explained it?
Thats like complaining about Ad Hominem, and then saying "i never accused you of attacking me."
Um. Yes you did. By the definition of what that fallacy means. You just literally said they misinterpreted your argument. You don't get to go back and say you never said that. You said it. So explain yourself or forever be niggerfaggot kike.
[ + ] Kozel
[ - ] Kozel 0 points 2 daysMay 27, 2025 03:49:46 ago (+0/-0)
He also set a number of very specific set of conditions to the argument he has with his strawman as fact when they are not fact. He purposely ignored variables such as mathematics.
He further spoke on behalf of his strawman in the conclusion claiming to know what the "nothing" strawman would say in response to his loaded question, then took a noncongruent logical leap, and concluded with this "joke" with an appeal to emotion of his christian audience.
Its only funny if you're emotionally invested in a system of faith as it reinforces those feelings. Upon logical analysis it falls short. It was not funny. It made me upset that the followup laughter wasn't a laugh track.
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 1 point 2 daysMay 27, 2025 03:57:15 ago (+1/-0)
Did you get through school with that crap?
[ + ] Kozel
[ - ] Kozel 1 point 2 daysMay 27, 2025 05:13:10 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 0 points 1 dayMay 27, 2025 12:11:41 ago (+0/-0)
That makes you a double downer kike nigger retard Jr, the third, MBA.
So there.
[ + ] DivineLight2
[ - ] DivineLight2 0 points 2 daysMay 27, 2025 01:36:34 ago (+2/-2)
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 1 dayMay 27, 2025 08:57:42 ago (+0/-0)
Expansion.
Listen to your book and put your pride aside.
Pride is one of the seven deadliest for a reason.
[ + ] anrach
[ - ] anrach 0 points 1 dayMay 27, 2025 07:12:13 ago (+0/-0)
There's an infinite regression problem of where 'god' came from, if we agree that 'nothing' is only a concept and doesn't concretely exist. To which the theist's response would be something like "God always was/always will be..."
Isn't it much more parsimonious then to negate the 'creation' part entirely (it doesn't seem to be required, if there is no 'nothing') and just say that existence is the default state—that it always was and always will be?
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 1 dayMay 27, 2025 08:55:28 ago (+0/-0)
That's one of the major issues with the arrogant religious types. They think the big bang was an actual explosion (usually because they can't determine the difference between explosion and expansion), and they think the universe came from nothing.
No, the matter was always there. It was densely compacted into a singular mass that collapsed upon itself. The expansion started and hasn't stopped since.
You can believe "book" all you want; just stop trying to force your ideologies onto others, that's jew behavior, stop it.