General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: $20,833.00 per month???? [View all]stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You keep attacking points that other people do not make, i.e., creating straw men.
Once again, I am not saying that $250K is the same as $50K. I am saying that a household income of $250K has a life that is more similar to one of a household making $50K/yr than one where the household is a 1% household.
That has been my point from the beginning and it is one you have not addressed. You keep addressing all kinds of other points that no one has made.
If we cut anyone's income by 80% it is going to be a severe change. No one asserted otherwise.
On Edit: Here, you need this badly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man" , and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
.
.
.
Structure
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
1. Person 1 has position X.
2. Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
2.Quoting an opponent's words out of contexti.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).
3.Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's argumentsthus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
4.Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5.Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3.Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position.