The Fentanyl Crisis is finally solved....

[Markk]

To deserve the "straw man" label, the misrepresentation should be pretty outrageous, and make the opponent's position out to be something really obviously stupid, or at least quite a lot more stupid than their real position is.

LOl, okay so are you saying that what he wrote is not outrageous? Do you agree with what he wrote about; that a person that he had sent to camps to rehab could never relapse because had eliminated all drug suppliers both legal, and illegal.

in my opinion what he did here in order to justify his outrageous assertion that some how a chronically drug addicted person, who is locked up, detained and denied drugs, then being released back into society, can't relapse....because all drug suppliers, both legal and illegal no longer operate.

In context to this I wrote...."That is just another straw-man based on your hope that this plan would some how work."

Right or wrong, I believe it is possible to create a straw-man type of fallacy in ones own argument. If I am wrong here then you tell me what type of fallacy it is, when one attaches their conclusions onto a very outrageous and impossible anchor, in which if that anchor fails, the argument falls apart?


Have you followed Gad's plan? Do you agree or disagree with it?

[Chap]

To deserve the "straw man" label, the misrepresentation should be pretty outrageous, and make the opponent's position out to be something really obviously stupid, or at least quite a lot more stupid than their real position is.

LOL, okay so are you saying that what he wrote is not outrageous?

[,...]

To help you understand, I have emphasised an important word for you. To make an argument qualify as a 'straw-man argument', it is not enough to for it to be outrageous. It ALSO has to 'make the opponent's position out to be something really obviously stupid, or at least quite a lot more stupid than their real position is'.

Is Markk a bit slow on the uptake? I mean "and" is a pretty common word with an obvious meaning. But maybe I am being elitist?

[Markk]

LOl, okay so are you saying that what he wrote is not outrageous?

[,...]

To help you understand, I have emphasised an important word for you. To make an argument qualify as a 'straw-man argument', it is not enough to for it to be outrageous. It ALSO has to 'make the opponent's position out to be something really obviously stupid, or at least quite a lot more stupid than their real position is'.

Is Markk a bit slow on the uptake? I mean "and" is a pretty common word with an obvious meaning. But maybe I am being elitist?

So me stating that over 50 percent of rehabbing addicts relapse (fact), and that it is much higher for those that are incarcerated while addicted, then released (fact)....and Gad saying those facts are irrelevant, because of his theory, however imaginary, demands these folks could not possibly relapse because there would be no drugs for them to get,....is not stupid and outrageous?

What do you call that? I told you I open to your definition?

This is not about a wrong or right definition, it is about you having to find something I wrote you can attack, other than what the discussion is about. I get that.

[Gadianton]

This is not about a wrong or right definition, it is about you having to find something I wrote you can attack, other than what the discussion is about. I get that.

Are you trying to say that Chap correcting your use of the term "strawman" is a red herring?

I think it's appropriate that your misuse of logical fallacy terms is corrected because you sling them around as blanket rebuttals that spare you the work of articulating your objections. What would you substitute for the word "strawman" in your sentence:

That is just another straw-man based on your hope that this plan would some how work

I can't think of a way to make your sentence even intelligible let alone a good rebuttal to the part of my plan that you're responding to. What are the options? Maybe "that is just speculation based on your hope that this plan would somehow work". But that's not really intelligible either. As a sentence, it's going to take some work to make it actually mean something.

I don't think you need to worry about anyone agreeing with me. Nobody on this forum is going to agree with or like my plan for a variety of reasons. One reason others may not be responding to my plan is that they might wish to see you do your own work. You wanted me to elaborate on my plan and I have done so; it wasn't their request. Now you say "strawman" as a place holder indicating my plan is inadequate in your mind, while you hope others jump in to explain why it's inadequate.

[Markk]

This is not about a wrong or right definition, it is about you having to find something I wrote you can attack, other than what the discussion is about. I get that.

Are you trying to say that Chap correcting your use of the term "strawman" is a red herring?

Yes and no, depending how you look at it.

To be clear, I am saying that he and most others are giving you a free ride on a beyond stupid plan, and finding irrelevant ways to find fault in my exposing your plans lack of sense. It is nothing new here, and that obvious.

I think it's appropriate that your misuse of logical fallacy terms is corrected because you sling them around as blanket rebuttals that spare you the work of articulating your objections. What would you substitute for the word "strawman" in your sentence:

Well, lol, I believe right or wrong I have done a fairly decent job of showing the weakness's in your plan, and mainly just by asking you questions about your plan.

I already stated I am fine with calling it a informal fallacy. You can call it what ever you like as long as you deal with my point. which is as I explained to PG....

Right or wrong, I believe it is possible to create a straw-man type of fallacy in ones own argument. If I am wrong here then you tell me what type of fallacy it is, when one attaches their conclusions onto a very outrageous and impossible anchor, in which if that anchor fails, the argument falls apart?


I followed with Chap

"... So me stating that over 50 percent of rehabbing addicts relapse (fact), and that it is much higher for those that are incarcerated while addicted, then released (fact)....and Gad saying those facts are irrelevant because of his theory, however imaginary, demands these folks could not possibly relapse because there would be no drugs for them to get..."

You tell me what fallacy this would be, and I will happily apply it if it makes sense. How about we just call it a false premise fallacy?

I can't think of a way to make your sentence even intelligible let alone a good rebuttal to the part of my plan that you're responding to. What are the options? Maybe "that is just speculation based on your hope that this plan would somehow work". But that's not really intelligible either. As a sentence, it's going to take some work to make it actually mean something.

Again...see above. I have given more than enough clarity to my position, in regard your position that there would be no drugs available.

I don't think you need to worry about anyone agreeing with me. Nobody on this forum is going to agree with or like my plan for a variety of reasons. One reason others may not be responding to my plan is that they might wish to see you do your own work. You wanted me to elaborate on my plan and I have done so; it wasn't their request.

Lol, the first few that responded to my OP thought you were kidding, as did I.

Now you say "strawman" as a place holder indicating my plan is inadequate in your mind, while you hope others jump in to explain why it's inadequate.

Not really in regards to why I ask others to opine. I do so more because they what to nitpick, throw out drive by comments to both your positions and my positions and questions, without offering their own. As you wrote they don't agree with your position, nor the way Trump has started to attack the cartels, so I believe if they are going to oppose those, they should offer their own. I stated I respect the fact you present a plan, and I don't think it is going out on a limb to request they do the same, if they don't like Trump's start.

[Morley]

Are you trying to say that Chap correcting your use of the term "strawman" is a red herring?

Yes and no, depending how you look at it.

To be clear, I am saying that he and most others are giving you a free ride on a beyond stupid plan, and finding irrelevant ways to find fault in my exposing your plans lack of sense. It is nothing new here, and that obvious.

I think it's appropriate that your misuse of logical fallacy terms is corrected because you sling them around as blanket rebuttals that spare you the work of articulating your objections. What would you substitute for the word "strawman" in your sentence:

Well, lol, I believe right or wrong I have done a fairly decent job of showing the weakness's in your plan, and mainly just by asking you questions about your plan.

I already stated I am fine with calling it a informal fallacy. You can call it what ever you like as long as you deal with my point. which is as I explained to PG....

Right or wrong, I believe it is possible to create a straw-man type of fallacy in ones own argument. If I am wrong here then you tell me what type of fallacy it is, when one attaches their conclusions onto a very outrageous and impossible anchor, in which if that anchor fails, the argument falls apart?


I followed with Chap

"... So me stating that over 50 percent of rehabbing addicts relapse (fact), and that it is much higher for those that are incarcerated while addicted, then released (fact)....and Gad saying those facts are irrelevant because of his theory, however imaginary, demands these folks could not possibly relapse because there would be no drugs for them to get..."

You tell me what fallacy this would be, and I will happily apply it if it makes sense. How about we just call it a false premise fallacy?

I can't think of a way to make your sentence even intelligible let alone a good rebuttal to the part of my plan that you're responding to. What are the options? Maybe "that is just speculation based on your hope that this plan would somehow work". But that's not really intelligible either. As a sentence, it's going to take some work to make it actually mean something.

Again...see above. I have given more than enough clarity to my position, in regard your position that there would be no drugs available.

I don't think you need to worry about anyone agreeing with me. Nobody on this forum is going to agree with or like my plan for a variety of reasons. One reason others may not be responding to my plan is that they might wish to see you do your own work. You wanted me to elaborate on my plan and I have done so; it wasn't their request.

Lol, the first few that responded to my OP thought you were kidding, as did I.

Now you say "strawman" as a place holder indicating my plan is inadequate in your mind, while you hope others jump in to explain why it's inadequate.

Not really in regards to why I ask others to opine. I do so more because they what to nitpick, throw out drive by comments to both your positions and my positions and questions, without offering their own. As you wrote they don't agree with your position, nor the way Trump has started to attack the cartels, so I believe if they are going to oppose those, they should offer their own. I stated I respect the fact you present a plan, and I don't think it is going out on a limb to request they do the same, if they don't like Trump's start.

Markk (or Hoss, if you wish)--

I agree that fentanyl addiction is a problem that needs to be solved. However, I think mass deportation is idiocy, and that it's not going to end the fentanyl problem. Voicing that opinion puts me under no obligation to come up with an alternative.

I do think Gad's plan would solve the fentanyl crisis. It would create bigger problems than the one that it's designed to solve, but it would get rid of fentanyl. You're frustrated because he met your challenge.

Unlike Gad's plan that creates problems by solving a problem, Trump's plan creates problems without solving anything. Trump's plan not only wouldn't get rid of fentanyl, but would also create much bigger messes than fentanyl addiction.

[Markk]

Yes and no, depending how you look at it.

To be clear, I am saying that he and most others are giving you a free ride on a beyond stupid plan, and finding irrelevant ways to find fault in my exposing your plans lack of sense. It is nothing new here, and that obvious.



Well, lol, I believe right or wrong I have done a fairly decent job of showing the weakness's in your plan, and mainly just by asking you questions about your plan.

I already stated I am fine with calling it a informal fallacy. You can call it what ever you like as long as you deal with my point. which is as I explained to PG....

Right or wrong, I believe it is possible to create a straw-man type of fallacy in ones own argument. If I am wrong here then you tell me what type of fallacy it is, when one attaches their conclusions onto a very outrageous and impossible anchor, in which if that anchor fails, the argument falls apart?


I followed with Chap

"... So me stating that over 50 percent of rehabbing addicts relapse (fact), and that it is much higher for those that are incarcerated while addicted, then released (fact)....and Gad saying those facts are irrelevant because of his theory, however imaginary, demands these folks could not possibly relapse because there would be no drugs for them to get..."

You tell me what fallacy this would be, and I will happily apply it if it makes sense. How about we just call it a false premise fallacy?



Again...see above. I have given more than enough clarity to my position, in regard your position that there would be no drugs available.



Lol, the first few that responded to my OP thought you were kidding, as did I.



Not really in regards to why I ask others to opine. I do so more because they what to nitpick, throw out drive by comments to both your positions and my positions and questions, without offering their own. As you wrote they don't agree with your position, nor the way Trump has started to attack the cartels, so I believe if they are going to oppose those, they should offer their own. I stated I respect the fact you present a plan, and I don't think it is going out on a limb to request they do the same, if they don't like Trump's start.

Markk (or Hoss, if you wish)--

I agree that fentanyl addiction is a problem that needs to be solved. However, I think mass deportation is idiocy, and that it's not going to end the fentanyl problem. Voicing that opinion puts me under no obligation to come up with an alternative.

I do think Gad's plan would solve the fentanyl crisis. It would create bigger problems than the one that it's designed to solve, but it would get rid of fentanyl. You're frustrated because he met your challenge.

Unlike Gad's plan that creates problems by solving a problem, Trump's plan creates problems without solving anything. Trump's plan not only wouldn't get rid of fentanyl, but would also create much bigger messes than fentanyl addiction.

LOL, Hoss, Markk, both work.

What is ironic, I never said that mass deportation will solve the the fentanyl crisis. That is the biggest straw-man in the room. I never once said that. Or do I believe that is Trump's plan either.

You certainly don't have to come up with a plan. But I would love for you to tell how Gad's plan will stop the Fentanyl crisis, and just how it would be instituted. Can you give....say, a ten bullet point ROM on what his plan even is?

Also what is Trump's plan to stop the crisis?

LoL....I am not frustrated at all, I do find it amazing that anyone would think that a scattered plan that invites government instituted addiction could even get out of the planning room.

by the way, I love and look forward to seeing your avatar's, as a request I would love to see some Grama Moses....I really enjoy her perceptions. This one is cool, I can feel the wind and feel a storm coming. I love the hats blowing off and just her innocent easy approach. Her dogs are aways happy, I love that.

[Gadianton]

You tell me what fallacy this would be, and I will happily apply it if it makes sense. How about we just call it a false premise fallacy?

None of your choices are correct.

Since you've brought it up several times I'll address this issue again:

So me stating that over 50 percent of rehabbing addicts relapse (fact), and that it is much higher for those that are incarcerated while addicted, then released (fact)....and Gad saying those facts are irrelevant because of his theory, however imaginary, demands these folks could not possibly relapse because there would be no drugs for them to get..

Could I be any more clear that there is a phase A and a phase B of my plan? Phase B comes after phase A. My FEMA camps only come after phase A is successful. If phase A isn't successful, the FEMA camps never come -- we don't move on to phase B if there are drugs available that our users can relapse into. If phase A fails, then phase B never happens.

Think of it as basic planning rather than a fallacy. Suppose your buddy back east calls you up and wants to cruise around east coast beaches and pick up girls like back in the glory days. You tell him you have a plan. Phase A is you fly to the east coast and rent a convertible Mustang. Phase B is you drive to his house, pick him up, and then you hit the beaches with your sunglasses and top down. Your friend freaks out on you, telling you it's a terrible plan, a strawman or a false premise fallacy. You struggle to understand. After several attempts, it appears his problem is that these girls aren't going to get into a pinto with a couple of old guys cruising the beach. Your friend keeps asking you if it isn't a false premise or a strawman, then what fallacy is your plan?

Your friend struggles to understand that the plan was broken up into phases for a reason. Phase A is just to get down there and get the car that could work. But if all that's available is a pinto, well, you cancel phase B and just go out for beers.

[canpakes]

You certainly don't have to come up with a plan. But I would love for you to tell how Gad's plan will stop the Fentanyl crisis, and just how it would be instituted. Can you give....say, a ten bullet point ROM on what his plan even is?

I have a one-point ROM:

1. Less than the cost of tariffs and/or mass deportations.

[Morley]

What is ironic, I never said that mass deportation will solve the the fentanyl crisis. That is the biggest straw-man in the room. I never once said that. Or do I believe that is Trump's plan either.

Oh my God! I hope that you can imagine my embarrassment. Why would anyone think that mass deportations would get rid of fentanyl? How could anyone even imagine that mass deportations could do anything but destroy the economies and lives of millions of people in both the US and in Latin America? Mass deportations are going to be happening for some other reason that only Trump understands. I obviously got this one wrong.

So, let me thumb through my Trump talking points. Oh, here it is! Trump plans to get rid of fentanyl by ---- wait for it ---- imposing tariffs!

Tariffs! We'll tax those Mexican drug lords out of business. We'll tax our northern neighbor, too, to get rid of what the Whitehouse calls "Mexican cartels operating fentanyl and nitazene synthesis labs in Canada."

You certainly don't have to come up with a plan. But I would love for you to tell how Gad's plan will stop the Fentanyl crisis, and just how it would be instituted. Can you give....say, a ten bullet point ROM on what his plan even is?

You go first. Maybe you could sketch out a ten bullet point ROM (whatever that is) on Trump's tariffs-to-rid-us-of-fentanyl program.

by the way, I love and look forward to seeing your avatar's, as a request I would love to see some Grama Moses....I really enjoy her perceptions. This one is cool, I can feel the wind and feel a storm coming. I love the hats blowing off and just her innocent easy approach. Her dogs are aways happy, I love that.

Excellent. Maybe we can discuss some Anna Mary Robertson Moses, later. I think she's an interesting artist.