Droananasm: How To.

So, how does Doan appear to have valid arguments?

This will be the first in a series of enlightening and educational
treatise on how to fake debate while lying.

I hope you enjoy and are edified.

THE REDUCTIONIST;

Droany the Reductionist has a habit, common in some, but usually
restrained down to the acceptable for use in clarifying an issue, of
stripping, reducing, the question of all considerations or points that
he cannot answer, or he knows he is getting in deep water if he tries,
to a single element that he's sure he can win with.

You've seen it again and again, but being honest yourself, we presume,
you recognised the legitimacy of clarification by limiting the
argument to one point within the issue, AT A TIME.

See? That is how he does it. He goes to that one easily won issue (a
variation on Strawman logical fallacy) AND REFUSED TO EVER GO ANYWHERE
ELSE IN THE LARGER BODY OF THE ISSUE that was presented originally.

Large and complicated studies, with many variables present and
assumed, he blithely, or like a sneaky little weasel, he prepares
dodges for, should he be challenged.

Or he simply disappears on any other point brought up. If there is a
study population to question the varacity or appropriateness of, he'll
argue until you both are blue, and you exhausted to exasperation with
him, on ANYTHING ELSE BUT THAT ISSUE....chortling, crowing,
ridiculing, ... your basic all around weasel.

It only requires two things for this to happen: the simple fact that
all issues can be, if they have more than two points within them,
split to the easier point, the other avoided or ignored, for the
dishonest such as Droany;

and your willingness, either by your own innate honesty and decency,
or your ignorance of his tactics, to let him get away with it.

I recommend anyone that IS honest, and from either pro or con in the
spanking debate, do a little research on logical fallacies and the
study of critical thinking.

Not only will it serve you here, your response to anyone trying to
persuade you with less than honesty or your best interests at heart
will be seen in a much different light than before.

Marketing and Advertising, and Droany, like two peas in a pod. Both
can be popped out with knowledge and determination. Easily.

He's just not as good at it as the big boys.

Kane

LOL! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy.

Doan

On 11 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

So, how does Doan appear to have valid arguments?

This will be the first in a series of enlightening and educational
treatise on how to fake debate while lying.

I hope you enjoy and are edified.

THE REDUCTIONIST;

Droany the Reductionist has a habit, common in some, but usually
restrained down to the acceptable for use in clarifying an issue, of
stripping, reducing, the question of all considerations or points that
he cannot answer, or he knows he is getting in deep water if he tries,
to a single element that he's sure he can win with.

You've seen it again and again, but being honest yourself, we presume,
you recognised the legitimacy of clarification by limiting the
argument to one point within the issue, AT A TIME.

See? That is how he does it. He goes to that one easily won issue (a
variation on Strawman logical fallacy) AND REFUSED TO EVER GO ANYWHERE
ELSE IN THE LARGER BODY OF THE ISSUE that was presented originally.

Large and complicated studies, with many variables present and
assumed, he blithely, or like a sneaky little weasel, he prepares
dodges for, should he be challenged.

Or he simply disappears on any other point brought up. If there is a
study population to question the varacity or appropriateness of, he'll
argue until you both are blue, and you exhausted to exasperation with
him, on ANYTHING ELSE BUT THAT ISSUE....chortling, crowing,
ridiculing, ... your basic all around weasel.

It only requires two things for this to happen: the simple fact that
all issues can be, if they have more than two points within them,
split to the easier point, the other avoided or ignored, for the
dishonest such as Droany;

and your willingness, either by your own innate honesty and decency,
or your ignorance of his tactics, to let him get away with it.

I recommend anyone that IS honest, and from either pro or con in the
spanking debate, do a little research on logical fallacies and the
study of critical thinking.

Not only will it serve you here, your response to anyone trying to
persuade you with less than honesty or your best interests at heart
will be seen in a much different light than before.

Marketing and Advertising, and Droany, like two peas in a pod. Both
can be popped out with knowledge and determination. Easily.

He's just not as good at it as the big boys.

Kane