Talk:Strawman theory/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 26 April 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Note[edit]

Note, we have a Straw man as well. --Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 14:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Noted in the lead Ydam (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Nods. I added a disambiguation like thingy at the top, so it stands out more. Good article, had no idea about all this stuff. I just thought it was a few kooks with no argument. (not that i think this is a valid argument, but it's at least something besides what i thought was just "hell no i'm not paying, so there". ;-)--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 15:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


citations?--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Altered name bit[edit]

"No defence which relied on a misspelt or slightly altered name has ever been recognised by the courts—neither, we hope, would any sane person presume that they would."

Not true. See this - search for "not guilty, legally" in the text. Not a great source, but it's the best I can find online. I'd read this on dead trees which was why I tried to find a ref. rpeh •TCE 21:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think in 'certain courts of the Dark Ages and Middle Ages' exact descriptions were necessary for legal actions' - so 'X's billy goat ate my crops' would fail if X's goat was a jenny goat.

Surely the best way of dealing with the proponents is 'reversing the polarity' - so they become the butt of the strawman activity. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)