Talk:Strawman theory

Capital letter names and ball printers
The talk about ALL CAPITAL NAMES reminds me of something that used to upset my grandfather a little bit. The old boy used to get upset whenever a bill came in that didn't include an apostrophe in his surname (Jim O'Neill), and he'd often send them back saying "Jim Oneill doesnt live here, Jim O'Neill does however)". Realising that this was basically a grumpy old 80 year old , they'd often just send it back with the apostrophe added in by pen. Well it turns out there was a reason there would never be an apostrophe. Back in the day utilities and banks would use these big old type-ball and daisy wheel printers that often could only do A-Z, 0-9, and maybe a full stop , comma and period. As a result everything would be in upper case and feature only the minimum necessary punctuation. My suspicion is must of this gibberish about UPPER CASE documents stems from these old docs printed on early daisy wheel and TTY teletypes. Shayne.oneill (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So you're telling me that the good old days were when the massive government conspiracy to print people's names in uppercase started? Shit, this goes deep. 11:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A case of 'reverse greengrocers apostrophe pedantry'?

And here is a fictional strawman. Anna Livia (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This article itself s a strawman
For claiming to be rational, this entry has serious gaps in logic. Do all people who find the idea of legal fictions like corporations strange, seek to evade paying their debts? This article claims so. Also, just like Wikipedia offers a fossil record, might it be possible that the use of all caps is a fossil carryover from the early industrial age, in which all sorts of legal fictions were constructed to both limit and ascribe liability in the interest of capital I.e. making money? The fictional power of paper money itself seems strange and irrational. When people point out the strange legal inconsistencies that bind modern people self- proclaimed rational people call them cranks in articles like this. This article scratches the surface at best, and the last line is the most problematic because it asserts without any support whatsoever. Requesting thread archival (why?) Plutocow (talk)

BON has a comment
Don't necessarily believe these information bits, I am freely able to change these words, as are you, or anyone else. Strawman "theory" is a plausible scenrio, wherein our government has denied our capabilities to "pay" any debt by removing the gold standard, thus making our monies less valuable, as well as allowing them to create more out of "idealogical" money rather than tangible monitary goods. 05:55, 25 July 2017
 * This is honestly a great example of crank magnetism. Strawman theory is true because we left the gold standard -- I love it. 11:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Some of the origins of the theory
Most people can see the need for 'corporate persons' and 'notional persons' as in eg the legal usage of 'the reasonable (wo)man' - and we have all come across 'X Bloggs trading as ABCD' and sole traders who have become limited companies as it is convenient; while most of us have our 'ordinary name' and 'the name we enter in the forms' (so Paddy Ashdown or 'Jeremy John Durham Ashdown.'

These people have extrapolated from such 'reasonable ideas' into illogical consequences. 86.146.100.41 (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't this apply to lawsuits as well?
(wasn't sure how to title this.) Shouldn't this apply if a sovereign citizen or member of a similar group attempts to sue? If a believer in this nonsense (say, Kent Hovind) sues someone for defamation or something, they would have no legal right to sue that person because "KENT HOVIND" and "Kent Hovind" are legally seperate people, and thus "Kent Hovind" has not been wronged in any way. --151.188.137.191 (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)