Straw man (law) Puns

TLDR; Bill's a shock jock that uses heuristics, priming, and framing (propaganda), rather than fact and reason to make his arguments (and he's a twat, but this is unrelated to the point). I challenge you to change my mind.

I could give a number of examples, but let's go with his bit on the university. I used to teach philosophy at a university and I am a staunch supporter of education reform, particularly to cut the cost of college, the profits of which tend to go to bloated bureaucracies rather than actual teachers. And don't even get me started on law school pedagogy and why that shit costs $50k per year.

But Maher acts like college is somewhere you go to get your woke credentials. Critical theory plays a very small role in college curriculum. But to hear Bill tell it, college is just a road map for how to live a life regurgitating passages from White Fragility. You don't go to college to learn about science, math, or literature, you go to take course loads in “sports marketing,” “advanced racist spotting,” and “You Owe Me An Apology 101.”

Should there be more vocational training? Absolutely. Should four years of high school be required? No. Should high school be something more diverse than a three-year prep course on getting into college? Yeah, definitely. I agree with Bill's point that most jobs do not require a college education; but his picking on library science demonstrates that Bill has absolutely no idea what the fuck he's talking about. Does your local shit-town librarian need a MA in Library, Information, and Archival Science? No.

But if you've ever been in academia, you know a good librarian can shape your research and really change how you think about thinking about the thing you are researching. For 1Ls, their lower division research and writing professors are Gandalf the Gray. But if you have the nerve to take upper division research courses in law school, you realize that your law librarian has been Gandalf the fucking White this whole time. I teach Lexis reps how to teach Lexis at Lexis demos.

Using this cliché, straw man approach to advocating for reform of higher education (and in my view primary education) does nothing more than belittle people. Plus, it's the Boomers that decided everyone had to get a college education. How many gen x or millennial kids went into debt because their parents demanded it, only now to have Boomers blame us for being financially imprudent? Who let the universities become dip

But this joke isn't about that.

He should have gone through Big Joel and Jack Saint’s tweets and explained where he disagreed instead of lumping everyone together and only showing one tweet where Joel made a joke. This becomes especially problematic when words like ”pedophile” and ”degenerate” are thrown around a lot.

He also didn’t really acknowledge the bad points made by the opposing side like when shoe kind of lumped drag together with kink stuff.

I feel like Vaush sometimes makes himself very hateable even if I agree with his overall point.

When I recently purchased 2786 shares of PSLV Sprott went out and bought a 1000 oz bar. Probably that night.

That’s how it works.

If I were anti silver squeeze I would sow doubt about PSLV because “they” can throttle physical supply through increased premiums and back orders etc. and there for its effect on the digital price is muted when things happen like the US Mint going down. The thing “they” cannot control is PSLV purchases.

Buying Shiny through Sprott is not perfect though you do get it very close to spot so more bang for your buck.

I'm often gone from my home for periods of time (weeks and months) so that option, home storage, does not make me comfortable.

I also have a physical stack though my biggest stack is with PSLV. The whereabouts of my shiny stack I will keep to myself.

If you keep you shiny at home how long until the Mad Max army shows up at the house of the guy who seems to have so much sliver after society collapses? Sure you can become weaponized and turn your neighbourhood into Kabul however that’s not my solution to how I participate in the silver squeeze.

The point is there are pros and cons to each method of squeezing. I SAY DO IT ALLl! Purchase coins, allocate your silver and buy PSLV.

Granted maybe atheists do it too, but I notice in a lot of debates, it's hard to write more than two sentences otherwise you run the risk of having theistic apologists talk about that unimportant thing.

Like I might say 'statistically, Saudi Arabia has 10,000 rape per year' and they might say, no it's 9500 or something. Granted, maybe this isn't the best example as the number change might be relevant. But lets say we are arguing that burqa prevents ALL rape. Obviously, that's not the case then, 9500 or 10,000 I'll try finding a better example, but I guess that's what I'm talking about.

Edit:

Seems like there's a variety of fallacies I'll have to look into.

What is a Straw Man?

The straw man is a logical fallacy that replaces something (a person, a viewpoint, an argument) with a distorted version that blows the original out of proportion to make it easier to attack.

The term “straw man” is based on a metaphor. The arguer doesn’t attack the “real man,” that is, the real person, argument, or claim. The arguer instead constructs a fake man made of straw, and then attacks that straw man. The arguer then claims to have defeated the real person, argument, or claim, even though the arguer hasn’t said anything about it. That’s where the fallacy comes in: you can’t defeat something you don’t deal with at all. The arguer can’t win the argument because he hasn’t dealt with the real person, argument, or claim; he has dealt solely with the straw man.

People use straw man fallacies knowingly or unknowingly to avoid challenging a stronger opponent. Politicians often make use of the straw man to attack opponents. They create a distorted image of an opponent’s position or an opponent’s argument by magnifying some things and minimizing others, then attack the distorted image.

Here’s an example that illustrates what a straw man fallacy looks like:

Wife: “I’d rather go to a beach than a big city.”

Husband: “Why do you hate big cities?”

Explanation: The husband has constructed a straw man of the wife’s claim. The wife never said that she doesn’t like big cities. The husband instead misrepresents what she says to make her preferences seem more extreme than they are.

Many people construct straw men accidentally because the misrepresented view resembles the original. A straw man can even fool the person who made the original claim: the wife might get tricked into defending the straw man that her husband has constructed, and never steer the conversation back to her original claim.

Here are some more examples of a straw man argument:

Example #1:

Mom: “I want you to leave your phone on the kitchen counter at night so you can get a better night’s sleep.”

Son: “You never want me to talk to my friends.”

Explanation: Mom never mentioned anything about her son not talking to friends. The son is attacking her request by distorting it.

Example #2:

Person A: “Nuclear energy provides a safe, reliable way of combating climate change.”

Person B: “I don’t want nuclear waste in my backyard!”

Explanation: A real argument against Person A’s claim would try to show that nuclear energy is not

Along with the title, I'm also trying to see who'd either be the most balanced or scales the closest to the straw hats without one punching people like Kaido.

A few obvious cut-outs; Garou Saitama Tatsumaki And Blast once he's gotten more screen time

Note: This character can have a devil fruit but it can't just be a fruit someone else has unless the character's dead, this would also go into consideration in balance.

Have fun, y'all!

Is it just me, or has he been constantly erecting strawmen lately? He is a solid legal expert, but only explains in detail aspects of the law which are fairly clear, ignoring the actual legal arguments people were making regarding the election. He even cut a short clip of Cruz speaking in support of the objection and said that it was a weak argument to just overturn the election bc some people feel it was rigged when that wasn’t even what Cruz was suggesting. He was suggesting they form a committee to do a quick 10-day investigation, so that at the end of it, we could say that we actually looked into it and one way or another everyone could come together and accept the result. I’ve defended Ben a lot from detractors who claimed he does that before, when he wasn’t. But now, sheesh!

I, for one, am so tired of AB's moronic sideways attempts to falsely understand that the world has a problem with his wife being from two cultures. Hilary also is posting a bunch of crap about haters be hating, because she "wasn't clear enough" and the whole world is bored and jealous. NO NO NO assholes, don't try to change the subject! The world is mad because you calculatedly created a false persona (totally false--you aren't the first gen child of Spanish immigrants, you aren't someone who spent their childhood in Spain, you don't have extended family in Spain, you don't speak with an accent because you've been speaking Spanish a lot). You did it for money, and that's called fraud. Instead of apologizing, you just keep doubling down. You two must be dumb as a box of rocks to not know what is required of you here.