I perfer to support him over Hamas and IRAN and these
https://www.newsweek.com/not-only-hamas-eight-factions-war-israel-gaza-1841292
I prefer to support Israel instead of the terrorist and terror supporters. but your free to root for who ever your little woke heart wants
This ladies and gentleman is a classic example of the strawman logical fallacy.
This is much used by the zionist settler lobby who state that any opposition to their killing women and children is supporting hamas.
This involves trying to make an opponent defend a position they have not taken
"A
straw man fallacy (sometimes written as
strawman) is the
informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man"), instead of the opponent's proposition. Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in
polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.
The straw man
fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
- Person 1 asserts proposition X.
- Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.
This reasoning is a
fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.
For example:
- Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).
- Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
- Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
- Exaggerating (sometimes grossly) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.
en.wikipedia.org
Annoyance is a frequent user of this "technique" though I doubt that he/she is aware that they are using it.
I try not to use it, though doubtless someone with too much time will find examples.
comrade stalin
moscow
