That is ridiculous. That is not the definition of straw-man.
A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person's argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.
Who is losing it? I'm asking questions, not telling people what to think.
Here is what I said in case you can't remember:
Why does everybody instantly believe Patrick Byrne?
Why was he in the oval office? Who invited him?
Nobody seems at all curious about this guy?
Does he have some official position that I'm unaware of?
do you believe other pedes just drop everything like fucking toddlers and cling to his words?
Read the title of this post. Does this sound anything like 'this is interesting, what do you think?'
No, OP has accepted Patrick Byrne's statement as truth.
Grow up and treat those around here with a bit more common decency. We are not children.
It is you who is behaving like a snowflake, being offended because I asked 4 questions. Believe it or not, I was hoping for some actual answers instead of this simpering whining.
you launched into like 8 questions calling everything he says into complete validity and you still fail to address the fact it seems you have barely even researched or looked into what he has said. Your diatribe came across as everything but reasonable and rather sowed division.
If I'm not correct, has the lawyer Byrne called into question not been fired?
Ok, so you are a Byrne expert I will ask you again.
This time, can you please answer them instead of attacking me for asking the questions?
Why does everybody instantly believe Patrick Byrne?
Why was he in the oval office? Who invited him?
Does he have some official position that I'm unaware of?
I am not anti-Byrne. I'm not trying to make a political point. I was asking for information because I am genuinely confused about this guy that just popped up on the scene.
A) Patrick has advised he has been funding a group of white-hat hackers and ex military intelligence, who were already researching the fraud since 2018, they have been supplying a lot of intelligence regarding the fraud to all legal teams pursuing cases. This has not been refuted.
B) He has been a vocal supporter of Trump since day 1 (regarding election fraud- otherwise he is a small l liberal/libertarian and has never voted democrat or republican), and has called the fraud out, and if his story is correct (yet to be refuted by anyone from either side) - he has been fucked by the deep-state and is trying to get back on them
C) He is in the oval office for that reason, he has been staying at Trump hotel in the battleground states and giving interviews to any who will listen, he also spoke at the last Rally last Saturday and gave a stirring speech in Trumps support and against the election fraud.
D) He doesn't have any official position that you need to be aware of. In fact, he was calling out government officials who are rusted on, the fact he is a third party is helpful. If you read his story, he was used as a pawn in deep-state maneuvers.
E) For all the above, he has been working with Trump team. It also goes into a lot more detail on his website deepcapture.com, and he also talks about the work he has done to help extensively in interviews. Which are hard to find due to censorship.
F) While he has only recently come into focus for many pedes, he has been talking about this for a few months now, so I understand you might think he has come out of no where, but he has a lot of skin in this fight. And unlike the deep-state rhinos, cucks and traitors, he has done nothing yet to make me question him whatsoever.
Edit: he is also a very intelligent billioniare with a doctorate in Philosophy and economics from Stanford, and a mentee of Milton Friedman
in 2005 he began a campaign against corruption in the capital markets through securities manipulation and that's all those wall street big bank scum went to jail in 2008 (he provided information that led to 200 of them going to jail)
I had read a very brief description of his statements about being used by the deep state, but I had no idea about his speech, or that he was a big time Trump supporter.
People don't instantly believe him. Lots of people are skeptical, whether pessimistically or optimistically.
Nobody knows. But I don't see it being denied by anyone. So if it's bullshit, sounds like there's a strategic reason not to call it out as such at the moment.
No. He has made claims about being involved with FBI and setting up Hillary Clinton, but nobody knows whether it's true. Nobody seems to be denying it though. But nobody knows why he's there or what he might be up to, if he is there.
It does seem odd that he would say all this stuff and not be called out if it was all bullshit though. I would expect someone from the Trump team to call him out if he was just out there making shit up all the time.
Even the definition for strawman you posted perfectly fits what you did. You exaggerated and distorted. It's just a post, it doesn't mean everyone believes it 100%.
Also, you sound WAY more upset than the other guy. Just chill out. I agree with you that Byrne is suspect though. No idea who he is, and could easily be playing us, and actually a deepstate ally. Or he could be an ally of ours, really don't know.
I'm simply amazed that people are willing to just drop everything and believe everything he says with no common sense restraint.
Nobody is doing that. It's an exaggeration and distortion of what people are actually doing. Posting and discussing these things doesn't even mean anyone believes it at all, let alone that they believe it without restraint or skepticism.
I share your skepticism, not sure whose side Byrne is really on, to be honest. Hoping he's a smart guy who is helping Trump, and we just don't know the extent of what he's actually doing. But realistically, nobody knows.
That is ridiculous. That is not the definition of straw-man.
Who is losing it? I'm asking questions, not telling people what to think.
Here is what I said in case you can't remember:
Why does everybody instantly believe Patrick Byrne?
Why was he in the oval office? Who invited him?
Nobody seems at all curious about this guy?
Does he have some official position that I'm unaware of?
Read the title of this post. Does this sound anything like 'this is interesting, what do you think?'
No, OP has accepted Patrick Byrne's statement as truth.
It is you who is behaving like a snowflake, being offended because I asked 4 questions. Believe it or not, I was hoping for some actual answers instead of this simpering whining.
Did I hurt your widdle feewings?
Grow a pair.
you launched into like 8 questions calling everything he says into complete validity and you still fail to address the fact it seems you have barely even researched or looked into what he has said. Your diatribe came across as everything but reasonable and rather sowed division.
If I'm not correct, has the lawyer Byrne called into question not been fired?
Ok, so you are a Byrne expert I will ask you again.
This time, can you please answer them instead of attacking me for asking the questions?
Why does everybody instantly believe Patrick Byrne?
Why was he in the oval office? Who invited him?
Does he have some official position that I'm unaware of?
I am not anti-Byrne. I'm not trying to make a political point. I was asking for information because I am genuinely confused about this guy that just popped up on the scene.
A) Patrick has advised he has been funding a group of white-hat hackers and ex military intelligence, who were already researching the fraud since 2018, they have been supplying a lot of intelligence regarding the fraud to all legal teams pursuing cases. This has not been refuted.
B) He has been a vocal supporter of Trump since day 1 (regarding election fraud- otherwise he is a small l liberal/libertarian and has never voted democrat or republican), and has called the fraud out, and if his story is correct (yet to be refuted by anyone from either side) - he has been fucked by the deep-state and is trying to get back on them
C) He is in the oval office for that reason, he has been staying at Trump hotel in the battleground states and giving interviews to any who will listen, he also spoke at the last Rally last Saturday and gave a stirring speech in Trumps support and against the election fraud.
D) He doesn't have any official position that you need to be aware of. In fact, he was calling out government officials who are rusted on, the fact he is a third party is helpful. If you read his story, he was used as a pawn in deep-state maneuvers.
E) For all the above, he has been working with Trump team. It also goes into a lot more detail on his website deepcapture.com, and he also talks about the work he has done to help extensively in interviews. Which are hard to find due to censorship.
F) While he has only recently come into focus for many pedes, he has been talking about this for a few months now, so I understand you might think he has come out of no where, but he has a lot of skin in this fight. And unlike the deep-state rhinos, cucks and traitors, he has done nothing yet to make me question him whatsoever.
Edit: he is also a very intelligent billioniare with a doctorate in Philosophy and economics from Stanford, and a mentee of Milton Friedman in 2005 he began a campaign against corruption in the capital markets through securities manipulation and that's all those wall street big bank scum went to jail in 2008 (he provided information that led to 200 of them going to jail)
He's spent half-a-mil of his own money to provide Sidney with a huge amount of her technical claims of fraud.
OK
Thank you very much!
I did not know any of these things.
I had read a very brief description of his statements about being used by the deep state, but I had no idea about his speech, or that he was a big time Trump supporter.
People don't instantly believe him. Lots of people are skeptical, whether pessimistically or optimistically.
Nobody knows. But I don't see it being denied by anyone. So if it's bullshit, sounds like there's a strategic reason not to call it out as such at the moment.
No. He has made claims about being involved with FBI and setting up Hillary Clinton, but nobody knows whether it's true. Nobody seems to be denying it though. But nobody knows why he's there or what he might be up to, if he is there.
It does seem odd that he would say all this stuff and not be called out if it was all bullshit though. I would expect someone from the Trump team to call him out if he was just out there making shit up all the time.
Even the definition for strawman you posted perfectly fits what you did. You exaggerated and distorted. It's just a post, it doesn't mean everyone believes it 100%.
Also, you sound WAY more upset than the other guy. Just chill out. I agree with you that Byrne is suspect though. No idea who he is, and could easily be playing us, and actually a deepstate ally. Or he could be an ally of ours, really don't know.
What did I exaggerate and distort? Please provide an example and in what way it exaggerated the truth and distorted it.
Nobody is doing that. It's an exaggeration and distortion of what people are actually doing. Posting and discussing these things doesn't even mean anyone believes it at all, let alone that they believe it without restraint or skepticism.
I share your skepticism, not sure whose side Byrne is really on, to be honest. Hoping he's a smart guy who is helping Trump, and we just don't know the extent of what he's actually doing. But realistically, nobody knows.