[Uncle Skeleton]

Boy are you ever barking up the wrong tree

[Athens]

I agree with what he said (except the go away part) after all debates require 2 people lol. but hes right about the religious aspect.

[Uncle Skeleton]

You're telling your opponent what to argue. They call that a straw man. It's certainly easier to debate against a straw man than a real live opponent, but most people have more pride than that.

[Athens]

Would religious people setup and answer this question. Is it morally wrong to murder a baby/fetus?

Its a YES

and where do religious people get the morals that run thy lives, religion because with out religion you don't have any moral foundation which is a major argument they preach for religion. So if the morals are from religion and abortion is morally wrong, its religion reasons, morals making it wrong.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Your logic is faulty. Atheists consider murder to be morally wrong too. By your logic... "Mac users setup [sic] and answer this: is it morally wrong to murder a baby? Since they say yes, then baby-murder is mac-based."

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Would religious people setup and answer this question. Is it morally wrong to murder a baby/fetus?

Its a YES

and where do religious people get the morals that run thy lives, religion because with out religion you don't have any moral foundation which is a major argument they preach for religion. So if the morals are from religion and abortion is morally wrong, its religion reasons, morals making it wrong.

Where do atheists get there morals from?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Where do atheists get there morals from?

From our brains, society and parents. Where do people get there math from. Where do people get there language from. Where do people learn to drive a car.... Morals are just a learned behavior.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're telling your opponent what to argue. They call that a straw man. It's certainly easier to debate against a straw man than a real live opponent, but most people have more pride than that.

You told me I wasn't allowed to argue about religion. You seem to be getting so good at contradicting everyone you've started doing it to yourself.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Your logic is faulty. Atheists consider murder to be morally wrong too. By your logic... "Mac users setup [sic] and answer this: is it morally wrong to murder a baby? Since they say yes, then baby-murder is mac-based."

Everybody (here) knows that baby murderers only use Windows.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You told me I wasn't allowed to argue about religion. You seem to be getting so good at contradicting everyone you've started doing it to yourself.

No, you're not allowed to argue against things that no one has argued for. That would be a straw man.

Edit: well technically you're allowed to argue anything you want, but arguing a straw man is stupid and you can expect to be called on it

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Where do atheists get there morals from?

The same place where we get science and math from. The same place where we get love, pain, happiness, and sorrow from.

Humans are logical and emotional creatures.

Do we need a book or a guide to know what love is? Or what pain is?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Those premises that actually were central, were later codified into law. Things like the importance of liberty, democracy/representation, opposition to tyranny, and the other various specific gripes against King George (like quartering troops).

Those are all concepts. You can't make a concept a law. You make actions you want or don't want illegal. Does it reinforce certain behaviors? Sure.

The fact remains that the representatives of the people of the United States at the time of it's founding stated that all of those central premises were valid because our rights were handed down by God and couldn't be taken away by men. This was never corrected, or changed.

How exactly would you make a law later for or against God handing things down?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Hypothetical examples indicate thoughtfulness. Your refusal to be thoughtful on this topic is noted.

I've been perfectly thoughtful in this, but I'm not going to claim red is blue to make you happy.

BTW, I notice you left out sperm and eggs, the most practical of my examples. Your refusal to be practical either, is also noted.

Of course I chose the extremes of what seemed a broad range of absurdity to illustrate the flaw in your expectations here. I appreciate your thoughtfulness as always, but in this context I'm afraid it has been exhausted on a non-point; not because I lack creativity or thoughtfulness, but because you're asking me to argue a premise I do not accept. Personhood is useful for blurring the line of preservation toward a later point in fetal development and I believe it is deliberate. It's possible a statistically insignificant number of people could actually confuse the term human life in the abortion discussion for anything other than, but I maintain that's not my math problem and you've not shown me why it should be. While Roe V Wade is in fact the law of the land, there's no reason I need to accept it. I fully acknowledge the usage of personhood in this debate, but there's no reason I need to consider it the point of view. You're allowed to stretch my argument beyond the zygote, beyond human procreation, and in fact beyond reality, but I can't stretch yours through every year of life to 30 or after 85?

So you have nothing to defend its truthfulness, all you can do is disparage the motivations of the messenger.

You've provided no novel message to disparage and while I can appreciate the relative safety of your view, it is so stealthy as to be a non-view IMO. All you're doing is reinventing the wheel of disagreement here.

[subego]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The same place where we get science and math from. The same place where we get love, pain, happiness, and sorrow from.

Humans are logical and emotional creatures.

Do we need a book or a guide to know what love is? Or what pain is?

You've been making some really good posts lately.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, you're not allowed to argue against things that no one has argued for. That would be a straw man.

Edit: well technically you're allowed to argue anything you want, but arguing a straw man is stupid and you can expect to be called on it

Again, just because you claim it isn't a relevant issue doesn't mean it isn't a relevant issue.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Those are all concepts. You can't make a concept a law. You make actions you want or don't want illegal. Does it reinforce certain behaviors? Sure.

Democracy and anti-tyranny were made law by establishing things like the electoral college and checks & balances. Not by making tyranny illegal.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Again, just because you claim it isn't a relevant issue doesn't mean it isn't a relevant issue.

Ok then, continue embarrassing yourself thrashing straw men. I'm sure they had it coming.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... because you're asking me to argue a premise I do not accept. Personhood is useful for blurring the line of preservation toward a later point in fetal development and I believe it is deliberate. It's possible a statistically insignificant number of people could actually confuse the term human life in the abortion discussion for anything other than, but I maintain that's not my math problem and you've not shown me why it should be.

It's not, if you're more interested in "winning" than in truth. Based on what you said, you simply consider a "person" to be whatever lies after the point of conception, that is your truth. Using "personhood" doesn't harm this, so I don't see why you can't accept it.

You're allowed to stretch my argument beyond the zygote, beyond human procreation, and in fact beyond reality, but I can't stretch yours through every year of life to 30 or after 85?

These two cases of reductio ad absurdum both illustrate the same point: "person" already has an understood meaning, even if it hasn't been sufficiently defined yet. Determining that definition will enlighten us, in fact it is the only road left in this debate for further enlightenment. All other roads have been exhausted and retreading them is a waste of time. It is precisely because of the "blurriness" you bemoan, that this angle is worth pursuing: to clarify it.

All you're doing is reinventing the wheel of disagreement here.

If we can disagree over the true question, we are better off than disagreeing over an obfuscated question. Just like failing to find one's keys in the darkened alley is still better than failing to find them in the lighted street when you know they're in the alley.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's not, if you're more interested in "winning" than in truth. Based on what you said, you simply consider a "person" to be whatever lies after the point of conception, that is your truth. Using "personhood" doesn't harm this, so I don't see why you can't accept it.

This is Wikipedia's definition, what's yours?
Beginning of human personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A basic requirement for personhood is individuality, which entails differentiation between the person and its parents. Biology offers a number of stages in the life cycle that have been seen as candidates for personhood:

fertilization, the fusing of the gametes to form a zygote
implantation, the start of pregnancy, occurring about a week after fertilization
segmentation, after twinning is no longer possible.
when the heart begins to beat
neuromaturation, when the central nervous system of fetus is neurobiologically "mature"[9]
the time of fetal movement, or "quickening"
when the fetus is first capable of feeling pain
when it can be established that the fetus is capable of cognition, or Neonatal perception
fetal viability, when the pregnancy can be ended with a live birth
birth

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This is Wikipedia's definition, what's yours?
Beginning of human personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have an answer which I will freely give you, and it's as elegantly simple as ebuddy's "human life" (except mine doesn't have further qualifiers like his), and you can hold me to it. I'll throw you this bone if you throw me one in return. Are all abortion questions solved by deciding personhood?

[Athens]

oh thats a good one. I'll answer first, my opinion would be exactly the same as it is now regardless of when personhood is discovered to be or if they found out the fetus feels pain earlier then expected.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's not, if you're more interested in "winning" than in truth. Based on what you said, you simply consider a "person" to be whatever lies after the point of conception, that is your truth. Using "personhood" doesn't harm this, so I don't see why you can't accept it.

As an advocate of personhood at conception, I believe human life is the most precise identifier. I could offer you personhood at conception, but that's as far as I can give on this. I openly acknowledge this makes me a loser in the court of public opinion, but I'm not going to tell you something is red if I think it's blue.

These two cases of reductio ad absurdum both illustrate the same point: "person" already has an understood meaning, even if it hasn't been sufficiently defined yet. Determining that definition will enlighten us, in fact it is the only road left in this debate for further enlightenment. All other roads have been exhausted and retreading them is a waste of time. It is precisely because of the "blurriness" you bemoan, that this angle is worth pursuing: to clarify it.

Human life is how I choose to define personhood and conception is the identifier. How does this settle any irreconcilable disagreement with one who feels personhood is identified by fully-developed eyes, a brain, or a heart?

Besides, there may be opportunities for pro-lifers to employ both personhood and human life contingent upon the context of the discussion. A well-rounded offensive would not move on only one front or put the whole of its fate in one basket. It's not like I'm happy being a loser.

If we can disagree over the true question, we are better off than disagreeing over an obfuscated question. Just like failing to find one's keys in the darkened alley is still better than failing to find them in the lighted street when you know they're in the alley.

I don't accept this as an accurate assessment of my view. I already know where my keys are and I'm shedding light back into the dark alley, optimistic that at some point you'll find yours as well. I'm not getting the sense you know where your keys are and you seem even less willing to help others find theirs.

[Doofy]

A basic requirement for personhood is individuality

That's most people completely buggered then.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Human life is how I choose to define personhood and conception is the identifier. How does this settle any irreconcilable disagreement with one who feels personhood is identified by fully-developed eyes, a brain, or a heart?

In any argument, agreement over what the question is is necessary in order to hope for any agreement on the answer. Don't you think?

I'm not getting the sense you know where your keys are and you seem even less willing to help others find theirs.

I am perfectly willing to participate in finding an answer, with anyone who is willing to agree to the question first. What point could there be to answering a question, when no one even agrees on what the question is?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That's most people completely buggered then.

That's what they all say

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What point could there be to answering a question, when no one even agrees on what the question is?

42.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok then, continue embarrassing yourself thrashing straw men. I'm sure they had it coming.

Firstly, arguing against a point that wasn't made is not the same as raising a point that you don't like.
Secondly a straw man isn't arguing against a point that wasn't made. It involves refuting something designed to superficially look like a point that was made. For example you are misrepresenting my point by labelling it a straw man
and then arguing that it should be disregarded for that reason. That in fact IS a straw man.

I'm not the one who should be embarrassed.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Firstly, arguing against a point that wasn't made is not the same as raising a point that you don't like.

Show one post in this thread that brought up religion to argue against abortion
"brought up," not responded to

Secondly a straw man isn't arguing against a point that wasn't made. It involves refuting something designed to superficially look like a point that was made.

Religious opposition to murder is superficially similar to moral opposition to murder. Especially when the person's posting history is outspokenly religious.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In any argument, agreement over what the question is is necessary in order to hope for any agreement on the answer. Don't you think?

But you already know my answer Uncle. The only question now is, do you agree with it?

I am perfectly willing to participate in finding an answer, with anyone who is willing to agree to the question first. What point could there be to answering a question, when no one even agrees on what the question is?

This just proves that the questions we choose to ask are often shaped by our perspectives. We are in what you call, fundamental disagreement.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

But you already know my answer Uncle. The only question now is, do you agree with it?

No I don't. But I'm happy when we can agree on what the question is. (and I'm thrilled you said "the only question )

This just proves that the questions we choose to ask are often shaped by our perspectives. We are in what you call, fundamental disagreement.

But we're not also in "peripheral disagreement." It is only the singular central question that we disagree on.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Show one post in this thread that brought up religion to argue against abortion
"brought up," not responded to

Like I said, I raised a point. It wasn't a counterpoint.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Religious opposition to murder is superficially similar to moral opposition to murder. Especially when the person's posting history is outspokenly religious.

Unfortunately its very difficult to separate the two. Hence my comment about undermining credibility. Even you in particular are against abortion for non-religious reasons, I suspect the the influence is very much a causal factor for many pro lifers if not most of them.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Democracy and anti-tyranny were made law by establishing things like the electoral college and checks & balances. Not by making tyranny illegal.

So they were not actually mentioned again, we just created laws that helped ensure those priorities where kept?

Kind of like making it absolutely illegal for the government to keep you from your belief in a God who grants us our rights, while still respecting "freedom" in allowing you to disagree and choose not to?

I'm not sure "tyranny" is actually mentioned in any laws created after the Declaration. I could be wrong, but I think that the founders simply moved to ensure that the priorities mentioned in the Declaration where fortified with laws that ensured that the principles would not be violated. They didn't have to specifically mentioned them after they declared them. All ready "asked and answered" so to speak. There really was no need to reiterate or clarify points unless they were under debate. Like I said, there's really no way to make a law as to what God could or could not grant us. He just does if you believe he exists, and clearly the elected representatives of the people of the United States back in 1776 did and made it official US policy in putting this principle in our founding document.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But we're not also in "peripheral disagreement." It is only the singular central question that we disagree on.

And I maintain that our conflict is in the answer, not the question. The answer is embedded in the question we choose to ask.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So they were not actually mentioned again, we just created laws that helped ensure those priorities where kept?

Kind of like making it absolutely illegal for the government to keep you from your belief in a God who grants us our rights, while still respecting "freedom" in allowing you to disagree and choose not to?

Yeah, kind of like that, except instead of creating laws that help ensure a priority in God, they prohibited ever making such laws. On religion, we (the gov/founders/whatever) shall do precisely nothing, ever.

(which means in an average freedom of religion topic, I would agree with you about half the time. But in this thread it makes it pretty irrelevant)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Like I said, I raised a point. It wasn't a counterpoint.

It's not a point, it's an ad hom. They might as well argue the "point" that you're just pro abortion because you're gay.

Unfortunately its very difficult to separate the two.

Ah, so you agree! Then how is it not a straw man?

Even you in particular are against abortion for non-religious reasons, I suspect the the influence is very much a causal factor for many pro lifers if not most of them.

So what? People aren't allowed to be religious? You know, if you hadn't tried this attack a dozen times already in this thread alone, I wouldn't say anything. But what you're doing really constitutes religious persecution. Think about this for a second, they can't even go about their business in a secular manner, keeping their religion entirely private, to themselves, without you and others harassing them about their religion. Personally, I don't like the idea of outlawing abortion, but religious persecution is worse, no contest.

Furthermore, it indicates a severe weakness in your argument. Do you need their religion in order to argue abortion? Is your argument dependent on their religion? You would probably scoff at them if their argument required a belief in their religion, so why should anyone be swayed by your argument if it relies on their religion? Clearly their religion plays a major role in your argument, seeing as you still go back to it after a dozen failures already in this thread.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah, kind of like that, except instead of creating laws that help ensure a priority in God, they prohibited ever making such laws.

Nothing in the first amendment invalidates or is contrary to the standard they set via the Declaration. You can have a nation where there is freedom to do what you want in regards to religion without the Government stepping in, due to the belief that this is an unalienable right actually granted by God. Most religions have as a part of them the notion of "free will." God does not make you believe or worship him.

The founders were quite clear in where they thought the rights they later detailed came from. Even if you choose not to believe or worship your creator (which legally the government must respect), that doesn't change where the United States officially claimed these rights came from.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So what? People aren't allowed to be religious? You know, if you hadn't tried this attack a dozen times already in this thread alone, I wouldn't say anything. But what you're doing really constitutes religious persecution. Think about this for a second, they can't even go about their business in a secular manner, keeping their religion entirely private, to themselves, without you and others harassing them about their religion. Personally, I don't like the idea of outlawing abortion, but religious persecution is worse, no contest.

Furthermore, it indicates a severe weakness in your argument. Do you need their religion in order to argue abortion? Is your argument dependent on their religion? You would probably scoff at them if their argument required a belief in their religion, so why should anyone be swayed by your argument if it relies on their religion? Clearly their religion plays a major role in your argument, seeing as you still go back to it after a dozen failures already in this thread.

(Sadly) people are allowed to be religious but I don't believe that religion should be allowed to have so much influence on the law. To my mind, if you are against abortion for religious reasons, then your vote is devalued automatically because you probably haven't thought it through at all and even if you have you are still required by your beliefs to tow the party line and are therefore potentially misrepresenting your own opinion which completely flies in the face of democracy. Its actually no different to Stupendousman's complaint about letting unelected leaders write the law only apparently its ok if you wear an even sillier costume and read to people from an even older book.

Religion is put on a pedestal for no reason other than because its religion. Just because you were raised that way doesn't make it fair to legislate for such things because it will upset you if we don't. You not getting your way is not equal to persecution. Grow up.

I can't tell if you are deliberately misrepresenting me or just don't understand what I'm saying. If you can't manage to read the definition of straw man so you understand it, please stop using it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Egads. Do we have an answer, yet? I'm afraid to read back through this thing.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Nothing in the first amendment invalidates or is contrary to the standard they set via the Declaration.
...
Even if you choose not to believe or worship your creator (which legally the government must respect), that doesn't change where the United States officially claimed these rights came from.

It doesn't contradict what is actually in the Declaration, but it certainly contradicts what you're reading into it. If the US "officially" claimed God, that would be establishment of God wouldn't it?

Meanwhile, contradiction itself isn't out of the ordinary, for example the 21st amendment contradicts the 18th, but guess which one takes precedence.

[Athens]

Maybe we should ask god to clarify both issues of abortion and is the US is under god.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

(Sadly) people are allowed to be religious but I don't believe that religion should be allowed to have so much influence on the law.

Only your unverified prejudice indicates that it might be. Since you're willing to act on that alone, what you really mean is that religious people shouldn't be allowed to influence the law. Not only is this sort of bigotry objectionable in theory, it's also impractical since the religious outnumber atheists by a large margin.

PS. atheists can be stupid too, don't fool yourself

To my mind, if you are against abortion for religious reasons, then your vote is devalued automatically because you probably haven't thought it through at all and even if you have you are still required by your beliefs to tow the party line and are therefore potentially misrepresenting your own opinion which completely flies in the face of democracy. Its actually no different to Stupendousman's complaint about letting unelected leaders write the law only apparently its ok if you wear an even sillier costume and read to people from an even older book.

So I assume you support religious profiling in the "war on terror?"

Religion is put on a pedestal for no reason other than because its religion.

You're the one who keeps bringing it up, so if anyone is putting it on a pedestal it's you

You can't complain that religion won't go away when you're the one that keeps bringing it up.

I can't tell if you are deliberately misrepresenting me or just don't understand what I'm saying. If you can't manage to read the definition of straw man so you understand it, please stop using it.

Then I ask again, what part doesn't fit the definition?

[Chongo]

The folks in Waco have taken up Uncle's personhood campaign!

[Athens]

looks like a insect

[Uncle Skeleton]

sweet

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're the one who keeps bringing it up, so if anyone is putting it on a pedestal it's you

You can't complain that religion won't go away when you're the one that keeps bringing it up.

the kaboom... the earth-shattering kaboom.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Maybe we should ask god to clarify both issues of abortion and is the US is under god.

What if you've already gotten the answer and you choose to ignore it?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

PS. atheists can be stupid too, don't fool yourself

Yes they can, but when an atheist is stupid its usually just because they are being stupid and not because someone in a costume is telling them they have to be stupid.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So I assume you support religious profiling in the "war on terror?"

I don't believe that all muslims are terrorists if thats what you are getting at. Surely you can't deny that most terrorism is strongly linked to religion. This includes people who bomb abortion clinics or shoot staff that work in them.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're the one who keeps bringing it up, so if anyone is putting it on a pedestal it's you

You can't complain that religion won't go away when you're the one that keeps bringing it up.

Nice try. I should just leave it alone in its unreasonably privileged position where no one is allowed to question it? (Sarcasm)
Its people leaving it alone and refusing to question, argue or criticise that leaves it on its pedestal. People only leave it alone to avoid the overblown reaction they get if they don't whether its a silly accusation of persecution or a full blown bombing campaign.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Then I ask again, what part doesn't fit the definition?

You misrepresent my point by either changing it so that it appears superficially similar but it is logically different or by providing a fallacious example that achieves the same result. You then refute your modified or misrepresented version and claim victory on the point.

That is a straw man.

It does fit under the umbrella of "arguing against a point that wasn't made in the first place" but that description is not specific enough, hence your original accusation of my using a straw man argument was in itself a straw man.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It doesn't contradict what is actually in the Declaration, but it certainly contradicts what you're reading into it. If the US "officially" claimed God, that would be establishment of God wouldn't it

Yes, it would. You can believe in God and not have any further established religious beliefs, however. Same as you can believe that there is no God, and not have any.

From Dictionary.com:
RELIGION: the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Yes they can, but when an atheist is stupid its usually just because they are being stupid and not because someone in a costume is telling them they have to be stupid.

The people in costumes, which of course could represent anything from business attire to lab coats, aren't asking Christians to be stupid any more than they are asking atheists to be stupid. It is stupid-people's interpretation of the information at hand, filtered through presupposition and personal agendas that makes them stupid. Unless you feel you've brought some novel angle to the thread, you're just parroting the atheist morons before you.

I don't believe that all muslims are terrorists if thats what you are getting at. Surely you can't deny that most terrorism is strongly linked to religion. This includes people who bomb abortion clinics or shoot staff that work in them.

... and yet it is an unmistakable minority that would commit such acts and in the latter example; the overwhelming majority condemn such acts. How could it be that such a minuscule minority of adherents to religion would succumb to psychotic acts?

Of course, not to let the godless off the hook as they certainly enjoy a clear edge in tyranny, oppression, and atrocity against human kind. They've managed to bastardize the message given them by people in lab coats.

Nice try. I should just leave it alone in its unreasonably privileged position where no one is allowed to question it? (Sarcasm)
Its people leaving it alone and refusing to question, argue or criticise that leaves it on its pedestal. People only leave it alone to avoid the overblown reaction they get if they don't whether its a silly accusation of persecution or a full blown bombing campaign.

It is amazing to me how atheists indict the human construct of religion while failing to acknowledge the human nature inherent in it. The nature of which their very ilk is most guilty.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

It does fit under the umbrella of "arguing against a point that wasn't made in the first place" but that description is not specific enough

Ok third time's a charm: then what part of your post doesn't fit the definition of a straw man?