You are full of it , I brought up Stevie because actually he was as bad if not worse than Jay had no positional sense or actually stuck to his job which guess what put pressure on his midfield partners each with far less experience than him!
However we have a pecking list in here, people you can slate, Adam, Jay, Andy, Downing, people who can never be slated at all., stevie, Suarez!
Happy now.
I'm not a lawyer. I understand the whole straw man thing as a 'logical fallacy'.
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
If you can't see that Geoff's method of arguing his points fit the above description then there really isn't any point us continuing this discussion.
OK lets take it step by step
1.Was the original argument misrepresented?…….A says Spearing is no good..B says, by the same measure, Gerrard is no good.
.......No misrepresentation of argument, just comparison
2.Quoting an opponents words out of context…..to bring Gerrard into an argument about spearing does not change the context…all players are judged comparatively and he introduced a comparison
No quoting an opponent out of context, just comparison
3.Quoting a person who defends an argument poorly as the defender of that argument..etc..etc…….
He argued solely that the performances of Spearing were on a par with those of Gerrard and that the argument was wrong…not the person. This point is also dismissed.
4.Inventing a ficticious persona…….where?...Is Gerrard ficticious?
5.Oversimplifying an opponents argument….The opponents argument seems to be that Spearing is no good based upon the evidence of very few matches or incidents……This was argued against on the grounds that Gerrard, or indeed, any player, judged so quickly can equally be found wanting……..
So, where is the straw man?...I would say the logical fallacy in this whole deal is that one player can be judged as not good enough and another, on exactly the same criteria is good enough almost beyond criticism.
