Comment: Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise

(See in situ)


Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise

"G. Edward Griffin sez the strawman is all hokum" (also taking into consideration all the comments of the OP in this thread and every other thread he starts on this same topic)

"We don't read that trash. People who read that trash don't appreciate real literature. Therefore, we appreciate real literature."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_conclusion_from_a_n...

I have been perfectly clear in that framing an argument like this:

Entity A: Authority exists.

Entity B: Authority only exists over a "strawman."

Entity A: It has not been proven Authority only exists over a "strawman" verified by citing any Authority ... therefore Authority exists. (rolls eyes, did you mention non-sequitur?)

Is an intentional shifting of the burden of proof because any "strawman" argument is only ever made in response to an assertion of authority. Talk about fallacy. Any framing of a strawman argument not premised upon a true authority premise is a complete misrepresentation of logic:

Entity A: Authority exists.

Entity B: Prove it.

I have been perfectly clear in that the presumption of authority without proof not only shifts the burden of proof for an omitted premise but any strawman argument then becomes an attempt to prove a negative.

No strawman argument exists outside of a response to an assertion of authority. There is no escaping this fundamental point. Authority is always the first assertion.

This scenario doesn't exist:

Entity B: Authority only exists over a "strawman."

Entity A: It has not been proven authority only exists over a "strawman" verified by citing any Authority ... therefore Authority exists. (rolls eyes)

How do we know it doesn't exist? Because there is no evidence of anyone just showing up at a court for no reason just to argue authority only exists over a "strawman." In every case a strawman is only asserted in response to an assertion of authority where someone is only at a court under threat using authority.

Now that said, I understand the value of the "strawman" argument as useful to explain how a legal system works but it is not a valid response to an assertion of authority. The only valid response to an assertion of authority is to demand proof of authority.

Since the OP states "discuss," the OP has been repeatedly dishonest, and the OP appears to have a fetish repeatedly mis-framing this topic I am justified to illustrate any fallacy.