Quote:From our good friend Wikipedia:

 

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.^[2]^[3]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

 

the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition.

 

 

Sounds eerily similar to exactly what you did, I would say. Interesting indeed!

You have played judge, jury and executioner in this case while not only gleefully reminding us that you think, without evidence to support your insane claim, that this person not only deserve to die but have given rational in the form of financial burden reduction. Have been consistent in your disregard for the judicial process. That's not a straw man. That's just putting everything you have said in multiple threads into an easy enough for you to understand analogy of what you have been attempting to prop up. That you are attempting to spin this and deflect how you have portrayed yourself is admirable but not surprisingly, a failure. 

---