GalaxyFacts Chat Room

[Guest]

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. The position can be oversimplified, overstated, or else distorted. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.[1] It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy,[2] scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.

1 Setup of a straw man
2 Examples
3 References
4 See also



[edit] Setup of a straw man
One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
Quote an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy).
Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.
Some logic textbooks define the straw man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation.

However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the scope of the opponent's argument, either to where the argument is no longer relevant or as a step of a proof by exhaustion.


An example of a straw man fallacy:

Person A: I don't think children should run into the busy streets.
Person B: I think that it would be foolish to lock children up all day.
By insinuating that Person A's argument is far more dramatic than it is, Person B has side-stepped the issue. Here the "straw man" that person B has set up is the premise that "The only way to stop children running into the busy streets is to keep them inside all day".

[Guest]

Il Principe
The Prince

Bust of Machiavelli in the Palazzo Vecchio.Machiavelli's best known work is The Prince, in which he describes the arts by which a Prince (a ruler) can retain control of his realm. He focuses primarily on what he calls the principe nuovo or "new prince", under the assumption that a hereditary prince has an easier task since the people are accustomed to him. All a hereditary prince needs to do is carefully maintain the institutions that the people are used to; a new prince has a much more difficult task since he must stabilize his newfound power and build a structure that will endure. This task requires the Prince to be publicly above reproach but privately may require him to do things of an evil nature in order to achieve the greater good.

The Prince is different from other books about creating and controlling principalities because it doesn't tell the reader what an ideal prince or principality is. Machiavelli explains through examples which princes are the most successful in obtaining and maintaining power. He draws his examples from personal observations made while he was on diplomatic missions for Florence and from his readings in ancient history. His writing has the mark of the Renaissance upon it because he sprinkles his text with Latin phrases and many examples are drawn from Classical sources.

A careless reading of The Prince could easily lead one to believe that its central argument is "the ends justify the means" - which is a teleological philosophical view ("telos" is Greek for ends) - that any evil action can be justified if it is done for a good purpose. This is a limited interpretation, however, because Machiavelli placed a number of restrictions on evil actions. First, he specified that the only acceptable end was the stabilization and health of the state; individual power for its own sake is not an acceptable end and does not justify evil actions. Second, Machiavelli does not dispense entirely with morality nor advocate wholesale selfishness or degeneracy. Instead he clearly lays out his definition of, for example, the criteria for acceptable cruel actions (it must be swift, effective, and short-lived). Notwithstanding the mitigating themes in The Prince, the Catholic Church put the work in its Index Librorum Prohibitorum and it was viewed in a negative light by many Humanists such as Erasmus.

The primary contribution of "The Prince" to the history of political thought is its fundamental break between realism and idealism. While Machiavelli emphasized the need for morality, the sole motivation of the prince ought to be the use of good and evil solely as instrumental means rather than ends in themselves. A wise prince is one who properly exercises this proper balance. Pragmatism is a guiding thread through which Machiavelli bases his philosophy. The Prince should be read strictly as a guidebook on getting to and preserving power. In contrast with Plato and Aristotle, the ideal society is not the aim. In fact, Machiavelli emphasizes the need for the exercise of brute power where necessary and rewards, patron-clientalism etc. to preserve the status quo. Machiavelli's assumption, that human nature is fundamentally flawed, is also reflected in the need for brute force to attain practical ends. Complete trust and faith in one's subjects is not sustainable. This is very similar to the ideas of the Legalist school thought in practiced during the Qin Dynasty, 16 centuries earlier.

The term "Machiavellian" was adopted by some of Machiavelli's contemporaries, often used in the introductions of political tracts of the sixteenth century that offered more 'just' reasons of state, most notably those of Jean Bodin and Giovanni Botero. The pejorative term Machiavellian as it is used today (or anti-Machiavellism as it was used from the sixteenth century) is thus a misnomer, as it describes one who deceives and manipulates others for gain; whether the gain is personal or not is of no relevance, only that any actions taken are only important insofar as they affect the results. It fails to include some of the more moderating themes found in Machiavelli's works and the name is now associated with the extreme viewpoint.[3]

Sixteen years before Machiavelli published The Prince, Desiderus Erasmus published The Institutio principis Christiani (Education of a Christian Prince) as advice to the young king Charles of Spain and later for Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. Erasmus applied the general principles of honor and sincerity to the special functions of the Prince, whom he represented a servant of the people. A comparison between the two is worth noting because Machiavelli stated that, to maintain control by political force, it is safer for a prince to be feared than loved. Erasmus, on the other hand, preferred for the prince to be loved and suggested that the prince needed a well-rounded education in order to govern justly and benevolently and to avoid becoming a source of oppression.

[Guest]

Self-dealing is the conduct of a trustee, an attorney, a corporate officer, or other fiduciary that consists of taking advantage of his position in a transaction and acting for his own interests rather than for the interests of the beneficiaries of the trust, corporate shareholders, or his clients. Self-dealing may involve misappropriation or usurpation of corporate assets or opportunities.

One of the more current and widely agreed on definitions is from political scientists Ken Kernaghan and John Langford in their book “The Responsible Public Servant”. They define self-dealing as “a situation where one takes an action in an official capacity which involves dealing with oneself in a private capacity and which confers a benefit on oneself."

Michael McDonald, Ph.D, Chair of Applied Ethics at The University of British Columbia provides examples based from this book: “You work for government and use your official position to secure a contract for a private consulting company you own.” and “using your government position to get a summer job for your daughter”.

[Mike]

[Mike]

[Mike]

notice the "sponsored by four homeowners"

Why not say "signed by 318 homeowners" ??

still up to his old tricks if you ask me

[Guest]

Ellinger states that then there will be only two names on the recall ballot, what happens if they send out the ballots printed up with the two names and for some reason the vote does not take place that night .If you remember in another election the drivers of the voting group were lost or stuck in traffic and they adjourned the meeting. If this happens you now have all the ballots typed up and sent out. It cost the association money to do this. They then will have to spend more money with a new date and Ellinger will remain till one day before the new date. Due to the holidays and scheduling conflicts that could bring us into January and then the argument would be made just wait until the elections and let’s see what happens.

[Guest]

NONSENSE!!! ALLAN IS RESIGNING AS OF NOVEMBER 13th AND NOT AFTER THE SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14th. VOTE OR NOT HE IS GONE!!!!



PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:48 pm Post subject: "sponsored by four homeowners" Reply with quote
Ellinger states that then there will be only two names on the recall ballot, what happens if they send out the ballots printed up with the two names and for some reason the vote does not take place that night .If you remember in another election the drivers of the voting group were lost or stuck in traffic and they adjourned the meeting. If this happens you now have all the ballots typed up and sent out. It cost the association money to do this. They then will have to spend more money with a new date and Ellinger will remain till one day before the new date. Due to the holidays and scheduling conflicts that could bring us into January and then the argument would be made just wait until the elections and let’s see what happens.
Back to top

[Guest]

THE FIGHT AGAINST ABUSIVE BOARDS

by: Jeffrey A. Goldberg
One of the worst situations in the development of community associations is the problem of an abusive board. Not all boards are abusive and perhaps most boards act properly and in good faith. But certainly there are a large number of abusive boards.

We observed that there are two kinds of abusive boards. The entrenched board and the weak board. The entrenched board exercises too much power, while the weak board exercises too little power.

An entrenched board is composed of individuals who are elected and re-elected term after term for many years. Over time, the entrenched board becomes less responsive to the needs and desires of the association members and devotes too much of its attention towards ensuring its own re-election and enjoying special powers and perks associated with being in control and exercising power and authority over one's neighbors. Abuses often occur.

A weak board does not have a stable membership. The directors are elected and removed from office constantly so that there is no one who understands the associations and its problems. It is impossible to implement long-term solutions. The board members are forced to devote their time trying to attract voters and to punish enemies so that they can maximize their chances of re-election so that they can get something done. Abuses often occur.

Not every entrenched or weak board becomes abusive or neglectful of its members. However, it can be safe to say that every abusive board is either weak or entrenched.

How can a unit owner fight back against an abusive board? How can we make a difference to change the board so that it will act responsibly and in the best interests of its members? The solution to this problem can be found, naturally, by going to the heart of why a board becomes abusive and the form that such abuses take.

The Political Solution
The problem and its solution requires an understanding of association politics. We have identified three basic political stages that are found in some degree in every association: apathetic, political, and anarchic. A number of associations cycle through and fluctuate between the apathetic and anarchic stages. A healthy association will avoid these extremes and will attempt to remain in the political stage.

The apathetic stage is characterized by an entrenched board that rarely turns over its membership from year to year. The board's authority increases over time to the point of dictatorial control and the board seems to answer to no one. The unit owners are apathetic and barely pay attention to the activities of the association. If the unit owners are even aware of the board, they are happy and content that someone is taking care of business so that they do not have to become involved or expend any energy. There is very little discussion or dispute among the unit owners and very little political activity. This type of board serves primarily the interests of its own board members. Although they hold an election, typically the entrenched board controls the selection and election of candidates to the board because very few unit owners are involved.

The anarchic stage is quite the opposite of the apathetic stage and many apathetic associations cycle directly back and forth in to and out of this stage. Whenever the dictatorial board becomes too abusive, as it inevitably will, the unit owners awaken, resist, rebel, criticize, and organize. Anarchy reigns in this association. The board becomes weak. It tends to have high turnover, has weak control, and it tries to answers to everyone. All of the unit owners are aware and engaged in political activity. The affairs of the association are in chaos, and the board serves no one's interests. The elections during an anarchic stage find numerous persons on the ballot, many of whom have a personal issue or agenda to push through but are not committed to the stability and health of the organization. The election is hotly contested, the participants are disruptive, and the elected board ends up deadlocked with persons belonging to two or more political camps, neither of whom will accept anything the other one decides. Eventually, over time, a group of board members will consolidate their power and the association cycles back to the dictatorial stage.

The political stage is the balance between the apathetic and anarchic stage, and should be the goal of every healthy association. In this association, there is a large number of unit owners who are aware of the association's affairs, attend board meetings, and keep informed of the board's activities. Although a number of members continue to be apathetic, the best of the unit owners become actively involved. Although there is some dispute over the direction of the affairs of the association, the board is relatively stable and its membership turns over slowly from time to time. New members to the board tend to be elected from the large group of aware and involved unit owners. They are almost always elected because they have distinguished themselves by their actions and participation or by the quality of their ideas. The board remains responsive to the members, stable, and in firm control. The board answers to the unit owners and it serves the best interests of the unit owners.

Based upon the above, it is clear that the solution to the problem of abusive boards is to avoid the extremes of the anarchic and entrenched stages, and try to stabilize the association into a healthy political stage. The answer lies with the unit owners. A number of them must step up and organize with one another in good faith and for the purpose of serving the interests of the entire association. They must carefully research and understand the association's problems, develop solutions, and then educate the other unit owners. Over time, these unit owners will gain more and more credibility and they will inevitably come to replace the abusive board members. When in power, they must exercise care not to become entrenched but rather to encourage an open and fair political process.

The Judicial Solution
We are not so naïve as to believe that an abusive board will simply allow any unit owners to organize and take over. More often than not, the members of an abusive board are bent upon remaining in power. This forms the essence of why they are so abusive. They seek to reward their political allies and punish their enemies.

The casual observer might consider the power and authority of a community association board as somewhat petty. It is true that the more petty the power, the more petty are the individuals who seek to possess it. In our many years of involvement in the area of community associations, it never ceases to amaze us at what lengths some individuals will go simply to control an association.

This means that any group of owners who try to organize to save their association from an abusive board will likely become a target for that abuse. They will be accused of various violations of the covenants, they will be fined, they will receive anonymous phone calls and threatening letters, and they will be denied various services, rights, and privileges of the unit owners. In an election, the board might use questionable tactics and maneuvers to prevent the unit owners from exercising their voting rights.

The greatest abuse committed by abusive boards is filing aggressive lawsuits in order to silence political opponents. This goes on surprisingly often. When this type of abuse occurs, where the unit owners are stripped of the one power that they really have (the right to vote), there is no choice but to aggressively litigate. However, the board has a huge advantage. The board has far more resources than an individual unit owner. The board can afford to pay the legal fees to fight aggressively and the declaration (and the Condominium Property Act) in many instances will provide for an award of attorneys' fees against the unit owner if he or she loses the case. The board can file suit on all kinds of trumped up causes of action and factual allegations that are false and without merit. The unit owner is forced to expend a large amount of money just to defend herself all the time with the threat of having to foot the board's bill in the event it is victorious. Thus, the abusive board just becomes more abusive, and the victims of abuse become discouraged and frustrated, unable to effectively fight back.

Unit owners targeted by an abusive board have little choice but to fight in court. The problem is that few unit owners have the funds needed to put up an effective defense.

The ultimate solution is to remove the barriers to litigation so that aggrieved unit owners can fight back against an abusive board. This solution will have to come from State legislation. There is a crying need for litigation reform in the area of community association law.

We propose two changes to State law: make it easier for unit owners to vote to remove individual board members and allow victorious unit owners to recover their attorneys' fees and costs from the board.

At present, most association bylaws provide for the removal of a board member with the vote of at least two-thirds of the total vote of unit owners. Most associations have a hard enough time getting a 20% quorum for most meetings. It is almost impossible to get 2/3 of an association's membership to participate in anything.

We propose that the law reduce the 2/3 vote requirements to allow the removal of directors by an affirmative vote of a majority of the total vote. This would be much easier than a 2/3 vote but would be significantly more difficult than a vote based upon a mere quorum of owners. Therefore, it would promote stability on the board while providing a pressure valve to allow the unit owners to remove directors during a term.

The second proposed change in the law is to modify those provisions which allow a board to recover attorneys' fees and costs against a violating unit owner be made mutual. Thus, in any lawsuit between the board and a unit owner, the prevailing party will be entitled to recover attorneys' fees from the defeated party. This will embolden and encourage aggrieved unit owners to initiate and defend against suits involving an abusive board, and it will serve as a moderating influence on the board because of the threat of a fee award against the board. Those boards who are legitimately enforcing their covenants need not feel threatened by such reform because they are bringing the actions in good faith and with the law behind them. Only abusive boards would fear this type of reform.

In order for this legislation to become a reality, the unit owners must demand it of their state representatives. The special interests who normally put forth and lobby for association legislation (association trade organizations, attorneys, managers, vendors, etc.) will not necessarily take up this cause because they often serve and benefit from an abusive board (and sometimes they are even entrenched along with them).

The type of reform that is clearly necessary will come from unit owners who are not satisfied to live under a dictatorship in their own neighborhoods. It will come by organizing together and pooling resources, finding a legislative sponsor, and lobbying in State capitols and throughout the association communities. If the unit owners fail to make this effort, they will be condemned in many associations to suffer the indignity of living in an atmosphere of chaos and abuse, and will deserve exactly what they get.

[peter]

[Phil]

[miked]

[admin]

[Sick of the lies]

I came home to see Ellinger's letter sticking out of my apt door. I thought the best place to read it was in the bathroom while on the toilet. That is about all the respect I can give Ellinger's BAIT AND SWITCH routine.

There is a bigger picture to be revealed here. The two directors who have agreed to leave the board would not do so on their own volition. They did so because there is a bigger plan already in place that will reinforce THEIR CAUSE.

Right to the end Ellinger lies about the basis of the petition, sponsored by 4 homeowners, nice spin. Myself and my family members put 3 signatures on that petition and so did the other 300 plus owners.

He claims he will stay to make a smooth transition, could that be so he and his croonies do no land in court? Perhaps he could even be spending time with our Mayor of Guttenberg after all "where did all the money go?"

Ellinger told viewers on Ch.26 that his team has written letters to homeowers. Is it true that he insisted that the sky would fall in if he or one of his own did not remain or become president.

You can tell by his letter that he and his "behind the scenes team" convinced the other board members that none of them were good enough to be presidents WHAT!!! So someone out of right field, with no board experience will just step in to being president and have more knowledge than our present board members? Something doesn't add up or should I say it makes perfect sense because,

Not to worry, Ellinger will have his "team" come to the special meeitng with tons of voting proxies coaxed(?) out of owners. After all, he has had plenty of time to gather them that is why he dragged on the vote for the time and date of the recall meeting.

It is all good for the powers that be, they have had the time to organize against owners seeking a change and who want to stop the financial blood letting. The players who have run this place since it was built, the Ellinger, Norget,, Simon, Price, Blank, Furman team will once again remain in control with just different faces on the same sorry shells of human beings.

God help us all!!! FLUSH.........

[Fast Pete]

Martha retired
Susan resigned
Delle Donna adios
Ellinger resigned
Buckalew wave goodbye$$$$