Tired of this. Take it offline.

Oops, I meant Sarah, not Annie.

Annie, thanks for moving this back here. Seems we understand each other at last.

Even though I still don’t agree with the community having to counter people of different opinions. People rarely change their minds that way.

Ah, back where we belong.

Anyway, I have not at any point argued with you that there is a possiblity that this company is doing something bad and not admitting it. My claim is that you do not have the right to accuse a company of something like that unless you have a real basis for it (besides the argument that other companies have done it, which doesn’t stand up too well). You have never countered that actual argument.

So let’s please clarify our stances. I see your claim right now as being “It is possible that this company is using real dog and cat fur.” Agreed! It is possible!

However, your earler statement, the one I had a beef with, was “If you don’t like that some people think it’s real fur, or that it’s creepy, then stop reading the comments.”

I think when people make statements they have no proof for, the community should counter them, rather than ignore them.

If you have a problem with this latter claim, then fine, I’m not going to change your mind at this point, so let’s go on our merry ways.

Matt, since you seem so [sweary] enclined to continue to insult me, I don’t see why I should refrain from it.

Since you are obviously dim witted, I will spell it out for you.

Yes some of these are made of fur. This company claims that it’s not, but how do we know that’s true? Now note that I did not go further than that. Or is that too complicated a concept for your tiny brain to grasp?

Oh, and [swear swear something-or-other... - Ed.]

Helene, since everyone seems to be misunderstanding your argument and you seem to be reluctant to do anything more than point out that you are being misunderstood, let me ask you this:

how is your position different from Sarah’s characterization of it?

“Some companies make figurines from animal fur. (True!)

This company wouldn’t admit it if they did make figurines out of animal fur. (Probably true!)

Therefore, it is okay for posters to insinuate that this company makes figurines out of animal fur.”

As you have the very special distinction of having studied law and as you have some familiarity with “all of mankind history,” you will note that Sarah’s problem with this argument is that you move from a premise about the possibility of particular company’s fur use (however remote), to a conclusion about the permissibility of accusing that particular company of fur use.

The careful reader of Sarah’s position will recognize that she is not asserting that it is false that the company uses fur– merely that there is insufficient evidence to accuse.

The careful intro to logic student (which I recommend for you, Helene) will note that it is a strawman fallacy to suggest that Sarah needs to be ‘God Almighty’ (weird phrase) to take the line that she does.

It is not an ad hominem to recommend a career at Wal-Mart to a confused lawyer. It is sound advice. The world needs more foggy-headed people fighting for bad causes.

Thanks for the laugh Matt!

However, I don’t see why you deem it necessary to attack me by suggesting I should consider a career at Walmart.

Her reductio of it? You mean her misunderstanding of it?

Helene, were you admitted to law school before or after you became an awful arguer?

Simply asserting,

“Your analysis of my comment is wrong”

and,

“You believe you are able to read my mind and get my meaning”

is to avoid meeting Sarah’s challenge, which was to show the difference in form between your earlier bad argument and her reductio of it.

Btw, have you considered a career at Wal-Mart? I suspect that the exploited children of the world would be better off if you applied your weak argumentative skills to defending child labor, than if you worked to oppose it with bad arguments.

Now, I’m going to look at some more cute [swear] on this website!!!!

Sarah,

Who are you to say those statements are false? How do you know? You’re God Almighty?

So if I use your argument, like you yourself do so well, then you should not make your statements without basis, and I should be allowed to challenge you.

As for my own basis, check out the multiple links people have posted above. All I’m saying is that real fur figurines do exist and that we don’t know if these are one of them or not. That the manifacturer says otherwise doesn’t mean a thing. In all of mankind history, merchants have been know to occasionnaly lie to make a buck. Sure, cigarettes are good for you amd make you look cool. McDonalds food is good for you. Or even, the saleslady at some clothing store that goes “Wow, that looks good on you!”

Helene, nope, I was just trying to clarify the argument. I do indeed believe that my opinion (that people should not make false statements without basis) is correct. As for these silly figurines, if people want to believe that this manufacturer is using real cat and dog fur – no matter what anybody says – they can go ahead and believe that. However, they should not post these statements in a public forum without anything to back it up. And if they do so, then people should challenge them.