Quote:
Originally Posted by DGthe3
But if its all about 'informal control' then its no different than any other company. They could walk up to Allan Mulally and say 'Ford had better build a ___ ' and he'd be just as obligated to listen as Ed Whitacre is, that is to say, no obligation.
btw, you have a very different interpretation of a strawman argument than I've ever heard. I am aware of the 'cannot be disproven' fallacy, I forget what it is though. But it would be best if we avoided analyzing all the formal argument mistakes we've each made, after-all this is not a dedicated debate sub-forum so the rules of such debates don't really apply. Sorta like complaining about an off-side in a pick-up game of soccer.
|
It's a mixture of formal (GM keep your headquarters in Detroit and appoint this CEO), and informal (board members who are beholden to the administration and will carry out their policies, like sympathetic union policies etc.), and regulatory (same as any other car company).
Let's see what happens when the union contract comes up next year.
Here's Wikipedia's definition of a straw man:
"A
straw man argument is an
informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
[1][2]"
You refuted my argument of government control by substituting the argument that board members didn't come from a government agency (the straw man), then refuting that, said that my argument was refuted.
My argument wasn't where the board members came from, it was whether or not they (the company) were controlled by the government.
Edit to add: I see where my comment above wasn't a good definition of a straw man. I knew what I was thinking, it just didn't translate to paper correctly.