I'm not sure how many consecutive times you need to be proven full of ***** but we're already at two, so I'll be off to do something else now.
Originally Posted by logical fallacies
straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.
It could be said that I am making an assumtion that is not supported by evidence, but I believe it is a reasonable assumption and I am too lazy to do the research to back it. However, it is easily disproved. Somebody just needs to show the vehicle code from
one state that allows earphones in both ears. My argument is not
necessarily that it is unsafe to do so, just that it is illegal to do so, and therefore it is not a strawman argument.
In any event, it most certainly
IS illegal in California and
I live in California so
I will not do it. Of course, you can call my hypocritical too if you want, because I will admit that I do not stop at stop signs if I know there are no cars and I will sometimes roll through a light after stopping if is clear.
Edit: I have admitted I was wrong below
VVV