The sad thing

[sasguru]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

His logical problem is that he's an illogical cretin.

[DodgyAgent]

Feck me imposssible though it may appear, I may even have over-estimated your intelligence.
What are your thoughts (I use the term with great optimism but not much hope) about the destruction of Britain's industrial base under Thatcher? Or do you think it doesn't matter?

It had already been destroyed by the Trade Unions and to bring it back would have meant throwing vast amounts of money which she did not have. now I know you lefties like to think that there is a money tree (or orchard in this case) out there but I am afraid that those of us with only basic "accounting for dummies" knowledge seem to be blinded from its prescence.

[DodgyAgent]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

please explain why. Calling my argument a "straw man argument" is a cop out.

[doodab]

please explain why. Calling my argument a "straw man argument" is a cop out.

Your argument is basically:

X disagrees with me => X is a leftie => X is wrong => I am right

None of the inferences are correct.

[DodgyAgent]

Your argument is basically:

X disagrees with me => X is a leftie => X is wrong => I am right

None of the inferences are correct.

True

But there is a point as to why I am doing it. I have yet to hear any coherent argument to suggest that Thatcher could have done things differently or that things would be better had she not come to power. I presume in the former what the critics mean is that she could have borrowed more to invest in building industries - but they are not presenting the case for this. To which I would answer It is fine to say now after the borrowing binges that are going on around the world but at the time borrowing was not an option.
So when I use the straw man argument it is because I see no rational argument coming back. Irrational illogical rants about Thatcher are coming thick and fast from lefties so by using the straw man argument I am merely pointing out that their views are equivalent of the morons on the left.

I watched Neil Kinnock being interviewed about Thatcher and he eloquently explained and reasoned his criticism./ He criticised her where he thought she was wrong (too harsh) and supported her on other matters (that Arthur Scargill should be blamed for the destruction of the mining industry). His was a proper well informed and well presented series of points

This is entirely different to the leftie style "ranters" with their tenuous cliches and poisonous nastiness. The strawman argument therefore serves a useful and accurate purpose.

What is also interesting is that clearly the bile against Thatcher comes from a group of people who have been personally enriched as a result of her policies yet none of them are prepared to argue that this is not the case. I see a few who have apparently "left the country" or "not been strictly involved in IT". In fact they are not prepared to argue anything. If for example they rant about her being a job destroyer then they are leaving themselves open to arguments I have made about their own profession

Now if someone is an out and out commie and they were prepared to argue that society would be better under a collectivist system then I could respect that.

[Pondlife]

One good think about the Thatcher years was the availability of C90 tapes.

The good thing about them was you could turn them over and listen to something completely different.

[ZARDOZ]

She had the revenue from north sea oil, but rather than invest that wisely she mainly spent it on the unemployment/welfare bill she had helped create. We had no underclass prior to Thatcherism.

[DodgyAgent]

One good think about the Thatcher years was the availability of C90 tapes.

The good thing about them was you could turn them over and listen to something completely different.

I had a girlfriend like that

[DodgyAgent]

She had the revenue from north sea oil, but rather than invest that wisely she mainly spent it on the unemployment/welfare bill she had helped create. We had no underclass prior to Thatcherism.

So are you saying that she should have spent money on keeping uncompetitive businesses going? bearing in mind that they would still have remained nationalised and under Union control . Or should she have stimulated investment in new businesses instead of paying welfare? Or does money grow on trees? (if it does did anyone tell the IMF?)

As for underclass they are casualties of labour saving technologies and failing socialist institutions (that should have prepared them in the school system for a different world of work)

[Taita]

Didn't read the whole thread but what I don't get is why 20 odd year olds hate her when they haven't a clue about it... From what I can see in the papers nearly every single person involved in the 'parties' in the pictures weren't even old enough to vote. Am sure it has been said before but that's my tuppence worth.

Exactly. Having had the extreme misfortune to be related (by marriage) to some teachers and having met their friends occasionally during those years, I think the youngsters were very painstakingly indoctrinated in anti-Thatcher views.

I suppose we should be grateful that the kids at least learned enough History to know the Thatcher was once Prime Mininster (wot dat?).