Talk:Strawman theory

Relevant cases section

I'm thinking of making this section a wikitable, with columns for the case, the defendant (or plaintiff) the finding applied to, the finding and a brief description of the case. All of which can be sourced to the court case. I believe this would be much clearer and more informative than the current bulleted list of findings. Thoughts? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The sounds cleaner. Then I wouldn't feel bad about putting a few more in there too. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@User_talk:MPants at work - It's been a bit and there is no table. Do you know of a page that has a nice one that I can parrot from to learn how to make it? Thanks Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Mike. Sorry about that, I kinda lost track of this page in the wilds of my watchlist. I'm going to tablefy it today; I've done plenty of them, so I feel pretty comfortable getting started. You can tweak and fix things to your hearts content once I'm done. Also, your ping didn't work, as it just linked to my user talk page. Try using {{ping}} next time (it works like {{ping|MPants at work}}). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm certainly not hurrying you along, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Just stumbled back on the page after completely forgetting about it. 15:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not big deal. In fact, it's done already. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

That nice. Much cleaner looking. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Redundant with Redemption movement

Rap Chart Mike, this article is good but it seems to me redundant with Redemption movement. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The strawman theory originated in the redemption movement so obviously there is some overlap, but from what I could see it has a life of its own. The redemption movement existed before the strawman concept, and the idea of the strawman has been in turn used by people who did not use redemption schemes. Notably, Eldon Warman, who adapted redemption and sovereign concepts for Canada, did not reuse all of the American theories. So I'd say the existence of two different pages is justified, as long as they articulate well with each other. Psychloppos (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Strawmen being traded on stock exchange(s)?!

There are questions popping up on Quora.com about how to find where on the stock market your birth certificate strawman is being traded!? This is apparently a new twist, alleging that with your real "birth certificate number" you can find where your mortgaged self is being bought and sold. Anybody got a more solid link that that, or am I the only one who's spotted this new wrinkle in bullshittery? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• "Sovereign Citizen" notice, Belfast (October 2013) (geograph 5824402).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

assumptions and generalisations

1) "Hence, the main use of strawman theory is in escaping and denying liabilities and legal responsibility." Here an assumption is made that it is the 'main use' of the theory. Define "use" – define "theory" (whose theory may that be?) 2) Why stigmatise the theory to tax protesters and "antigovernment"(my quotes) movements? why the quotation marks here: "commercial redemption" and "get-out-of-debt-free" (my hyphenation) Finally, how can scams "claim" anything? Stjohn1970 (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Stjohn1970 the phrase "scams claim" is often used, eg [https://www.firstdirect.com/help/security-centre/fraud-awareness/latest-scams/].. Doug Weller talk 12:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

claiming to claim

"They back this claim by misreading the legal definition of person and misunderstanding the distinction between a juridicial person and a natural person." Although you cite three definitions (from a single law dictionary), you are still not backing your claim that "they" (who you limit to [potential] scammers, tax protesters, "antigovernment" movements) are misreading and misunderstanding, when the very language legalese is not the language of the "defendant". Where are the sources to back that affirmation? Stjohn1970 (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That “courts have* uniformly rejected arguments relying on the strawman theory” does not make it lawful, since such law if indeed instated should have to have been democratically instated.

(* use of "have" (labelled an auxiliary to "perfect" tense, which is pseudo-linguistics,

does not make the statement necessarily true for futurity.)

And following that with the ensuing statement “FBI considers anyone promoting it a likely fraudster” is basically irrelevant or incohesive with the previous statement. (Consider making a separate menu for that.) Stjohn1970 (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Stjohn1970 You say "you" - it's not clear who you are responding to. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the whole article? Sources don't have to be in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section Doug Weller talk 13:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Italy

The new paragraph looks likely to be undone but I'll ask anyway:

Some self-styled self-determinists spread the theory to such an extent that many people procured economic damages, criminal convictions and even forced hospitalizations for mental disorders.

Does "procured" here mean "incurred"? —Tamfang (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)