Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
I am sorry for his family's loss. I also faced a loss recently and it is very difficult to carry on. I had to make a conscious choice to get up and move on. I still have two children left and a wife and the rest of my family and I could not wallow in my self pity for my loss. Trust me it is not easy but that is what you have to do. Mr. DALM88Driver lost money, that is all. Get over it, pick yourself off and move forward. Or wallow in self pity until it drags you into a pit, I guess that is a choice also.
I went through the same strains as everyone else in bankruptcy. I know how difficult it was. In the same vein, facing deep loss gave me a greater appreciation about what is valuable and what is not. Money is just money. You can either replace it or do without it. I am sure that you feel bad about your friend, trust me I feel my loss every single day.
Alfa, I am truly sorry for your loss. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
You fancy yourself as business savvy. When we talk contract here, we're talking business. That is the framework within which the discussion is taking place. It has nothing to do with anyone placing a higher value on money than on other more important things in life.
Perhaps a review of the following is in order here:
A
straw man, also known in the UK as an
Aunt Sally,
[1][2] is a common type of
argument and is an
informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.
[3] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.
[4][5]
This technique has been used throughout history in
polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.