Yes, you did, when you took a specific statement and generalised it.
Which I immediately followed by clarifying the nature of the appeal, and which you have snipped in your response.
Of course it was a straw man. It was meant to be a straw man. It shows you how obvious your own straw man was.
Yes, it is relevant. It is a mechanism which Holmes had which no male con artist can employ.
It is apparently exceedingly difficult for people to understand that men and women are treated differently in society.
Where did I imply that sex appeal was necessary to run every scam? I didn't.
No: nobody said her scam was unique because she was hot. What was said was that no man could have pulled off what she did. Her sex appeal could be part of that but it wouldn't be all of it. I explained other possible reasons she was successful where a man would not have been, unrelated to her sex appeal. In particular:
Nobody contended Holmes could have done it on her own. The contention was that no man could pull off what she did, which was peddle an obviously scientifically impossible idea into a 4.5 billion dollar company. I have yet to see any substantial response to this, although I have seen substantial strawmanning of it.
You wrote what you wrote. I find your post-hoc explanation unconvincing.
As you persist in confirming, you have no idea what a straw man is.
You seem unable to stick to the subject. It is not relevant to the issue that no man could have pulled off the same scam as Ms. Holmes.
Ah yes. It was always the male mastermind. Women don't have the brains to pull off conning people, and they don't have the moral agency to be blamed for it even when they do.
But without her? She was the face of it. She was the long sought female tech star. Criticizes her? How dare you, you misogynist bastard.
It wasn't a post hoc explanation. It was a sentence that you snipped that immediately followed the sentence you quoted. That you do not know that the sentences in a paragraph are connected is another sign of the failure of your primary school education. But you knew enough to know it was necessary to snip the sentence in order for your straw man to look more plausible.
Whether a man could have pulled off the same scam that Holmes did is indeed relevant to the issue of whether a man could have pulled off the same scam that Holmes did.
Ah yes. It was always the male mastermind. Women don't have the brains to pull off conning people, and they don't have the moral agency to be blamed for it even when they do.
Your tautology is a tribute to the depth of your analysis. but it is off point.
It isn't post hoc. It is in the original post that you quoted, but you snipped it out.
Does the inconsistency within your own paragraph even register to you?
Why do you think Holmes is a blonde bimbo?
It is not my misogyny. It's yours. I think Holmes had the brains and the charisma to scam people, and she did. I did not displace her moral agency onto a man like you did.
I already explained in post #230 and over several posts how Holmes' sex could have been necessary (though not sufficient) in pulling off such a fraud.
It is post hoc - it came way after your post in question.
You keep repeating that canard.
That claim does not require any conjectures about Ms. Holmes's attractiveness or sexual appeal to the investor.
Your continuing repetition of a falsehood does not make it true, no matter how many times you repeat that falsehood.
You quoting one sentence then snipping out the next sentence is a dishonest quoting method. I'm not going to argue about this further.
I was explaining the mechanisms, related to Holmes's sex, that could make the conjecture plausible.
They were both fraudulent schemes. They were both selling something that didn't exist. It makes no difference what they were selling.
Of course it makes a difference for the reasons I've already explained. A wealth management fund is a thing that can exist and indeed they do exist and indeed some of them can beat the market spectacularly (genuinely beat the market, not a Ponzi scheme, but it's just luck). Madoff did not need to persuade people on an impossible biotech invention. Nobody would have invested in Madoff because he was a female leader in a STEM field (because he isn't).
What makes you think it was a scientific impossibility? And what are your qualifications to make that determination?
The fact that it is one. And the pathologists who say it is impossible.
I am confident that I can use my own brain to understand arguments.
So where are the 2012 arguments?
