Subject:
|
Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 4 Oct 2002 18:43:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
871 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > It's akin to thinking that, "Aha! I caught you! I have 'knocked the legs
> > out from under you' by showing that your quotation comes from a different
> > source!" Well, no, you just demonstrated that I have faulty research, the
> > quotation is still standing out there, with it's "own legs", waiting to be
> > refuted.
>
> But if we're talking about gun control and you say "in 1780, Jefferson wrote x
> in a letter to the Virginia assembly about the meaning of militia" and it turns
> out that the quote was actually written by Sarah Brady in 1989, the quotation
> is not "still standing out there." It's sunk! Sarah Brady doesn't get an
> opinion (unless of course, we can show that she has taken care to research it
> and is presenting her findings).
>
> Quotations don't exist in a vacuum. The author, the times, the entire context
> from which the quotation is pulled is part of the chain of support that makes
> the appeal to authority valuable. That's the whole reason that we do appeal to
> those of perceived wisdom or special knowledge rathern than Moe the bartender.
>
> Chris
And, again I agree that appealling to those more intelligent and well versed
than ourselves to aid in our defense of a particular point can be a good thing.
But if Moe the bartender said something poignant, insightful and relevant to
the conversation, why would his opinion be more circumspect than if, say,
the exact same point was raised by Jefferson, et al?
Of course I agree that the quotation should have a context--that ideas and
issues do not exist in a vacuum, and that who said it originally has some
merit, but again, if the quotation source is proven incorrect, that by
itself does not mean that what is said automatically becomes null and
void--we still haven't dealt with the issue at hand--it's still out there.
Bring it back to the issue, not the person. Rhetorical techniques for
debating issues are good and useful, until the issue gets waylaid for
purposes of style, posing, or technique. Saying that a person's point is
more valid 'cause they have a triple PHD and they are able to articulate
their point better than Moe the bartender, who may not be as well spoken in
the realm of debate, is just ludicrous.
It's one of the problems I see with the judicial system today--we seem to
award points on style and flair, instead of the actual reason why there's a
trial in the first place--to find the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth.
Why do good looking women get away with more traffic infractions than say,
well, me? ;)
We have spoken of critical thinking here, we have spoken of discernment, we
have spoken of burning away the extraneous and irrelevant, until the core,
the truth, is exposed. This has never happened, as far as I can see, when
the real issue or problem gets supplanted with 'niggly' concerns such as
where a quotation 'really' came from or who said what, or by attacking the
person.
Critical thinking does not take a vacation just because, "Well, Jefferson
said it so it must be right--no need to interpret it any differently."
Discernment does not take a hike "because the bible plainly says this!"
No, it's the issues and ideas that need to be worked on, and when we start
coming up with Just solutions for the issues, society will start getting better.
Attacking a person will only lead to either a) pissing off the person, or b)
a change in the person--you fixed one person.
Attacking the issue will, hopefully, lead to a fix for all persons.
Anyway, my idealism is shining thru so I'll stop this post now. I really
enjoy this thread though.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) That's fine. I have nothing against Moe's poignancy. And while Moe may have very valid opinions about the role of firearms in modern society, I value the writings of the people who wrote the constitution, more than I trust Moe's opinion -- (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) But if we're talking about gun control and you say "in 1780, Jefferson wrote x in a letter to the Virginia assembly about the meaning of militia" and it turns out that the quote was actually written by Sarah Brady in 1989, the quotation is not (...) (22 years ago, 4-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
