Subject:
|
Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:35:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
913 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > > But I would argue that the issue of Bush's complicity in sparking an
> > > unnecessary war would be better served by Moore's keeping his mouth entirely
> > > shut, as his arguing in favour of something tends to suggest that being
> > > against that particular something might be the better course to a large
> > > number of people, including myself.
> >
> > That's pure ad hominem reasoning,
>
> Why?
Because you are, in the post-at-hand, dismissing causes solely because Moore
supports them. You may have additional reasoning that you haven't shared here,
but since it's not yet been introduced in this discussion, it's irrelevant.
Although you elaborate on your argument further down in the current post, prior
to that you had not justified your position except through ad hominem.
> It is merely an observation of a useful negative correlation. Same thing
> holds here, Moore is a liar and gets his facts wrong and therefore we have a
> good metric for judging issues based on his track record, whatever side he
> is on is more likely(2) to be wrong.
No, you have a good measure for judging his opinion of an issue. Instead, you
are summarily dismissing issues because you are uncomfortable with Moore's style
and habit. I am on record in this forum condemning him for his errors and
omissions, but that is manifestly different from dismissing an issue based on
his support of it. You are, in effect, justifying the dismissal of an issue
based on the person or people who support it, which is pure ad hominem.
The fact that you seek to justify that dismissal based on Moore's previous track
record is irrelevant, though you will surely claim that it is not. The current
issue is suitable for dismissal or it is not, but Moore's prior record has
nothing to do with it. Citation of "interesting correlations" between a cause
and a supporter of that cause is simply an underhanded way of sneaking ad
hominem into the argument.
> Moore is a jerk because of his methods, (or if you like, he chooses to use
> his methods because he's a jerk, it matters not to me) but it's not the methods,
> rather his previous outcomes that lead me to my conclusion...
But doesn't that seem rather pathological? I mean, what would it take to
divorce your opinion of Moore from the issues he protests? If he were to
complain about the over-reaching regulation of government as it pertains to
international trade, would you summarily drop your opinion of it because he
shares it?
> But further, if you have a scoundrel espousing a cause that reflects badly on
> the cause. That's not ad hominem, it's merely an observation.
Only among those who look no further than the figurehead.
> In passing, why is John Stossel a jerk? I rather like him.
Well, my apologies to Mr. Stossel--I find him quite entertaining, in fact. I
just needed a convenient rhetorical Libertarian scapegoat, and I didn't want to
beat on that poor colloidal silver guy again.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) Isn't that exactly what Larry is warning against? One of us is missing something because it sounds like you (Dave!) are saying "Larry, you're wrong because what you just said is true." Chris (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) No I'm not. Reread what you cited. "tends to suggest" is hardly Summarily Dismissed. Further, being wrong about an issue or cause is not the same as dismissing the issue or cause. I dismiss his opinions about issues (for valid cause since he's (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) Why? Is it ad hominem against short sellers to point out that when short interst is high is often a good time to buy stock? (1) It is not. It is merely an observation of a useful negative correlation. Same thing holds here, Moore is a liar and (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
106 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
