Subject:
|
Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:06:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1094 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> 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.
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 usually wrong), not the issues.
> 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.
Which reasoning is that?
> 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.
Posts have to be in some sort of order?
> > 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.
I agree. Which is all I said.
> Instead, you
> are summarily dismissing
See above. I think you're trying to improperly extend and generalise.
In fact I have never actually dismissed any of the issues (as issues) that he
has raised. For example, the topic of the proper application of the Second
Amendment right to keep and bear arms (the issue that Columbine addresses) is
certainly a valid issue and I have not in any way shape or form "summarily
dismissed" it *as an issue*.
I merely dismiss his input. I find his work on the topic to be so wrong as to
grieviously undermine the side that he's on but I have not dismissed the issue.
> 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.
No I am not, and no it isn't. See above.
>
> The fact that you seek to justify that dismissal based on Moore's previous track
> record is irrelevant,
No it isn't. It is in fact a valid metric to measure accuracy in the past as a
predictor of accuracy in the future. Moore has an abysmal track record so it
certainly is a valid approach to treat his future pronouncements with
skepticism. Since that's the case, and since many people don't go beyond first
appraisals, his espousal of a cause does the cause a disservice. Which is what I
said back in my first post. You're taking on bad habits of people that I find
rather more disagreeable to debate than you, please stop.
> though you will surely claim that it is not.
Wrong again. I make no such claim that the issue should be dismissed so I am not
making any claims about whether justification is relevant. (why defend something
I didn't do to defend a claim I didn't make?)
> The current
(Bush's perfidy, or the use of current events to justify power grabs and civil
rights trampling, or any of a number of other perspectives on the overall
problem)
> issue is suitable for dismissal or it is not,
It is not. Never said it was. You may be thinking of other participants here.
> but Moore's prior record has
> nothing to do with it.
Didn't say it did have anything to do with dismissal of the issue since I'm not
dismissing it. You're knocking down a straw dog here, and doing rather badly at
it at that.
> 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.
No it isn't, because it is not ad hominem to point out that someone has a poor
track record accuracy wise and therefore make predictions about the future.
> > 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?
Not to me. But I'm not a pathologist.
> I mean, what would it take to
> divorce your opinion of Moore from the issues he protests?
Nothing. It's already divorced. Annulled. There was never any marriage. No
ceremony and no consummation. No bouquet was tossed and caught by the 14 year
old with easy virtues, and your uncle didn't vomit on the bride's shoes. Er
wait, different context.
> 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?
No, but I certainly would regret that he took it up, just as I regretted that
Howard Stern professed to be a Libertarian back in the 80s.
> > 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.
Rather too many people, don't you agree?
> > 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.
OK.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: (snip)... because there's no need to repeat it, especially if it goes unanswered by Dave!(1) But, tangentially related, here's a story (URL) which some conservative group apparently wants to block (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?)
|
| (...) Let's review: In post 24440 (ie, the post-at-hand) you rattled off a litany of negative descriptors, identifying Moore as a "waste of food and total twit" who is "without shame," who "is mostly wrong about stuff," and whose "approach to his (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
