Subject:
|
Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:18:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
751 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > > > 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.
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
work is entirely without merit." Those are mighty big assertions to make
without giving even a mote of corroborating evidence. You are therefore arguing
by assertion that Moore is a jerk [my term, used here in summation of your
broader assessment of Moore as an objectionable figure--feel free to suggest an
alternative, if you dispute my choice], because you merely assert your opinion
as if it were fact. Even if you prove that he is a jerk, that does nothing to
the argument as a whole, which is to say that you haven't proven your case that
the present cause (examination of the Bush/Saud relationship) or previous causes
(Columbine, GM) have been done a disservice by Moore's attention to them.
Given your history in this forum of taking a decidely and vehemently
pro-corporate bent, it would not be inconsistent for you to condemn the
generally anti-corporate Moore in terms of the rift separating your values from
his. I declare outright that this does not invalidate your position, but it
puts you in the unenviable position of looking like you're simply parroting the
big-company-line. With this in mind, it behooves you to establish your case
more thoroughly than by a string of insults to Moore's character. Again,
whether you are pro-corporate or not is logically irrelevant, but it can only
benefit your argument to demonstrate that you are not tainted by a pro-corporate
agenda.
Further, you assert that Moore's only intention in naming his film was to "rip
off" Bradbury. How the heck do you know that? I would suggest that he's making
a useful allusive reference (re: combustion points) as well as a satirical
commentary. In any case, you are again arguing by assertion, because you accuse
Moore of intellectual theft but provide no evidence of it, other than your
say-so. I am not convinced of the merits of your argument.
I retract the phrase "summarily dismissed" as being inappropriately dismissive.
Nevertheless the point stands: Lining up a string of unsupported insults about
a person and then mentioning his detrimental effect upon the perceived validity
of a cause is *certainly* argument ad hominem and basically indicts the cause as
faulty by association. If your intent is to discuss the merits of the issue,
then it is inappropriate to preface that discussion with a roast of the
supporter. If your intent is to discuss the flaws of the individual's
character, then it is pointless to introduce the issue into the discussion,
unless you have demonstrated that the issue is itself further evidence of the
individual's flawed character.
I'd also like to ask, for my own edification, if you've viewed "Roger and Me"
and "Bowling for Colubmine." If not, then on what do you base your opinion? And
if you have watched them, did you watch them objectively, or did you approach
them with the assumption that, because they're Moore's, they must be incorrect?
I would be interested to learn in which ways you objectively find those two
films to be "mostly wrong about stuff," and I think we would all benefit if you
would provide documentary support of your views, rather than merely offering
them as revelation.
Additionally, I am also on record several times in this forum (and I'll find the
specific posts, if you'd like) criticising Moore for his shortcomings in
research and documentation. Therefore I assert with some confidence that I am
not part of the group (as described in post 24460) that thinks Moore can do no
wrong. Of course, I know that you were not implying that I *am* part of that
group, but I wanted to make the declaration explicitly for anyone joining the
argument late.
**snip of a lot of other stuff that came across as trying to tempt me into an
exchange of "oh, yeah?" "yeah," which naturally is of no interest to the
thoughtful debater**
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
