Subject:
|
Re: Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:33:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
835 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
| |
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.
|
The evidence has been presented here in the past and I’m not inclined to dig
it up again.
|
Because the willful choice not to support your argument is indistinguishable
from forfeiting the argument, I accept this as your forfeiture. If it is not
your intent to forfeit, then I invite you to support your argument, as you have
demanded that I support mine.
| |
| |
Given your history in this forum of taking a decidely and vehemently
pro-corporate bent,
|
Cites please? I’m not pro-corporate by any stretch of the imagination, unless
you’re anti-capitalist and don’t see the distinction between corporatism and
capitalism.
|
You have in the past equivocated on the definition of “corporation” in an attempt to afford
corporations greater rights than they are due. You have also
equated humans and
corporations in regards to free speech, thereby elevating legalistic constructs
to the status of protected citizens. Further, your
attack on NPR was a rant
against a media source because you perceived it as “anti-corporation”
In addition, your slavish devotion to the mythical free market, which in
practice means “a market free from corporate accountability” and almost
guarantees corporate corruption and malfeasance, demonstrates that you ally
yourself with pro-corporatism interests.
I will concede that you claim to believe that
big corporations have too much
power, but that is not inconsistent with your overall pro-corporate thrust. I
would also mention that it is naive to imagine that big corporations would not
become bigger and more powerful in a free market, despite Libertarian doctrine
to the contrary.
While I’ve got you on the line, I’m inclined to take this opportunity to observe
that you have a long-running habit of claiming that your points are proven, yet
you seldom provide the documentation of those proofs. You also enjoy a sort of
flippant dismissal of arguments with curt little comments instead of real,
thoughtful responses. You also insert any number of rhetorical belaying-points
so that, when your arguments are knocked down, you can easily pivot on one or
more of your semantical pitons in an effort to change the argument retroactively
(this is, by the way, a well-established Libertarian tactic). And, when push
comes to shove, you complain that you lack the time to present evidence, an
argument, or even an example.
Interestingly, you are quicker than anyone to demand that your opponents support
their arguments with precise citation and clear definitions of any and all terms
that you wish to clarify. You’re free to make those demands upon the discourse,
but it is significant that you judge yourself unbound by those same demands. I
call that cowardly.
As a parenthetical note for the interested reader: I just engaged in an ad
hominem attack upon Larry for his slippery methods of avoiding serious debate,
and I am happy to support that attack with citations, if asked. However, my ad
hominem attack upon Larry should be distinguished from ad hominem argument
because I assert that Larry’s faulty tactics of argument manifestly do not
invalidate the arguments themselves. This constrasts with Larry’s attacks on
Moore and the issues that Moore supports because Larry did not distinguish
clearly between the man and the issue.
If Larry’s reponse is along the lines of “the distinction is clear to a careful
reader,” then his response is a thinly veiled ad hominem attack upon me, but it
doesn’t touch my argument.
| |
| |
Further, you assert that Moore’s only intention in naming his film was to
“rip off” Bradbury. How the heck do you know that?
|
He said it was his intention (about the name), although not in so many words.
|
Cite, please. Did he assert it as his *only* intention was to rip off Bradbury,
or is that your spin?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
