Subject:
|
Re: Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:22:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
846 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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.
|
OK, The support needed is rather different, though. You need to support with
logic that my characterisations of Moore somehow falsify what I said.
I need to support by showing that Moore isn’t factual, and that his assertions
don’t follow from his claims, and all the rest, I think, follows.
Is that really in dispute though? He himself admits he’s not factual. YOU admit
he’s not factual. Plus it’s been discussed in depth here before. I’m just not
going to spend the time to recap it if it’s not really in dispute.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
What rights are corporations due, or not 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”
|
OK, define what you mean by pro-corporate then, because I don’t think any of
that fits the definition I think you’re using. I’d also point out that to be
opposed to anti-corporatism is not to be pro-corporate (as you mean it), any
more than being opposed to Republicans makes one a Democrat.
| |
In addition, your slavish
|
Pejorative. Aren’t you using ad-hominem here?
| |
devotion to the mythical free market, which in
practice means “a market free from corporate accountability”
|
That’s not true. It’s certainly not what I mean when I speak of free markets.
| |
and almost
guarantees corporate corruption and malfeasance,
|
Also not true. Again, you’re painting a false picture here.
| |
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 guess this confused me when taken with the above.
| |
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.
|
I just don’t think it’s worthwhile recapping the same material over and over. I
assume readers have been reading along as we go rather than starting from
scratch each time. I think .debate would be a far more tiresome place if we had
to prove from scratch every assertion made. That doesn’t mean I let you off the
hook on some of your bald faced mischaracterisations, but I’m not interested,
and don’t have time, to prove things like the assertion that free market
allocation of goods works better than fiat allocation of goods, for example.
They have been demonstrated to my satisfaction elsewhere.
| |
You also
enjoy a sort of flippant dismissal of arguments with curt little comments
instead of real, thoughtful responses.
|
Guilty. My only defense is that lots of other people do it too. Including you, I
might add. But I see that as the nature of this place. It’s not a formal
debating society.
| |
You also insert any number of
rhetorical belaying-points
|
Not sure what these are, exactly.
| |
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.
|
It’s not a complaint, merely a statement.
| |
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.
|
Noted. I’d call your use of ridicule (as in here
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=24498) far more cowardly if we’re
keeping score.
| |
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.
|
I would make the same claim about my characterization of Moore vis a vis the
arguments he makes and the material he presents.
| |
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 I so failed to distinguish then I erred. I thought it was clear but perhaps
it wasn’t. If that’s the real meat of your argument, and you’re ready to admit
that Moore may in fact do disservice to causes he espouses, then I’ll gladly
admit that point so we can move on.
| |
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.
|
Well then, I won’t make that response.
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
It’s my spin, I guess. Moore is very careful about what he says and doesn’t say.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
