Subject:
|
Re: Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:31:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
928 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
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.
|
Why is that my task? I’m not asserting that your claim is false but rather that
your assertions don’t support it.
| |
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.
|
That, too, may be a matter of perspective. If your claim is that Moore is not
factual, then you must document his falsehoods/errors. You won’t even get
across-the-board disagreement from me on that--as I’ve mentioned, I have serious
qualms about his fact-checking and documentation.
Additionally, your claim was that Moore intended to rip off Bradbury’s
name-recognition, which amounts to an accusation of intentional theft. When you
demonstrate this theft, you must be sure to demonstrate also that the theft was
intentional, and that it was indeed theft rather than legtimate satire or
allusion.
| |
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?
|
Are you asking me in terms of current legality, or in terms of what I think
should be the case? If the latter, I would say that corporations should be
legally entitled to own property, enter into contracts, and enter into
litigation, for starters.
| |
| |
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.
|
For example, pro-corporate means to be vigorously opposed to groups or entities
that one identifies as anti-corporate. It also means a desire to create a
market environment favorable to corporations at the expense of the individual
(and claims that “market forces would protect everyone” are not adequate
protections).
| |
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.
|
I agree, so it’s fortunate that I’m not accusing you of pro-corporatism.
While we’re here, define what you mean by pro-corporatism, and for that matter
what you mean by anti-corporatism.
| |
| |
In addition, your slavish
|
Pejorative. Aren’t you using ad-hominem here?
|
Ad hominem argument? No. Ad hominem attack? Yes.
Change slavish to lavish, then, if it makes you feel better.
| |
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.
|
But your satisfaction is irrelevant. You tend to use the “it’s been proven”
trump-card in place of convincing argument. If you’re going to use that kind of
a claim in a real-time discussion, then it is up to you to support that claim,
or at least to provide a link (which I know is well within your ability). If
you can’t be bothered to provide a corroborating link--at the very least when
you’re asked for it--then you either shouldn’t make the assertion of proof, or
you shouldn’t be in the debate in the first place.
| |
| |
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.
|
True, but as I mentioned, you have a habit of demanding precise documentation
from your opponents, while you seem to feel yourself exempt from that same
requirement. It’s not a formal debating society, but we have established
general standards of discourse. Among those standards I would include a basic
sauce-for-the-goose policy: if you make a demand of your opponent, you should
accept the same demand when it is made upon you.
| |
| |
You also insert any number of
rhetorical belaying-points
|
Not sure what these are, exactly.
|
It was a weak attempt at metaphor--you’ve read enough of my stuff to know that
it is littered with those...
Anyway, I meant that you often seem to preserve a sort of “escape clause” in the
way you formulate things. For example, I recall a debate in which a particular
issue was discussed across a whole string of posts. Only when you were pinned
down on a precise point did you reveal that you were arguing from a “Libertarian
definition” of the issue, which had not to that point been revealed and which
did not coincide with the general-use understanding of the term.
The trick here is that, when pressed, you can claim that your opponent isn’t
really debating your real point anyway. This is more than a little sneaky,
because it’s like hiding a card up your sleeve.
| |
| |
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.
|
Let’s be fair--my post was separate from the argument and was fairly obvious
sarcasm (especially appropriate considering the satire/parody subject of the
thread). Additionally, I FUT’ed ot.fun, so it should have been clear to the
reader that I wasn’t being serious. Your zingers, by contrast, are inlined with
your argument and come across as snide interjections rather than side-bar
commentary, as I believe my post did.
If in the future you want to cite one of my mocking posts, may I suggest
this one instead?
| |
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.
|
Admit that he “may” do disservice? Sure, why not? The word “may” leaves me
with plausible deniability later, after all.
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
|
|
|
|
