When debate descends to the level of posting gore

suz

Don't. He's laying traps. He's sprinkling them with smelly body fluids.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

blatham wrote:

She was also my mother, you goddamn rotter.

This discussion reminds me of when my brother Lusatian called me a son of a bitch.

Youhave a brother? What did you call him for short?

0 Replies

Your own performance is laughable. My statement fits perfectly with what you stated. I did not put any words in your mouth, I merely quoted you. You say exactly what you say you did not. You merely pretend that nothing I say applies to you. I haven't put any words in your mouth, and I haven't been attacking your position, I have been attacking the evidence you give to support your position. You cannot define a whole by defining a part of the whole, which is all you have done so far. You are, however, dong very well in ignoring points and using your time on insults instead. Is that what you define as debating well?

0 Replies

suzy wrote:

Any picture from 9/11/01 speaks VOLUMES more than words ever could, Craven.

Good example!

Sure does, doesn't mean what it says isn't idiotic.

There are plenty of sites using imagery of 9/11 as an appeal to pity conflated with an appeal to US militarism. The use of imagery to make an appeal to pity conflated with an appeal to pacifism is of the same intellectual value.

Quote:

And there is most certainly educational value in having to think for yourself based on pictures and images rather than merely forming your opinions based on other people's words.

You are incorrectly trying to associate free thought with an appeal to pity. The statement can be reversed just as easily and is a fallacious association of freedom of thougth with a particular line of thought and opinion.

Quote:

The level of critical thinking and yes, emotional intelligence engaged in when seeing and interpreting an image for yourself goes well beyond any other modality of education.

I disagree. This is why man stopped using cave painting to communicate, because there is a higher intellectual level than our base reliance on visual sense.

Quote:

You are arguing over something of which you obviously have little experience to make a valid judgement.

See: fallacious appeal to authority.

Quote:

Insisting that only you are correct despite the beliefs of older and wiser people than yourself simply highlights your youth and ignorance of the subject. You are wrong and you are rude in this topic. It's uncalled for.

suzy, you are rude too. You just construct another fallacious appeal to authority based on age and ignorantly declare yourself right.

Get over yourself suzy. Your self-appointed position as a wiser, more right, and less rude soul is unfounded.

That you have to rely on fallacy (appeals to authority based on ageism) is indicative of the validity of your argument.

0 Replies

I have to retire to my sleeping quarters now. The thought of Craven and my mother has excited me.

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

I did not put any words in your mouth, I merely quoted you.

I disagree but less so since upon rereading discovered the word "is" in this sentence:

SCoates wrote:

I doubt your opinion is that emotion has no value.

Try it with and without the "is" and you'll see my error.

For that brainfart of mine I apologize.

0 Replies

Ah, I was a little confused on that point. Anyway, I think I'll step away from this discussion for a while; it seems to be descending (not that I have no fault in that).

0 Replies

Blame Canada.

0 Replies

What sort of mother names her kid "Lusatian'?

0 Replies

That's his name on Able2Know.com. In real life both my brother and I chose our own names and they are more quotidian than our screen names here.

0 Replies

Quote:

That's his name on Able2Know.com. In real life both my brother and I chose our own names and they are more quotidian than our screen names here.

Laughing. Okay. I had this horrible feeling when I hit the 'submit' button that was really his name and I had committed a serious faux pas.

0 Replies

Craven: an appeal to pity is, properly speaking, an ad misericordiam fallacy.

0 Replies

Yeah, I know, but I was using alliteration with appeal to.. apppeal to and appeal to... some didn't have terms.

Note that I also used the nickname for argumentum ad populum instead of the Latin.

Anywho, you still need to get laid Joe. :wink:

0 Replies

Okay, so let's see... Rolling Eyes

Craven sees a picture of a man diving to his death from a burning tower, and his only thought is "pshaw, how idiotic! They want pity!"
That first statement of yours speaks volumes about your mentality.
Who's talking pity?
I'm talking reality. Your feelings are your own. Other people, however,are capable of having much deeper thoughts on imagery than you apparently seem to. But wait! Here's your thought on differing opinions:

"I do in fact understand that others have different values and am in fact going so far as to label them [said values] idiotic in nature."

I stated that a picture is worth a thousand words. That is the reason I entered this thread. Whether you believe it or not, the statement is true that a picture IS worth a thousand words, to most humans. Just because you might not think so doesn't mean it's not true, Craven.
I don't care to argue your other arguments, I simply showed you why I disagree. You have written nothing that makes me change my mind.

"This is why man stopped using cave painting to communicate, because there is a higher intellectual level than our base reliance on visual sense."

Oh, so that's the reason, huh?!
Unless you are blind, you probably learn something (pick up information from) images every day. Sight may have been a starting point, but it's not a moot point.

"That you have to rely on fallacy (appeals to authority based on ageism) is indicative of the validity of your argument"

I have no comment to that but a chuckle! When you look back on this in the future, you will chuckle as well. Unless you're a sociopath, I can guarantee it.

"Does anyone else think that this is an insipid level of debate?"
Umm, yeah, you throwing insults at everyone who has a different POV? Why, yes I do! "Allowing the level of discourse to degrade to a sophomoric level", and all that.

Right, Craven. I can see how you'd hate that!

0 Replies

suzy wrote:

Okay, so let's see...
Craven sees a picture of a man diving to his death from a burning tower, and his only thought is "pshaw, how idiotic! They want pity!"

No Suzy, when I see people using those pictures to, say, justify the war in Iraq I correctly label their use an appeal to pity fallacy.

Quote:

That first statement of yours speaks volumes about your mentality.
Who's talking pity?

Suzy, it's just the nickname for the fallacy. The fallacy is argumentum ad misericordiam.

Suzy it has nothing to do with my mentality. I did not pick these names.

Quote:

I'm talking reality.

So am I. <shrugs>

Quote:

Other people, however,are capable of having much deeper thoughts on imagery than you apparently seem to.

Suzy, it's not about the capability for deeper thought. It's about the cheap facile nature of an argumentum ad misericordiam.

Quote:

But wait! Here's your thought on differing opinions:

"I do in fact understand that others have different values and am in fact going so far as to label them [said values] idiotic in nature."

Suzy, you are making a misleading statement. That is my opinion of a particular line of opinions, not all differing opinions.

Quote:

I stated that a picture is worth a thousand words. That is the reason I entered this thread. Whether you believe it or not, the statement is true that a picture IS worth a thousand words, to most humans. Just because you might not think so doesn't mean it's not true, Craven.

1) I never said it wasn't true.

2) Just because you believe it is doesn't make it so.

Quote:

I don't care to argue your other arguments, I simply showed you why I disagree. You have written nothing that makes me change my mind.

Suzy, I don't expect to change your mind. I don't even expect you to demonstrate the ability to understand my position, much less agree with it.

Quote:

"This is why man stopped using cave painting to communicate, because there is a higher intellectual level than our base reliance on visual sense."

Oh, so that's the reason, huh?!

Yes, that and rap music.

Quote:

Unless you are blind, you probably learn something (pick up information from) images every day. Sight may have been a starting point, but it's not a moot point.

Who are you contradicting?

Quote:

"That you have to rely on fallacy (appeals to authority based on ageism) is indicative of the validity of your argument"

I have no comment to that but a chuckle! When you look back on this in the future, you will chuckle as well. Unless you're a sociopath, I can guarantee it.

Suzy, play the age card if you'd like. But can you also try to demostrate reading comprehension?

Do you understand what an argumentum ad misericordiam is?

Do you understand what an argumentum ad verecundiam is?

My objections on this thread are about the first, and you do not demonstrate the ability to comprehend what I am talking about, rambling instead about it being a matter of pity.

The second is the fallacy you are commiting with your age-based attempt at patronizing.

No, when I am your age I will most likely continue to consider the use of such fallacies in debate to be idiotic, and regardless of age I think you can be counted on to demonstrate the inability to understand what I am talking about. Agreement is even less likely, you do not even understand the nature of the fallacy.

0 Replies

So....you think that red headed kid will be next voted off the American Idol Island?

Because I can't look at much more of that.....

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I guess one test of non-partisanship in this argument would be--

Did you have the same opinion of the Bush administration publicising pictures of Uday and Qusay Hussien, as you do about showing pictures of the Iraqi dead?

Both OK, both wrong--or partisan?

Actually, in a way the showing of those pictures would equate more closely to showing pictures of the Iraqi dead, since they are Iraqi dead! But they are, of course a whole different class of dead person.

I guess they are the undeserving dead - not the deserving dead.

However, to address the meat of your question.

For me, as I am attempting to develop some kind of coherent view about all of this (for despite Craven's assuming that I have a static one, and that it is horizontal, I am still trying to do so - and I am very open to contradiction) I would of course see whatever is wrong or right for one side being so for the other.

0 Replies

Suzy, this bit here:

Quote:

Craven sees a picture of a man diving to his death from a burning tower, and his only thought is "pshaw, how idiotic! They want pity!"
That first statement of yours speaks volumes about your mentality.

...is the the most shameless, laughable strawman I've seen in a while.

0 Replies

Re: Agism in an appeal to authority.

"It is held to be a good taunt, and somehow or other to clinch the question logically, when and old gentleman waggles his head and says: 'Ah, so I thought when I was your age.' It is not thought an answer at all, if the young man retorts: 'My venerable sir, so I shall most probably think when I am yours.'"

Robert Louis Stevenson

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

suzy wrote:
Any picture from 9/11/01 speaks VOLUMES more than words ever could, Craven.

Good example!

Sure does, doesn't mean what it says isn't idiotic.

There are plenty of sites using imagery of 9/11 as an appeal to pity conflated with an appeal to US militarism. The use of imagery to make an appeal to pity conflated with an appeal to pacifism is of the same intellectual value.

Hmm - I am unsure if you will discuss this with me Craven, however, I will discuss it with whomever wishes to answer.....

Is your concern with ANY images of suffering through conflict?

I think images of Sept 11 used as an appeal to pity conflated with an appeal to US militarism are awful and stupid.

As you point out, my beliefs/prejudices/inclinations make me less concerned re appeals to pacifism via pictures of awful suffering less distasteful EMOTIONALLY.

However, what I am attempting to say, however badly, is that I am inclined to believe that, as a member of a democracy and the world community, with some power, however small, to influence my own government - I want to have a sense of the realities about which I am deciding.

As I said earlier, I have no real wish to see any photos of death and suffering - whether of little kiddies in Iraq, or of soldiers in Iraq.

I do have a sense that we ought to be aware of the realities of situations - where we are involved, especially.

"Appeal to pity" - this implies, I take it, appeal to pacifism through pity? Well, I am not a total pacifist - and I am not arguing, now, for pacifism in Iraq - I think it is too late for that - I just hope for some allied success in helping Iraq to have some chance for setting up a reasonable government in some sort of peace.

I think I originally got involved in this shemozzle through feeling that Al Jazeera was entitled to publish photos of the results of the siege - though I was worried about the whole voyeurism thing. I was not arguing that on the basis of seeing visuals of the carnage as an argument for pacifism - just, I suppose, as presenting a sort of counter to the flatten 'em way of thinking and to what I see as a generally hygienized way of presenting the war in many of the major news sources in the west. I would hope that people on the "other" side are well aware of the awfulness of the effects of the war on the soldiers and such.

Anyway, I ought not to be reading or posting here, but working - (the rent by the hour motel room beckons and my intellect is unable to resist the call) - I shall reflect on the arguments - I do see your point of view - and when you are so fired up about something, I know you have a well thought out position, and I always take it very seriously. It may well be that I am responding through emotion alone, and via a sense that the Arab position is not well represented - just as I assume the American position is woefully presented there.

0 Replies

When debate descends to the level of posting gore

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know