Craven de Kere wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote: Dude, no, it's not. If anything is a fallacious appeal to authority it would be you referencing other's opinions to support yours, when experts in the field disagree on this issue :wink: .
Huh? I have used no experts to support anything about Rand. My only claim has been that Rand is famous for being popular with the unsophisticated.
BS- easily spotted BS by looking at the original quote.
Craven de Kere wrote: Bill, I have read the relevant portions as well as extensive studies of it and summaries of it's logic.
Since your opinon comes in part from "summaries", apparently you consider the authors of said summaries experts... or else they'd be quite useless... which is precisely
my point.
The quoted, italicized portion above is quoted directly from the rules of the fallacy so don't pretend I'm just repeating words, okay?
Craven de Kere wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote: Furthermore, it is a subjective matter of opinion, so no quantity of agreement would make your opinion the right opinion anyway.
No kidding, which is why I wish you'd feekin'
get over it already.
Dude. Your last Ad Hominem-Laden post to me on the subject was over 2,000 words... all the while claiming you don't want to argue.
You addressed me by name first, both on this thread and the last. I repeat: if you don't wish to argue; don't! But, don't freak out when I respond when you do.
Craven de Kere wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote: Reading a book is most certainly the best, most comprehensive way to familiarize yourself with it's contents. Claiming otherwise is silly.
I did not claim otherwise. I did, however, note to you that one can easily be aware of a book's deficiencies without having read it in its entirety.
Since we agree that reading the book is best in this situation, why do you find it so offensive that I consider the opinions of those who haven't less valuable?
Craven de Kere wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote: Craven de Kere wrote:It's just like LW claiming people who know of Moore's prevarication in 9/11 have to actually watch the whole film to have legitimate complaints.
Strawman: Summarizing facts is hardly on par with summarizing opinions and philosophy.
Bill this is a habit of yours that makes discussion with you unattractive. You simply start spewing out names of fallacies you have heard.
Interesting. I on the other hand get tired of that claim because I believe I try pretty hard to understand what I read, have looked up
"strawman" repeatedly and in fact referrenced
the definition before making that post. I'll explain it in more detail in a minute in hopes you won't bob-n-move again. For starters, I referenced this definition of Strawman:
Quote:The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.
My point was that F-911 is supposedly a summary of facts. Faulty Facts of course, are much easier to refute then faulty philosophy, hence it meets the criteria to be considered a Strawman.
Craven de Kere wrote: No, this is not a straw man. The comparison I made is very relevant.
The comparison is nonetheless weaker than my best argument. Click here and see what it says about proof and you will see I had done that too.
(Btw, I'm trying to learn the "rules of engagement". It would be easier if you didn't mislead me by pretending I'm doing it wrong. :wink: )
Craven de Kere wrote:See, both yourself with Rand and LW with Moore have an objection to criticism about them. And both of you dismiss criticism on the basis of this same appeal to authority.
What makes it so clearly a ploy is that you would find the criticism objectionable regardless.
Did you lose your place here Craven? This portion of the exchange can be traced to:
OCCOM BILL wrote:Craven, no offense, but I continue to place little value on your opinion of something you haven't read.
There is nothing unreasonable about my placing little value on your opinion of something you haven't read. Get over it. :wink:
Craven de Kere wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote: Strawman #2: having legitimate complaints is much easier than a thorough understanding of the whole.
(At least one, if not both of those must be right :wink: Btw, should that be defined as 2 pieces of criterion that make up a Strawman or 2 Strawmen out of the same sentence?)
No Bill, it should qualify as you name-dropping fallacies without much of an understanding of them. As it they were powerful put downs to memorize instead of logical nuances to employ in ratiocination.
Actually Craven; I had verified the accuracy of both claims before I even hit the submit button. Again, if you trace back you will see this stems from:
OCCOM BILL wrote:Craven, no offense, but I continue to place little value on your opinion of something you haven't read.
And, again; you will notice that my Strawman #2 claim above specifically provides the "proof" suggested by the fallacy's definition page
here.
Craven de Kere wrote: Again, it was not a straw man. You are, indeed, dismissing criticisms of Rand that in no way require a complete reading of the books to be valid.
No, leading up to those Strawmen, I was dismissing your summary of something you haven't read in it's entirety. This will continue to be reasonable no matter how much you object. :wink:
Craven de Kere wrote: For example, Asherman quit because he found it unbearable for whatever reasons and you claim he needed to stick it out to the end.
I commented that it was a shame he didn't and corrected some accidental errors on his part. Were our roles reversed and Asherman told me I missed something in the last third of a book I had already suffered through 2/3s of; I might be tempted to finish it. I think Atlas Shrugged is the mother of all slow starters. Most people I speak to
who've actually read it agree with that sentiment. Didn't your summaries tell you that?
Craven de Kere wrote: Newsflash Bil: GET OVER IT. Some people do not idolize Rand. Some people (a lot in fact) think it's a poorly written book.
Yes I know. In between your silly posts I've been having a rather interesting discussion with one of them. :wink:
Craven de Kere wrote:And though their opinions may be objectionable to you, get over it. I have never seen a better advertisement against Rand than your obsession.
If I were half as bonkers about Rand as you like to pretend, Craven, I'd be crushed.
You are the only one freaking out here.
Craven de Kere wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote: Craven de Kere wrote: It's like people claiming one must live in America to criticise it.
Strawman: One could easily learn more about America while living abroad. One couldn't possibly get a better impression of what Atlas Shrugged contains by reading summaries than by reading Atlas Shrugged, itself. Especially one who claims to remember nearly everything he reads.
Bill, again, not a straw man. LOL Please look it up, you are starting to drop the term in situations where I don't think you yourself would even agree that it is a straw man.
Here you are asserting that I am wrong, not that I craeted an easier-to-knock-down argument.
Which part of my explanation are you quibbling with? (I checked this one before submitting, too :wink: )Do you deny that one could easily learn more about this country while living abroad than someone else who lives in it? If not your statement...
Craven de Kere wrote: It's like people claiming one must live in America to criticise it.
... is a Strawman as it relates to my original statement:
OCCOM BILL wrote: Craven, no offense, but I continue to place little value on your opinion of something you haven't read.
Your denial of the obvious is a wee bit annoying as I am trying to learn, and normally I consider you an expert.
Craven de Kere wrote: Now you, on the other hand have done precisely such a revision here.
I never claimed that summaries offer a better understanding than reading the book.
I'll just call that a reasonable misunderstanding, on your part. I didn't accuse you of saying that. I asserted it myself as the second half of my "proof" of your Strawman as suggested by the definition of the fallacy found
here. :wink:
Craven de Kere wrote: I did, however, assert that one need not read the book in its entirety to be aware of the flaws therein.
I conceded that you've probably found flaws in whatever portion you've read.
Craven de Kere wrote: This is something you will not refute because it's true, ...
Sorry Craven... that's just my style. This would be a shorter conversation if it was yours as well. :wink:
(had to split that sentence because the second half is another point, sorry)
Craven de Kere wrote: ...although inconvenient to your defense of Rand against all whom you would have think as you do about her.
Boy, maybe I should have cut that one in three.
Mostly, I'm defending myself, Craven, not Rand... But yes; I did find her work to be a very positive influence in my life and yes, I like to encourage others to read it too. Despite your best efforts, someone was convinced on
that other thread after asking to be convinced to read it. Sorry I interfered with your interference.
Craven de Kere wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote: Craven de Kere wrote: Bill, you do realize that without reading the book in its entirety one can be aware of flaws within the book? Do you cede that this is possible?
Of course. I'm sure you can point out flaws in whatever portion you read, Craven. That doesn't encourage me to attach much value to your opinion on the whole. Sorry.
Bill, quite frankly I wish you would simply ignore my opinion on Rand. Your obsession with this issue is a pain in my ass.
Writing 2,000 word Ad hominem laden posts in direct response to what I write probably isn't the best way to get me to ignore you.
Craven de Kere wrote: I wish I could opine on Rand without you addressing me with your obsessive defences.
Bummer. Actually though, in reality, you addressed me, by name, first, in both your opening post on this thread and on the other one. I repeat: if you don't wish to argue; don't.
Craven de Kere wrote: So to make this clear: I am not in any way trying to "encourage [you] to attach much value to [my] opinion on the whole".
Here, I would have thought I already made clear by now that I don't. :wink:
Craven de Kere wrote: Quite frankly I wish you would ignore it altogether because the Rand PJ brigade is old and boring.
Still funny, but I think it's time to come up with something new.
Craven de Kere wrote: Get it? The whole "get over the fact that I think Rand is daft" thing?
Eh, yup.
Craven de Kere wrote: I have no desire or interest in convincing you, I do not even think I posses such ability in the face of such an unwavering love.
2,000 plus words was a hell of try though, huh.
Craven de Kere wrote:I simply opine and less charitably to Rand, and will start ignoring you on this in the future.
Phew! I get tired of this too. But I resent your Ad Hominem laden, radio-repetition-style of attack, and I don't lay down for bullies.
Craven de Kere wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote: Craven de Kere wrote: Quote:Since I do respect your intellect; your continued insistence that one must be unsophisticated to enjoy Rand's work offends me.
I've never insisted that one must be unsofisticated to enjoy Rand, just that Rand is notorious for being more popular with the unsophisticated.
You've been jamming the term in my face in a passive-aggressive manner since
this thread.
Not "jamming" anything Bill.
I stand corrected (that was funny again).
Craven de Kere wrote: Again, the whole "get over it" thing. I think Rand is unsophisticated and a poor writer, I think she poorly articulates the very philisophies (e.g. capitalism) that some think she defends so well.
That's fine and good. A lot of people think that. It's when you over shoot and hit me that I take offense. Did you somehow not notice the civil discussions I've had with others who feel that way, on both threads, even while you attack me with your nonsense.
Craven de Kere wrote: And I do not "jam" this to you. Again, hell I wish I could be rid of your defenses of her and wish when I address Rand you would ignore it.
Again, stop addressing me by name to begin your criticisms of her and her fans and you
might have better luck.
Craven de Kere wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote: Will you now pretend it's coincidence you used the term "sophisticated" again after my having referenced it 3 times in one of my final posts on that thread? You and I know that's not true. After all, you remember nearly everything you read.
Of course it's not a coincidence. I use it repeatedly because I continue to thinl Rand is unsophisticated and agree with the popular stereotype that her fans are in large part as well.
But somehow you can't figure out that might be provocative?
Craven de Kere wrote: This is not a special dedication to you Bill, and you're starting to seem like you think you own the Rand fan club and maybe even are part Rand yourself, talking personal insult at any denigration of Rand.
No, I take offense when the guy who probably possesses the most widely respected intellect on A2K specifically names me as a fan, and than goes on to describe said fans in insulting ways. Keep doing it, and I'll likely keep defending myself against it.
Craven de Kere wrote: Quote:Craven de Kere wrote: Quote: It is an un-provable claim that would normally be beneath you.
This is laughable Bill, I can show you many references to the prevalent notion that Rand is the dumb conservative's Bible and that the more sophisticated read the books Asherman touted.
You are being intellectually dishonest (correct use?) to pretend I was challenging your ability to show that someone else said it. That is not what I meant, and you know it.
The use of the term "intellectually dishones" would be correct BTW if you had any idea what you are talking about.
Pity this is one of the few places during this idiotic rant of yours that you actually admitted understanding what I was addressing, rather than choosing to be deliberately obtuse.
Craven de Kere wrote: My only claim was that there is a prevalent notion that Rand's fans are largely unsophisticated.
The exact words I took offense to are:
[quote="Craven de Kere"] [b]only popular among unsofisticated readers[/b] [/quote]
I've made this pretty clear by quoting it repeatedly.
Craven de Kere wrote: You are probably saying that the conclusions you draw from that are un-proveable and you are, of course, bristling at the criticism of Rand as per usual.
Utter nonsense... and you know better. I am stating that the repeatedly quoted assessment:
only popular among unsofisticated readers is un-provable.
Your feigning that you don't know that; is where intellectually dishonest comes in.
Stop pretending, here is the source again:
[quote="OCCOM BILL"]Since I do respect your intellect; your continued insistence that one must be unsophisticated to enjoy Rand's work offends me. It is an un-provable claim that would normally be beneath you. [/quote]
Craven de Kere wrote: Either way I stand by the observation, and if your inordinate sensitivite about Rand makes you take issue so be it.
Boy that Ad Hominem excuse for your behavior is getting really getting old.
Craven de Kere wrote: I will simply start to ignore it, just like I would ignore any ideologue when the strength of their conviction begins to become irritating.
You keep promising that.
Craven de Kere wrote: Quote: Specifically, I was referring to this offensive statement:
Craven de Kere wrote: only popular among unsofisticated readers.
I believe that remains "an un-provable claim that would normally be beneath you."
It's only offensive in that it has a typo and an inappropriate qualifier. Of course, some are not unsophisticated.
Generous of you. Was that so hard? I feel like a great weight has been lifted off my shoulders.
Craven de Kere wrote: Either way, if you decide to take personal issue with it, so feekin' be it.
No, no. Your long overdue correction buried in the middle of this gargantuan Ad Hominem makes me feel fantastic!
Craven de Kere wrote: I reserve the right to think Rand is daft and popular with the largely unsophisticated, and again will begin to ignore your anger about my opinion.
Whatever dude. Please do.
Craven de Kere wrote: Quote:Craven de Kere wrote: Quote: Note: I would consider that statement offensive, even if you did know what you were talking about.
Bill, quite frankly that is your problem. My statements were not offensive except to those with an irrational inability to stomach criticism of Rand.
Not only were your statements offensive but they were
intentionally offensive.
Whatever Bill.
Again, quit reading my opinions on Rand. I don't think it's good for your general well-being.
I appreciate you concern, Craven, but I think I'll be okay.
Craven de Kere wrote: Plus, it would make my life less complicated.
Wow Would that be an
argumentum ad misercordiam
Craven de Kere wrote: Quote:Read the other thread with an open mind and maybe you'll see that. You seem to enjoy getting me riled on the subject and then pointing out that I am.
This is too funny. No Bill, I do not enjoy it, I think you make a nuisance out of yourself whenever Rand comes up and you will note that I tell you that I don't wish to discuss it with you often before you even address me.
Craven, please. Your first post here attacked me directly and by name.
Craven de Kere wrote: Again to make it clear: On the subject of Rand, I wish we were better strangers.
Seeing is believing. Do you know how silly it is to say that so many times in such a long post to me? Think about it.
Craven de Kere wrote: I do not wish to rile you up, and quite frankly wish the opposite and lament that you getting riled up seems inevitable in any discussion on Rand.
Take off the blinders and examine the discussion that's been going on here.
Craven de Kere wrote: Quote:If I quote someone using the prevalent stereotype 'Jews are greedy'... although I could furnish plenty of opinions that agree, it would be no less offensive, than if I had simply said it myself. This type of thing is usually beneath you Craven.
This is sheer idiocy Bill, and should serve as a wakeup call to you on just how idiotic you let your Rand issues take you.
Oh, stop it Craven. This is a transparent attempt to shift the attention from an obviously point. I used the offending stereo type as an example of bad behavior, no more. That is clear to anyone who reads it... as I'm sure your diversionary tactic is as well. I think I saw a fallacy that covers that, too, but I don't feel like looking for it right now.
Craven de Kere wrote: Comparing the "offense" of an opinion on Rand to the offense of racism that helped kill millions of Jews indicates a lacking sense of proportion.
The only useful thing about your response there is you do seem to have an inkling that your stereotype was indeed offensive, though it's tough to tell under all that phony righteous indignation.
Craven de Kere wrote: Quote:Again Craven, that was no accident. You deliberately provoked me again. Deny it if you wish.
You have a particularly irritating persecution complex Bill, and if it weren't so irritating it would be funny.
1,500 or so words into your scathing attack, that's a pretty tough sell, but I applaud your effort.
Craven de Kere wrote: Again to clarify: I think these exchanges with you are a pain, and I frequently tell you that I do not wish to speak to you about Rand before you start. This is because I predict such boring exchanges each time Rand comes up.
Ehhhh, see above.
Craven de Kere wrote: And again, Bill. YOU may think negative opinions about the Rand crowd are all about you, others may just think this is indicative of an obsession gone to far and that they wish to avoid.
Craven, that is so much rubbish. Re-read and you will find me agreeing with some of the criticism about Rand and that I even introduced some of it. As for what others may think; I have little control over that.
Craven de Kere wrote: Me, I'm in the latter category, and that's why I tell you that I don't want to get into it with you even before you address me.
I'll remind you again... you attacked me on this thread... not the other way around.
That's funny, considering that's the one where you brought up the idea of not wanting to argue with me before... bla, bla, bla that you keep repeating. Get your story straight. :wink:
Craven de Kere wrote: And there are a lot of threads you never let go (e.g. some dumb drug thread with Joe).
e.g. what? I don't recall ever referencing the drug thread with Joe. Do you Joe? If I did; that would have been quite some time ago. I do frequently tease him about his work on a death penalty thread, but that one was over before I joined. Or, are you referring to my remembering that I was supposed to start a thread about some legal issue that was off topic on another thread? (that's how this one started, btw). Or, and I'm guessing this is most likely; are you trying to fortify your BS contention that I'm paranoid with whatever BS you can think of?
Pretty shameless.
Craven de Kere wrote: For others, it may be seen differently.
Dude, your BS is so exposed already. You keep referencing that other thread yourself even while you continue to pretend.
Craven de Kere wrote: Quote:How popular a stereotype is has nothing to do with whether or not it's offensive or provocative and makes a poor excuse.
Watch:
Lot's of people think Jews are greedy.
Again comparing an opinion of Rand's followers to anti-semitism Bill. This kind of thing only highlights the depth of this obsession that I so wish would not become my yoke to carry.
Another call to pity, Craven?
(Just in case that really was insensitive of me; I hereby state for the record that I meant no offense to any Jewish people). Again, you straight duck the point in favor of this imagined slight. I was pointing out the wrongness of the stereotype and chose a worse one for that purpose. I was trying use one that was bad, yet easy to find evidence for in case you challenged me to do so. Yes, it is much worse, and only a fool would think I don't know that. Only a fool wouldn't see your transparent shifting of attention, as well.
Craven de Kere wrote: Quote:This argument, like yours, falls into the Logical Fallacy category of 'argumentum ad populum'. Yes? :wink:
Again Bill, you drop names without understanding them.
Okay, maybe I did. But not intentionally. I read the rules and thought claiming: Ayn Rand's work was 'only popular among unsophisticated readers', was true because you could quote many sources that said so, qualified.
Thanks for explaining, rather than insulting, for a change.
Craven de Kere wrote:In conclusion Bill, you may think I'm all about getting your Rand fire lit. Do note that I think it's a veritable pain in the ass, and I will try my best to ignore you on this subject. I wish very much that you would ignore me on this subject as criticism of Rand does not sit well with you.
That's certainly true. I do tend to defend those I like. But nothing to the extend your characterization of my self-defense might lead one to believe. That was truly uncalled for, Craven.
I'm tired. Good night.