There is a distinction between the contrarian argument (what if a rightwinger did it to a lefty) and Applepie Aristotlean rule (what if a rightwinger had done it to JimK).
As for Schmitt. Well, Applepie was arguing that it is NOT alright to have separate standards for friends and enemies. (even if Sethery felt he failed in this himself). So I don’t especially see the relevance.
I think he asked what if someone rightwinger had zinged a lefty in the same way. Wouldn’t we be cheering and all.
And I do see that as asking for an excuse from / for his spirited defense of Moore… based on ‘well, my team scored so I’m going to cheer… just like you would’ and this is based on friend enemy double standards.
r.j. may have a point, but Applepie’s comment was still based on an assumption.
That is the point I was trying to address and he ignored it.
I would also point out he/she was very dismissive of others arguments, which is not helpful in a debate, as it is not actually debating.
As far as ganging up, whenever anybody comes here and starts throwing around blanket statements and assumptions as facts, everybody responds to that here.
When I was a new member, I didn’t. I am sure I would have been attacked by somebody if I did.
People did it to Souleata all the time on both sides of the political divide.
If Applepie had lightened the tone and backed off the generalizations and assumptions, the thread would have never looked like this, IMO.
I am not going to feel ashamed for responding with the same tone that Applepie used.
Fair enough.
And no one could ever really complain about your tone, Rapid. You set a pretty high standard for conduct.
Yes they could, I have had bad days, but coming from you, I take that as quite a compliment r.j..
If Applepie had lightened up a little even, he would be no worse than Bartink (I don’t really consider him bad, just an example. I could easily have a drink with Bart).
We see so many people come here and assume we hate Moore, we want to stifle his speech, we are all right wingers, we are all pro war. I am quite tired of the assumptions new posters make about us. Almost every one of those issues is covered in the “Please read before you post.” The fact that they assume these things right away indicates to me they didn’t even read that.
I will say that if he got the impression we were ganging up on him, it would have put him on the defensive.
The last part of the thread was an indicator of a high frustration level, that’s when I bowed out.
I think I did address the idea. I acknowledged it as a valuable personal exercise, and a broad ethical stance. But it’s application in an argument requires at least two data points: 1) how did someone react when an enemy does something perceived as bad, and 2) how does that same someone react when a friend does the same something. I described it as an alternate universe fallacy (not it’s real name, but I don’t know what it is), because I thought he was going to claim a conclusion with only one data point. I jumped the gun because I made that description before he actually offered a conclusion. That was definitely my mistake, and I am treating that as a lesson learned.
What is an alternative universe fallacy? Doesn’t that mean that you’d never accept any hypothetical questions. That doesn’t seem like the most generous approach to an argument. Perhaps he wasn’t claiming a conclusion with only one data point. Perhaps he was just encouraging people to ask it as a valuable personal exercise.
I call it an “alternate universe” argument (or fallacy) when somebody claims that if the exact same situation had instead gone the other way (say, JimK baiting Moore with an anonymous donation), I would be cheering instead being upset about it. They are basically constructing an alternate universe, then claiming to know how I would behave in it. It’s not a valid argument but instead is a character attack. Often times it’s stated in one sentence, similar to how I just phrased it, but sometimes it’s offered first as a question, “How would you feel if...”, then after you answer consistently, your answer is rebuffed with a, “oh no you wouldn’t, and you know it!” Hypothetical questions are fine, but you mustn’t rely on rejecting their answer to make your point.
Now, in the part of my post that you quoted I already admitted that I made a mistake by claiming it was an alternate universe argument before he actually claimed a conclusion. I don’t know how he would have proceeded if I had just answered his question and not challenged him prematurely. He might have committed the fallacy, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. In any case, I did agree that it was a valuable personal exercise (in fact, I used those exact words), but he kept claiming its use in courts and schools, and linked some seemingly unrelated Aristotle page to try to prove it was a valid argument. I still hold that it was not. At least, not until he actually answered in a way that demonstrated his own inconsistency. Like I said before, I wasn’t expecting that.
for example:
5. possible examples of privacy violations by businesses
When the Constitution was written in 1791, the major concern of the drafters was that a powerful government could intrude on the privacy of individual citizens, hence the provisions in the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, to protect citizens from government. Today, individuals also need protection from intrusion by large corporations, but the law has been slow to provide such protections.
Consider bar code scanning of products at the cashier’s register of retail stores, together with input of credit card number to pay for the purchases. The credit card number can be linked with a name and address, to generate a database of information about purchases. As one hypothetical example of what could happen, consider an unmarried school teacher in a conservative state who purchases contraceptives. Since school teachers are supposed to have good moral values, and premarital sex is wrong according to some religions, the teacher could be dismissed from his/her job. I find such an invasion of privacy to be outrageous.
A person sympathetic to the consumer would conclude that the store only had the right to use the list of items purchased for its own use (e.g., inventory control, planning future purchases) and the credit card data should have been used only to obtain payment for the total amount of the sale to the consumer. The credit card data should never have been merged with the detailed list of items purchased.
A person sympathetic to the store might conclude that the act of purchasing was a public act, for which there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. The store clerk, the person who put the items in bags, and the people in line behind the customer are likely to be unfamiliar to the customer (i.e., public place). There is no expectation of a confidential relationship, because neither the store personnel nor the other shoppers are professionals with a duty of confidentiality to the customer. Therefore, if the customer really desires privacy, he/she should shop in a store far from his/her home (perhaps by mail order), where he/she is unlikely to encounter anyone who is interested in his/her purchases.
Because the store receives money from selling information on purchases of people, customers who desire privacy arguably should pay a fee to the store to offset the store’s loss of income. On the other hand, one can argue that the store has no legitimate right to sell such information, therefore, any income from the sale of information is wrongful.
As a second example, consider purchases of underwear. The purchases are made in a public place and the sales clerk and other customers are not professionals with a duty of confidentiality. Therefore, under current law, there is no expectation of privacy. If the customer is a famous person, the store clerk could report the type of underwear that the famous person purchased. Yet it seems obvious that such a reporting is not only a violation of the purchaser’s privacy, but is also an uncivil activity that degrades society as well as embarrasses the victim.
No guarantee, but..
You manage to quote at the beginning of the post, but fail to quote the body of the text you pasted. Amazing.
Quote:
“Michael Moore tells the world that he gave JimK the money and that right-wing bloggers should give him a break. JimK reasserts his right to criticise Moore’s politics (and fair enough, you have to be an idiot to expect him to change his views). But further to that, he basically argues that Moore’s gift was a political “tactic” - like the one used against Charlton Heston - to set him up to look like an idiot no matter what he does or says.”
Didn’t JimK set himself up to look like an idiot? - although I personally don’t view him as such - don’t you really control your own destiny?
If I did control my own destiny, my daughter would have never got sick. Either that or I suck at it. Since it happened, if somebody gave me money for medical expenses, even if I despised their morals, I would take the money. We are not poor, but a donation is a donation. No person has used their donation to embarrass me or make a profit off it. I would still keep the money if they did, because I care more about my daughter than losing face, real or imaginary. He may have set himself up, but it is easy to do that when you are vulnerable. Caring about people makes you vulnerable.
I find it very telling about Moore that he did this to a critic of him when he was vulnerable.
I am very sorry about your daughter - I too have a son who is very ill. I, too, would have taken the money irregardless. I guess what I meant was in terms of how you view yourself. I am by no means anywhere near wealthy - to another, my position may be considered rock bottom, though I view myself as very lucky. JimK certainly has nothing to be ashamed of - this has certainly become a test of his convictions.
Quote:
“Michael Moore tells the world that he gave JimK the money and that right-wing bloggers should give him a break. JimK reasserts his right to criticise Moore’s politics (and fair enough, you have to be an idiot to expect him to change his views). But further to that, he basically argues that Moore’s gift was a political “tactic” - like the one used against Charlton Heston - to set him up to look like an idiot no matter what he does or says.”
Didn’t JimK set himself up to look like an idiot? - although I personally don’t view him as such - don’t you really control your own destiny?
No, JimK didn’t set himself up to look like an idiot.
The only way JimK can do that is to actually be an idiot, or do something idiotic. For instance, if he were to write an idiotic blog about Moore, he might look like an idiot (and even then, it’s only a matter of opinion, right) So unless you can cite some evidence of idiocy, then I don’t agree.
I think it’s important for me to say that when I think Moore made JimK look like an idiot, I don’t think JimK is an idiot. It’s all a matter of perception. Moore has given the perception to people who are unwilling to judge JimK on the merit of what he writes, or who are unwilling to think about the incident objectively, that he is an idiot. So all those people who have read about this in the papers and on certain blogs have gained the “perception” that JimK is an idiot. JimK is really only responsible for his actions, not others perceptions of him, especially when that perception is propogated by the unethical actions of someone else.
All JimK did was accept the money on face value. He said himself, he would’ve been an idiot not to take it.
Didn’t JimK set himself up to look like an idiot? - although I personally don’t view him as such - don’t you really control your own destiny?
I’d say “no” to the first, and “sorta” to the second.
I’ve already argued here why JimK didn’t set himself up, why this isn’t his fault. I’m kind of tired from it, and I don’t have anything to add unless something new is brought up. Sorry, but I hope you understand.
Regarding destiny, I would say that you have more control over it than others, but not complete control. There are often opportunities for others to influence it, for good or bad, with your complicity or without. If you removed the possibility of other peoples’ influence, you would also lose many of the opportunities that you may want access to. It’s the risks and rewards of simply living in a society.
I am very sorry to hear your son is ill. I don’t know if you want to share your story, but we’re actually a pretty compassionate crowd. I never know whether it will help to hear this, but I do send good thoughts to you and your son.
Thank you for the kind words Sethery, yes it does help very much.
Long story short, my son was born with multiple heart defects, had a massive stroke at age 2, left him severly physically disabled and unable to speak legibly - but, his mentality was left intact. He is now 27, we recently relocated to another state where he can receive a heart transplant - in the state where we lived a prior stroke negates eligibility to be put on the list. Despite his problems he has never complained about anything - ever. I am a completely different person, for the better, having him in my life, than I otherwise would have been - it has been a very humbling experience - although for his sake I wish things could have been different.
Quote:
“Regarding destiny, I would say that you have more control over it than others, but not complete control. There are often opportunities for others to influence it, for good or bad, with your complicity or without. If you removed the possibility of other peoples’ influence, you would also lose many of the opportunities that you may want access to. It’s the risks and rewards of simply living in a society.”
Very interesting - here is the wikipedia definition:
“Destiny” refers to a predetermined course of events. It may be conceived as a predetermined future, whether in general or of an individual. It is a concept based on the belief that there is a fixed natural order to the universe.
“Different concepts of destiny and fate”
“Destiny may be envisaged as fore-ordained by the Divine (for example, the Protestant concept of predestination) or by human will (for example, the American concept of Manifest Destiny).
Destiny may be seen as a fixed sequence events that is inevitable and unchangeable, or that individuals choose their own destiny by choosing different paths throughout their life.
The choices we make, not the chances we take, determine our destiny.”
I think we all have had instances where what at the time seems like a bad experience, but then, something even better comes out of it. I would say that Jim did the right thing and am sure a lot of others will too.
I am very sorry about your daughter - I too have a son who is very ill. I, too, would have taken the money irregardless. I guess what I meant was in terms of how you view yourself. I am by no means anywhere near wealthy - to another, my position may be considered rock bottom, though I view myself as very lucky. JimK certainly has nothing to be ashamed of - this has certainly become a test of his convictions.
Firstly, thank you, secondly, I am sorry to hear about your son. You have been caregiving longer than we have (she got sick 4 years ago) and that wears on a person. My daughter doesn’t talk much, but just yesterday, she said “why me?” It was painful,like a shock to my heart, and I had no good answer.
I am sure JimK agonized over doing this, on just the suspicion that it was Moore.
Even if Moore had used it for publicity but not put it in the movie, it would have been easier to take.
What boggles my mind is people do not recognize this for what it was, and insist Moore was just trying to help.
When Christopher Reeve was hurt, I thought it was terrible, but I also thought it was handy to have money and rich friends that help out with your medical bills. What about the guy paralyzed at his factory job and living in a trailer home?
That is the difference between JimK and Moore. One is a celebrity with big money, the other is a guy making an honest living.
My point is that if Michael Moore had a real crisis like his wife having Cancer, I can’t picture JimK gloating about it or setting Moore up somehow. He seems to have more character than that, and I would be disappointed in him if he did.
I may not agree with everything JimK says, but he provides an excellent site where we can talk, rant, vent, debate and otherwise socialize and share information, and doesn’t ban people just for having a different opinion. It’s a good thing.
