From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Mar 22 2005 - 19:25:36 GMT
All,
Platt responds exactly as expected. An attempt to "thow sand into the opponent's
eyes". Of course the odds on my wager were likely only 1:1, a pretty safe bet.
In the end, what Platt wants is to "just be believed". It matters not that his
assertations are indefensible (even by him), nor that his idiotic claims are
contradictory and logically vapid. He will go right on blowing smoke,
contradicting himself, and providing only rhetorical shifts to any challenge of
his so-called "logic".
Notice how rather than admit his logic is vapid, or try to critcally address the
contradictory problems he evidences, every single critical challenge goes
unanswered, and he can only respond with foolish rhetorical shifts, as
evidenced below.
> Arlo's attempts at a "logical" defense of rock, which he does not deny
> celebrates biological quality,
Platteral shift: why does "rock" celebrate "biological quality", but "bluegrass,
polka, reggae, swing, country-western, big band, salsa" do not?
C'mon, Platt, at least make an attempt to be critical in your thinking.
is futile because the subject he tries to
> bring under the umbrella of critical analysis is an art form (though
> laughably so).
Platteral shift: What Platt wants to do is make an assinine statemant "rock is
degenerate" and then say "critical analysis of this statement is futile because
rock is an art form".
Laughable. Utterly laughable.
If he can't tell the difference between the singing of
> Frank Sinatra vs.Ozzy Osbourne or the lyrics of Cole Porter vs. Snoop Dogg
> or a waltz beat vs. a rock beat (much less paintings by Homer vs.
> KinKaid), then why go on?
You make a critical division in your statement, Platt, you must defend it. If
"rock" has the "beat of sexual intercourse", what makes it different from the
beat of salsa, waltz, polka, etc.
But here you are back to lyrics again. Can't you even make up your own mind?
As the old Latin proverb says, "De gustibus non
> est disputandum" - There's no accounting for taste.
Yet another Platteral shift. Of course, because "what is good and what is not
good, we need only ask Platt these things". Anyone who agrees with Platt, has
taste. Anyone who disagrees, doesn't.
> The point I've been trying to make which Arlo ignores has to do with
> Pirsig's explanation of why American suffers from a moral degeneration,
> explicated by Ham's post of 2/27 and exemplified this week by a judge's
> decision to let a helpless person starve to death.
Whoa! The biggest Platteral shift I've seen in a while!!!!
The "point you've been trying (and failing miserably) to make" is that "rock is
degenerate". You've used the vapid logic of Bloom, the lyrics of one Pete Pablo
song, and coninual refusals to answer critical challenges to your contradictory
and laughable logic.
So far you've offerend (1) overt sexual lyrics, (2) promotion of promiscuity,
and (3) the "beat of sexual intercourse". To each of these you conveniently
exempt "artistically superior" music that also falls into these categories.
Your "logical" argument is thus: "Artistically superior" music that contains
sexual themes (Peggy Lee), promotes promiscuity (Sinatra) or makes us of the
"beat of sexual intercourse" (Bolero), is not degenerate. But, "artistically
inferior" music that does is degenerate.
Which is contradictory to aaaalllll the nonsense you've been spouting off about.
(I do agree with you on the Florida case, though, in case you were curious).
> I would hope that since this is a site devoted to the MOQ that some
> attention would be paid to what Pirsig had to say about moral degeneration
> and why is has occurred.
Pirsig is no more "the measure of all things" than you are, Platt. Sorry to
break that to you. However, you can't run back to the MOQ. Even within that
framework, you'd have to answer why "rock" is "biological", but salsa, waltz,
bluegrass, jazz, polka, etc. are "not".
Why is Bolero "not biological", but The Clash "are"?
I don't mind that you condemn things, Platt. What I mind are the convenient
exemptions you make for things "you like". You set yourself up not only the
final arbiter for "what is good" in your own life, but also for "what is good"
period.
"Artistically superior" becomes a synonymn for "Platt's preferences". You exempt
what you like from the charges you levy against everything "you don't like".
It is as assinine as my saying, "since I don't like waltz, it is artistically
inferior and thus degenerate because it promotes dancing and sexual contact.
But, swing, which I *do* like, is perfectly moral and non-degenerate."
If you want to make claims using logic like this, don't expect to hide behind
rhetorical shifts in a philosophy group, or complain when someone points out
your vapid and incoherent "logic".
I suggest that those who haven't read Chapter 24
> of Lila lately read it again and then tell me that rock is not part of the
> biological ocean that "intellectuals have failed to understand,." and that
> rock which had , in Arlo's words, "its origins in social protest of
> injustice and inequality" doesn't coincide with Pirsig's description of
> the Hippie revolution that became a "disastrous mistake."
Jesus, Platt. I swear you hope that such nonsense will make everyone overlook
your lack of any logical coherency.
Why is "rock part of the biological ocean", but swing, salsa, polka, reggae,
jazz, bluegrass, country-western, etc. "not".
Why is Bolero not "part of the biological ocean", despite its "beat of sexual
intercourse", its promotion of promiscuity, and its sexual themes?
As for "coinciding with Pirsig", are you saying that Pirsig was right about
everything? What about in his statement that being a vegetarian is a higher
morality than eating meat? Should we all be vegetarians, Platt, because Pirsig
tells us it is "more moral"? Hmmm???
> In any case, focusing attention and commenting on what Pirsig says about
> the current state of social degeneration rather than quibbling on and on
> about my and Bloom's "vapid logic" seems to me a higher quality use of
> valuable time
Platteral shift: Platt means, "I want to make any idiotic claim I want, and when
I am challenged I will rebuke all challenges as quibbles".
We can make it a MOQ argument if you like, Platt. It won't alleviate your
contradictory positions, vapid logic and sad refusals to answer critical
charges, though, will it?
, though I won't deny the therapeutic value this site
> provides for Arlo's psychological need to be "one up."
Whatever, Platt. You just can't stand seeing critical charges that you know
prove your position is vapid and without merit. And so you respond with your
typical shifts and denials and contradictory claims.
All in hopes that your foolish statement "just be accepted" and everyone forgets
your contradictions and logically incoherent stance.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 22 2005 - 21:28:52 GMT