RE: Re: No Obfuscation here
"Excuse me? How can I "obfuscate" my OWN argument? Steve, you should re-read my only post yesterday."
I think not. Please quote the location in my responses where I indicated you obfuscated your own argument. Maybe I'm not the one in need of remedial reading. I said that you and Strother obfuscated the entire argument by turning it into an anti-war rant. And if I missed the real nature of your post, then so did Strother because he simply reiterated it. This would indicate your post to be the problem, not my (or Strother's) reading comprehension.
I only had one simple point: This author is petty and prudish. Bottom line.
Unfortunately, you never made that point, you simply shouted it and then launched into your anti-war rant. In any case, you are evading my rebuttal. You are trying to make Dr. Adams' argument (accompanied by much ad hominem) petty by comparing it to the war in Iraq. For as much as that is germain, we could have been talking about the price of green beans. Yes, war is probably worse than porn. So what? Will that be your argument stance from now on? I hope not, it will lead to some pretty silly exchanges:
Someone: Drunk driving kills more teenagers than any other cause
Tucker: Yes, but the war in Iraq is more expensive and harmful. You have no right to complain.
Someone: What?
You are also trying to make the argument that MR and Dr. Adams are acting as "the self appointed "appropriate-behavior police" of western NC." Back that claim up with something from the article. You can't because they never made that claim. If I call the State Patrol and report someone weaving down the road, am I acting as a self-appointed driving policeman? Hardly, I'm just trying to avoid getting killed. If something is wrong, which this activity clearly is, telling others about it doesn't make you some kind of self-righteous prig.
The fact of the matter is that you are attacking these guys because they have publicly objected to something that would be considered unacceptable in a sane society, but which has almost become the norm in the halls of academe. No one, including you, can defend the academic propriety of this activity. If that propriety cannot be defended, then the activity is unacceptable and Dr. Adams has done us a service by bringing it to our attention. However, failing the ability to find an argument to support the activity, and, therefore refute Dr. Adams' assertions, you choose to attack the character of the author and his source. That's not an argument, that's just rabid dog shouting.
Before you lump me into some kind of Michael-Moorish-radical-liberal-assault-team, you really should read more carefully. And after that, maybe think about what it is supposed to mean to be a "conservative", and/or a Christian.
And there he goes again. Riding his ad hominem bicycle off into the weeds. This didn't even merit a response, but I'm feeling generous today.
I think not. Please quote the location in my responses where I indicated you obfuscated your own argument. Maybe I'm not the one in need of remedial reading. I said that you and Strother obfuscated the entire argument by turning it into an anti-war rant. And if I missed the real nature of your post, then so did Strother because he simply reiterated it. This would indicate your post to be the problem, not my (or Strother's) reading comprehension.
I only had one simple point: This author is petty and prudish. Bottom line.
Unfortunately, you never made that point, you simply shouted it and then launched into your anti-war rant. In any case, you are evading my rebuttal. You are trying to make Dr. Adams' argument (accompanied by much ad hominem) petty by comparing it to the war in Iraq. For as much as that is germain, we could have been talking about the price of green beans. Yes, war is probably worse than porn. So what? Will that be your argument stance from now on? I hope not, it will lead to some pretty silly exchanges:
Someone: Drunk driving kills more teenagers than any other cause
Tucker: Yes, but the war in Iraq is more expensive and harmful. You have no right to complain.
Someone: What?
You are also trying to make the argument that MR and Dr. Adams are acting as "the self appointed "appropriate-behavior police" of western NC." Back that claim up with something from the article. You can't because they never made that claim. If I call the State Patrol and report someone weaving down the road, am I acting as a self-appointed driving policeman? Hardly, I'm just trying to avoid getting killed. If something is wrong, which this activity clearly is, telling others about it doesn't make you some kind of self-righteous prig.
The fact of the matter is that you are attacking these guys because they have publicly objected to something that would be considered unacceptable in a sane society, but which has almost become the norm in the halls of academe. No one, including you, can defend the academic propriety of this activity. If that propriety cannot be defended, then the activity is unacceptable and Dr. Adams has done us a service by bringing it to our attention. However, failing the ability to find an argument to support the activity, and, therefore refute Dr. Adams' assertions, you choose to attack the character of the author and his source. That's not an argument, that's just rabid dog shouting.
Before you lump me into some kind of Michael-Moorish-radical-liberal-assault-team, you really should read more carefully. And after that, maybe think about what it is supposed to mean to be a "conservative", and/or a Christian.
And there he goes again. Riding his ad hominem bicycle off into the weeds. This didn't even merit a response, but I'm feeling generous today.
posted by Anonymous | 11:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home