Nobody's fault but mine

Actually, if you want interesting fuzzing of the line between argument and ad hominem, you need to go to Nietzsche, who is persuasive that the distinction won't hold when the going gets tough. The going here isn't slightly tough, barely baby steps. Fatboy's example begins with a characterization of my argument (inaccurate, but still a characterization of the argument)and then descends into an explanation of why the argument fails by way of a characterization of my bona fides, thus not having to buttress the original and inaccurate characterization with any visible argument of his own. Thus his example, which is an argument, fails as one. To follow him along this path, given the tone of his posts, I find his inability to hold onto the distinction unsurprising. And it remains the case that Lee is right and he is wrong, therefore.

The trick of using a mention as a use is cute, but Derrida beat him there by some time.
 
I love theories. I am going to test this one next time at SFJoe's should he open another unsuccessful example of 01 knoll gruner. I'll be careful not to call him an idiot for opening one, but will make sure to unload the full force of my verbal diarrhea on the swill.
 
originally posted by .sasha:
I love theories. I am going to test this one next time at SFJoe's should he open another unsuccessful example of 01 knoll gruner. I'll be careful not to call him an idiot for opening one, but will make sure to unload the full force of my verbal diarrhea on the swill.
Click to expand...

And, at the least, you will, thereby, show better manners.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Actually, if you want interesting fuzzing of the line between argument and ad hominem, you need to go to Nietzsche, who is persuasive that the distinction won't hold when the going gets tough. The going here isn't slightly tough, barely baby steps. Fatboy's example begins with a characterization of my argument (inaccurate, but still a characterization of the argument)and then descends into an explanation of why the argument fails by way of a characterization of my bona fides, thus not having to buttress the original and inaccurate characterization with any visible argument of his own. Thus his example, which is an argument, fails as one. To follow him along this path, given the tone of his posts, I find his inability to hold onto the distinction unsurprising. And it remains the case that Lee is right and he is wrong, therefore.

The trick of using a mention as a use is cute, but Derrida beat him there by some time.
Click to expand...

really. who cares about your bona fides. what you do in the day time is between you and your conscience.

the problem, professor, is that you didn't make an argument. you vaguely alluded to a distinction made by some dubious motherfuckers in togas who had the excuse of not knowing better. it's a distinction that is unusable in practice because it is a distinction that relates to a form of language and a form of life that has nothing to do with our own.

but an even bigger problem is that, once again, you can't bring yourself to say anything substantive. because to do so -- to actually put forward and defend a cogent proposition, as opposed to your usual wooly blend of assertion and hearsay, would involve you laying out your logic and running the risk that someone might demur. holy fuck! how terrible!

why risk all that when you can trot out the usual bunch of tendentious assertions, and throw in some mentions of derrida and nietsche as hopeful suppositories, eh?

i'd love to believe that this is a brilliant pastiche -- that the smug, vacuous tool thing is an elaborate metaphor; that your engaging in all of the vacuous practices that make the interweb wine expert the pointless canker that he is are really life as brilliant art.

i'd love to believe that you are selflessly setting yourself up in elaborate support of joe's basic gripe: that it's far too fucking easy to be vague and negative, that any pointless pigfucker can set themself up as an expert as long as they don't actually say anything we already know, and and that doing so is boring, intellectually dishonest, anti-wine, and anti-life.

in fact, fuck it. tell me it is a metaphor. i'll believe you. i promise. tell me i've been missing your brilliantly crafted joke, and i'll even wear a cardboard sign around my neck with "loseberg is a comic genius; i am a goat" written on it. for a week.

think about it -- you'll be the man. christmas will be happier... the kids on kane's secret wine bored will probably elect you god or something.

you are at a crossroad jonathon -- do you want to play to the smug lords and the philosophy 1a drop-out crowd, or do you want to strike a blow for content, for genuine thoughtful criticism, and a humbler, better, more intellectually vibrant future?

it's so easy to strike a blow for good; it's even easier to strike one for lameness. think about it.

fb.
 
originally posted by fatboy:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Actually, if you want interesting fuzzing of the line between argument and ad hominem, you need to go to Nietzsche, who is persuasive that the distinction won't hold when the going gets tough. The going here isn't slightly tough, barely baby steps. Fatboy's example begins with a characterization of my argument (inaccurate, but still a characterization of the argument)and then descends into an explanation of why the argument fails by way of a characterization of my bona fides, thus not having to buttress the original and inaccurate characterization with any visible argument of his own. Thus his example, which is an argument, fails as one. To follow him along this path, given the tone of his posts, I find his inability to hold onto the distinction unsurprising. And it remains the case that Lee is right and he is wrong, therefore.

The trick of using a mention as a use is cute, but Derrida beat him there by some time.
Click to expand...

really. who cares about your bona fides. what you do in the day time is between you and your conscience.

the problem, professor, is that you didn't make an argument. you vaguely alluded to a distinction made by some dubious motherfuckers in togas who had the excuse of not knowing better. it's a distinction that is unusable in practice because it is a distinction that relates to a form of language and a form of life that has nothing to do with our own.

but an even bigger problem is that, once again, you can't bring yourself to say anything substantive. because to do so -- to actually put forward and defend a cogent proposition, as opposed to your usual wooly blend of assertion and hearsay, would involve you laying out your logic and running the risk that someone might demur. holy fuck! how terrible!

why risk all that when you can trot out the usual bunch of tendentious assertions, and throw in some mentions of derrida and nietsche as hopeful suppositories, eh?

i'd love to believe that this is a brilliant pastiche -- that the smug, vacuous tool thing is an elaborate metaphor; that your engaging in all of the vacuous practices that make the interweb wine expert the pointless canker that he is are really life as brilliant art.

i'd love to believe that you are selflessly setting yourself up in elaborate support of joe's basic gripe: that it's far too fucking easy to be vague and negative, that any pointless pigfucker can set themself up as an expert as long as they don't actually say anything we already know, and and that doing so is boring, intellectually dishonest, anti-wine, and anti-life.

in fact, fuck it. tell me it is a metaphor. i'll believe you. i promise. tell me i've been missing your brilliantly crafted joke, and i'll even wear a cardboard sign around my neck with "loseberg is a comic genius; i am a goat" written on it. for a week.

think about it -- you'll be the man. christmas will be happier... the kids on kane's secret wine bored will probably elect you god or something.

you are at a crossroad jonathon -- do you want to play to the smug lords and the philosophy 1a drop-out crowd, or do you want to strike a blow for content, for genuine thoughtful criticism, and a humbler, better, more intellectually vibrant future?

it's so easy to strike a blow for good; it's even easier to strike one for lameness. think about it.

fb.
Click to expand...

Incoming.
 
originally posted by fatboy:
really. who cares about your bona fides. what you do in the day time is between you and your conscience.

...

or do you want to strike a blow for content, for genuine thoughtful criticism, and a humbler, better, more intellectually vibrant future?
Click to expand...

You seem to be obsessed with everyone's bona fides. You are operating using some sort of categorization where some folks are qualified to put forth critical thoughts and others aren't. Would you like to share how you do that? What are your criteria?
FWIW, I've found Prof. Loesberg to be a good source of information on the wines of the Southern Rhone, a region I have more or less abandoned. If I get a hankering, he's someone I would ask for advice.

I really don't understand your tone or hostility. It seems misplaced to me.
 
originally posted by VLM:

What are your criteria?
Click to expand...

content. thoughtfulness. that sort of thing.

your barthod comments were contentful, thoughtful and informative.

i thought your donhoff comments were less thoughtful and less informative.

i thought we had a thoughtful and contentful discussion about that (albeit that it was laced with the word "pigfucker"), and my respect for you grew enormously in the process of having that discussion.

fb.
 
originally posted by fatboy:
originally posted by VLM:

What are your criteria?
Click to expand...

content. thoughtfulness. that sort of thing.

your barthod comments were contentful, thoughtful and informative.

i thought your donhoff comments were less thoughtful and less informative.

i thought we had a thoughtful and contentful discussion about that (albeit that it was laced with the word "pigfucker"), and my respect for you grew enormously in the process of having that discussion.

fb.
Click to expand...

So, it isn't on a person-by-person basis it is a post-by-post basis?

Thus, while I can be said to have useful things to say about Barthod, the same doesn't hold for Donnhoff. I gave you the same kind of information, to the best of my ability, about both. What made one more informative and thoughtful than the other? It now seems like you want this to be a continuous scale (I agree with this), but you seem to be making categorical judgments. JDM is your field not mine.

Am I allowed to write things about Baudry? Mugneret-Gibourg? Breton? What sort of bona fides must I present before doing so?

I'm not really sure what you and Joe are getting at. Are we supposed to take wine seriously, or not? Or is just about what's in the glass?

This seems to pop up every year or so where honest disagreement about wines turns into someone ruining the world for the righteous.
 
originally posted by Levi Dalton:
I don't see where honest disagreement about wines comes into the discussion we have been having.
Click to expand...

Reasonable people can disagree about the value of aging Donnhoff.
 
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Levi Dalton:
I don't see where honest disagreement about wines comes into the discussion we have been having.
Click to expand...

Reasonable people can disagree about the value of aging Donnhoff.
Click to expand...

Sure. It is how the thoughts for and against are expressed that is at the crux of the issue.
 
originally posted by VLM:

Thus, while I can be said to have useful things to say about Barthod, the same doesn't hold for Donnhoff. I gave you the same kind of information, to the best of my ability, about both. What made one more informative and thoughtful than the other? It now seems like you want this to be a continuous scale (I agree with this), but you seem to be making categorical judgments. JDM is your field not mine.

Am I allowed to write things about Baudry? Mugneret-Gibourg? Breton? What sort of bona fides must I present before doing so?

I'm not really sure what you and Joe are getting at. Are we supposed to take wine seriously, or not? Or is just about what's in the glass?
Click to expand...

you gave your reasoning for your comments on donnhoff, and on barthod, and it was possible to understand where you were coming from, and why. i tried to explain, substantively, why i disagreed.

so while your initial comments seemed to be flirting with outright bullshit in my eyes -- and in the end, bullshitting is disrespectful to wine, life and even the universe, let alone whoever's efforts it is directed at -- your response to being called on to account for your comment was incredibly non-bullshit.

it was a model for all of us, me included.

fb.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
It was cooked.

Or maybe it begged the question.

Anyhow, something was wrong from the get-go.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the sugar disappeared.

And dudes, please stay on your meds. I sense real competition for the WIWPies this year.

Larry, the point of those classes was to keep somebody employed. Have some sympathy.
 
And sure, you can attack a person by writing an attack on a product and throwing in a little innuendo. But that doesn't really fool much of anybody who doesn't want to be fooled.
Click to expand...

This quote is from my first post in this thread. It also seems to be the very point that fatboy has gone to such lengths to argue for, or so he says. I might think we were in violent agreement if it weren't for the goalpost-shifting and ad hominem. Yet I'm sure that if his own posts and Joe's posts were directed against winemakers, we'd be treated to another thrilling round of ad hominem, at a minimum.

So, fb, whatever floats your boat. Happy fucking holidays to you, Thor, and Levi!
 
originally posted by Lee Short:
And sure, you can attack a person by writing an attack on a product and throwing in a little innuendo. But that doesn't really fool much of anybody who doesn't want to be fooled.
Click to expand...

This quote is from my first post in this thread. It also seems to be the very point that fatboy has gone to such lengths to argue for
Click to expand...

as we've seen, i'm less convinced that it's as cut and dried as you and jonathan do. -- and i don't think that we should let my plump and crazy verbal excesses on this thread detract from that, or joe's very sensible points about taking wine in the context that it is offered, and handling one's negativity in a sensitive and informed way.

but in the spirit of these words, and in all honesty: if i'd understood your original remark as you intended, i would have led less with my fat chin than i have done. mea culpa.

fb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top