Argument Clinic #1 'The danger in asking for specifics"

[Added by WSS, August 18 2018: old placeholder thread, updated with a puzzler snatched from the front pages of OL. It's a neat little attribution discussion, with sides of psychology and morality ... I may not get around to answering myself for a bit, but thought to dust this old entry off, give it some glitz, and apply twenty-first century cogitation tech. ]

Argument Clinic May 12 and 13

-- thanks to the tipster who saw this entrained convo begin to derail. 

I'd like to think that I can with help rationally analyze the apparent impasse, and then put Reason to further work in solving the apparent misunderstanding. Something in this exchange suggests a pattern in disagreement in the Endless Love thread on the front porch. 

(what I like about this blog is that it is visible only to Objectivist Living members.  It would be an in-house solution if we could get MSK and PDS to a mutual comprehension, mutual understanding. It would go a long way toward restoring mutual-respect. Michael is fighting every step of the way over process/truncquotes -- without pausing to give PDS a good 'hearing.'  It may be a function of being 3 things at once:  Forum Leader, Forum Owner, Trump Campaigner. How can one stump for a candidate without setting aside The Principle of Charity or other rational aids?  It seems to me almost impossible. So the challenge is to bring PDS and MSK to a common ground, however small.  

I call this for clinical sake "The Danger in asking for Specifics: the specifics ... " because the dispute circles around the propriety of asking for specific things

Spoiler
On 5/11/2016 at 2:46 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
On 5/11/2016 at 12:13 PM, Jonathan said:

My view is that Drumpf is moving closer to my (our?) beliefs, where Ryan is moving farther from them

Jonathan,

I have held this belief from the beginning with one nuance. I think Drumpf has been far closer to our beliefs since the beginning than many who proclaim to be.

Especially Paul Ryan, who, in political practice, is a pragmatist, not a man of principled vision. He says he is, but his acts don't align to his words. He works as a decent copywriter for his principles, I suppose, but he sure as hell doesn't live them.

Drumpf, on the contrary, has left a physical trail of his productive vision all over the world. If he had a slightly different personality (on a lower fundamental level, i.e. less bragging, less bickering and more polite, essentially), I have no doubt many people in our subcommunity would say Ayn Rand anticipated him in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

Michael

 

On 5/12/2016 at 8:17 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
On 5/12/2016 at 6:55 AM, PDS said:

Is there anything that Ryan has specifically done that leads you to say that he is not a man of principled vision?

David,

You mean like his efforts to pass last year's budget?

:) 

Yeah, he rationalized it (something to the effect that we had to get that nastiness and further budget bloating out of the way by capitulating to be able to concentrate on the glorious small government future), but rationalizing his principles when the going gets tough seems to be his standard MO.

Michael

 

On 5/12/2016 at 10:22 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
On 5/12/2016 at 9:49 AM, PDS said:

Okay.    Can you name something specific you object to about last year's budget?

David,

Come on. That's the way you want to argue this?

 A: Tell me something about X that proves your point, I dare you. You can't can you? See? You can't...

B: Blah blah blah...

A: Oh... OK, well tell me another. You can't can you?

:) 

I'm not biting.

Also, I'm going to seriously regret this, but I will not wager on what Drumpf will do. This would be the easiest money I ever made in my life, but I don't gamble on the principle of keeping myself alive as long as my natural days allow. (I've been a serious drug and alcohol addict, remember? :) )

Let's just say Drumpf is being hired to do a job (several, actually, but let's lump them all under the singular). If he doesn't do that job, or if he doesn't get reasonably close to getting it done with some serious-ass reasons why he didn't complete it, I am going to be pissed as hell at him--like millions and millions of others. And, if he fails at his job, at such time I will take whatever means I can to remove him and get someone else who can do the job.

So I'm not going to waste my time--after doing this thread of over 6,000 posts and a lot of writing at other places, trying to convince anyone that I really believe Drumpf will do what he says. I believe it.

Besides, I'm extremely time-constrained at the moment (good things are happening to me in other areas of my life, but they are time-consuming to get right) and I have not yet answered Robert Campbell and some friendly passive/aggressive gossip shit William is trying to stir up backstage. :) 

Life is short, but this stuff can get awfully long...

And then there's this:

Drumpf is winning...

:) 

Michael

 

[Added by WSS: From a live re-performance recording of the Monty Python classic. ]

clinicaperlitigare.jpg



3 Comments


Recommended Comments

Tucked in raw for now,  will get to my elaborate and yet maudlin answer this weekend if on sober second thought it seems necessary. Locked till then. This message will self destruct.

First thought for the clinic staff: triage, expose wounds.

Framework: 

On 8/16/2018 at 3:55 PM, william.scherk said:
On 8/13/2018 at 8:24 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The fake news legacy media is in a nasty death spiral phase.[...]

The bolded headline below is from Raw Story (citing a 'report' from Gabriel Sherman with the usual cast of unnamed officials) and it's pure shit awful awful. Either pure invention or 'chinese whispers'? If I were President, and this kind of shit got near my cognitions, I hope I would react coldly, coolly, rationally, with a hope to later exact cold platters of vengeance in proportion.

If this happened in Turkey, the whole magazine could be shuttered and its editor detained on Insulting The Honour Of The Head of State charges.

Furious Trump told advisers that he wants Jeff Sessions to arrest Omarosa over her book: report

-- the only semi-possible tale out of Omarosa's dog mouth that I take somewhat on offer is that the Trump Campaign offered her a 'be nice' job going forward.  [WSS -- there is more to put in here for the full record. Durr ]

 

On 8/16/2018 at 6:43 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
On 8/16/2018 at 3:55 PM, william.scherk said:

The bolded headline below is from Raw Story (citing a 'report' from Gabrial Sherman with the usual cast of unnamed officials) and it's pure shit awful awful.
. . .

Furious Trump told advisers that he wants Jeff Sessions to arrest Omarosa over her book: report

-- the only semi-possible tale out of Omarosa's dog mouth that I take somewhat on offer (blah blah blah)...

William,

Square that with this: [WSS insert Tweet please] 

 

Sounds like Trump is really, really, really, furious, huh?

 

Choo chooooo!...

 

:evil:  :) 

 

Michael

 

On 8/16/2018 at 6:38 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
On 8/16/2018 at 3:55 PM, william.scherk said:

The bolded headline below is from Raw Story (citing a 'report' from Gabrial Sherman with the usual cast of unnamed officials)...

William,

Why did you leave out lefite rag, Vanity Fair, as the original publication?

Because, we all know that Vanity Fair knows anything and everything about Trump insiders, right?

Hell, I mean, if Vanity Fair says something about Trump, it must be true, right?

:evil: 

Michael

 

 

23 hours ago, william.scherk said:
On 8/16/2018 at 6:38 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Why did you leave out lefite rag, Vanity Fair, as the original publication?

The writer of the story was Gabriel Sherman.  He is the author of a 2014 biography of Roger Ailes, "The Loudest Voice in the Room: How the Brilliant, Bombastic Roger Ailes Built Fox News – and Divided a Country."

On 8/16/2018 at 6:38 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Because, we all know that Vanity Fair knows anything and everything about Trump insiders, right?

"Vanity Fair" knows nothing. "We all know" is an arbitrary assertion.  The writer is responsible for his claims ... lefite publication or not.

If I redacted the header to this quote ...

On 8/16/2018 at 6:38 PM, “Objectivist Living“ said:

Hell, I mean, if Vanity Fair says something about Trump, it must be true, right?

... then I would be assigning the responsibility for the quote to the collective forum itself.  "Nothing you read on Objectivist Living can be trusted."

The Gabriel Sherman story originally appeared at Vanity Fair. "It must be true, right?"  is a pointless question.  He has also appeared twice on CSPAN, and even on NewsMax:

[NewsMax video and cut-off final Vanity Fair glossy magazine favourite cover. ]

 

 

 

20 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Me: "Why did you leave out lefite rag, Vanity Fair, as the original publication?"

I was talking about this Raw Story link provided by William, who highlighted that it was from Raw Story. (I think he linked to Raw Story because liked the sound of the headline since it said Trump was furious with Omarosa, and that feeds his fantasies--feeds them well and deliciously--instead of his often-shown interest in reality, which is not nearly as exciting.)

William's answer:

23 hours ago, william.scherk said:

The writer of the story was Gabriel Sherman.

As if that's an answer.

Even to the casual reader, that sounds like something is missing. It sounds like a typical non-answer answer of politicians, so to speak. Maybe with a subtext: a master of the obvious put-down attempt as if I didn't know that an author wrote the article or something.

Setting aside personal considerations, let's look into this a bit deeper.

The way William answered (granted, in response to the way I worded by question), it seems like Vanity Fair has a worse reputation than Raw Story. Does it? I'll deal with that at the end of the post. 

On another point, William's non-answer answer also implies Gabriel Sherman disagrees with the editorial slant of Vanity Fair and is a book author loner instead--that he only sporadically writes articles as a freelancer. Does he?

Hmmmm... 

Let's provide the missing part and see. Here's the first paragraph from the Raw Story story in the above link (my bold):

Quote

A new report from Vanity Fair’s Gabriel Sherman claims that President Donald Trump now wants to see estranged aide Omarosa Manigault-Newman arrested over her recently published book.

Woah theah, hoss...

Gabriel Sherman belongs to Vanity Fair? Being the first paragraph and all, it's kinda hard to miss this information.

And us? What are we still missing?

Well, let's see what Vanity Fair says about Gabriel Sherman.

Gabriel Sherman

From that link:

Quote

Gabriel Sherman is a special correspondent for Vanity Fair...

In other words, Gabriel Sherman works at Vanity Fair.

As an author.

As an author on salary.

I normally don't play gotcha games, but this one was just crying out to be played.

So... (taking a deep breath...)

GOTCHA!!!

:)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)  

And over what?

Let's go back to my first point.

The fact is Raw Story is a much worse leftie rag than Vanity Fair is, that is, as far as leftie rags go. Organizations that rate these things give Raw Story far worse marks than Vanity Fair for accuracy in reporting. (For those interested, look this up at Media Bias Fact Check and other places online.)

So saying something is from Vanity Fair gives it more authority than saying it is from Raw Story, not less.

William is normally better at propaganda than this.

I wonder what happened?

:evil:  

Michael

Horizontal Line. 

<blockquote class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote="" data-ipsquote-contentapp="blog" data-ipsquote-contentclass="blog_Entry" data-ipsquote-contentcommentid="1718" data-ipsquote-contentid="659" data-ipsquote-contenttype="blogs" data-ipsquote-timestamp="1534608097" data-ipsquote-userid="139" data-ipsquote-username="Quoting MSK from the blog blockquote">
    <div class="ipsQuote_citation">
        13 minutes ago, Quoting MSK from the blog blockquote said:
    </div>

    <div class="ipsQuote_contents ipsClearfix">
        <p>
            Let&#39;s provide the missing part and see. Here&#39;s the first paragraph from the <em>Raw Story</em> story in the above link (my bold):
        </p>

        <blockquote class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote="">
            <div class="ipsQuote_citation ipsQuote_open">
                Quote
            </div>

            <div class="ipsQuote_contents ipsClearfix">
                <p>
                    A new report <span style="font-size:16px;"><strong>from Vanity Fair&rsquo;s Gabriel Sherman </strong></span>claims that President Donald Trump now wants to see estranged aide Omarosa Manigault-Newman arrested over her recently published book.
                </p>
            </div>
        </blockquote>

        <p>
            Woah theah, hoss...
        </p>

        <p>
            Gabriel Sherman belongs to <em>Vanity Fair</em>?&nbsp;Being the first paragraph and all, it&#39;s kinda hard to miss this information.
        </p>
    </div>
</blockquote>

<p>
    In other words, I deliberately-and/or-fiendishly &#39;left out&#39; a VANITY FAIR tag that anyone clicking through to the linked STORY would read in the FIRST LINE of the FIRST PARAGRAPH.&nbsp; If that VANITY FAIR suspiciously-missing tag was important for Dear Reader, it was &quot;kinda hard to miss this information.&quot;
</p>

<p>
    I feel completely gaccia-ed, if not gutted like a fish.&nbsp; To sling a metaphor. MOUNTAIN. Molehill. OPINION. Dudgeon. UNDERSTANDING. Nil.
</p>

 

Edited by william.scherk

Share this comment


Link to comment

Just to make sure the reader knows what I was referring to when I talked about rating accuracy among leftie rags, let me help William with his graphics.

08.20.2018-19.58.png

The part I highlighted deals with accuracy. I highlighted it since it was easy for the viewer to miss it, given the huge size of the bias arrows.

As to Alex Jones, who cares? He's an attack dog who points to where people should dig to plow through the bullshit powerful elitists use to try to keep their monkeyshines hidden. He's wicked effective, too. Besides, Infowars is not a leftie rag. :evil: 

Michael

Share this comment


Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...