think I struck a nerve, because you like to use ad hominems quite a bit.
Glad you brought that up a second time. You clearly don't know what an ad-hominem is. Literally "attack the man" it is an argumentative fallacy based on the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.
ad-hominem: "Your arguments are wrong because you are a bad person."
not ad-hominem: "You are a bad person because your arguments are wrong."
Capiche?
not ad-hominem: "Your logic is that of an inexperienced teenager."
not ad-hominem: "Your rhetorical fallacies are so obvious that even a a kid in a high-school forensics competition would recognize them."
Don't worry though, you aren't alone at all. It is common for people with bad arguments to take offense at being called out for making those arguments. It is a way for them to avoid admitting their argument is bad. Of course false claims of ad-hominem are a tacit admission of failure, which is why I was happy to see you double-down.
What is so wrong with stating 'Children learn from experience'
Nothing.
But that is not what you wrote. You said children don't learn from movies.
Here's where you prove your mettle. Are you honest enough to admit what is plain to anyone reading along - that you deliberately conflated "Children learn by experience" with "Children don't learn from movies" in order to score points at the expense of honest debate? Or do you deny/ignore it as if such intellectual dishonesty is of no consequence? Your move.
Are you a Christian by any chance? What about an American?
What are you implying? That being american or christian means someone is disposed to take a particular position? If I said was I from Godhra, would that make any difference? Watch yourself there, because
that would be textbook ad-hominem.
reply
share
DYouKnowWhatIMean
11 years ago
Call it what you will. It is a personal attack to drag my attention away from the argument at hand. This type of attack, ad hominem or not and I am fairly sure it is in fact an ad hominem, this tactic is commonly used by the individual with the weaker argument. Or so the experts claim.
"Nothing.
But that is not what you wrote. You said children don't learn from movies. Here's where you prove your mettle. Are you honest enough to admit what is plain to anyone reading along - that you deliberately conflated "Children learn by experience" with "Children don't learn from movies" in order to score points at the expense of honest debate? Or do you deny/ignore it as if such intellectual dishonesty is of no consequence? Your move."
Nowhere did I say "Children don't learn from movies". Perhaps you should go back and re-read that part of my post. Also take notice that I have not edited any of the posts.
Children can learn trivia information (which may be wrong information), but when dealing with interactions with other people it is something they can only learn and develop by first hand experience. That is what this entire debate is centered around. For instance, can a movie make a child a murderer? The answer is no. Therefore letting you 10 year old child watch a R rated movie is not an issue, because movies do not influence children in such a way. Only first hand experiences can cause such dramatic developments to occur.
"What are you implying? That being American or christian means someone is predisposed to take a particular position? If I said was I from Godhra, would that make any difference? Watch yourself there, because that is textbook ad-hominem."
This is not an ad hominem attack. In fact, it wasn't even an attack. Nice try.
I am unfamiliar with Godhra, I would have to research it in correlation with whatever faith is predominate.
Americans tend to be more strict and sensitive when it comes to censorship in films and movies in comparison to countries such as in Europe. Especially when dealing with any sexual content, although violence is much more accepted for some strange reason.
I believe this is because over 70% of Americans are Christian. And Christians tend to be highly sensitive to sexual content, vulgar language and violence which makes sense as The Bible demonizes such actions.
I find this to be irrational and insulting when it comes to fiction, whether it be books, movies, music or television. They treat it like a plague, and it isn't. There is nothing to be scared of.
Merlin - I am a sorcerer, I have magic
reply
share
DaliParton
11 years ago
> Children learn from experience, not from fictional movies.
Nowhere did I say "Children don't learn from movies"
As expected you denied the obvious. Next on the check list of intellectual dishonesty - refuge in literalism.
Watch yourself there, because that would be textbook ad-hominem.
This is not an ad hominem attack. In fact, it wasn't even an attack. Nice try.
Did I say it was an attack? I did not. I said it was an ad-hominem - you know, a type of augmentative fallacy. A concept that you clearly can't grasp because your posts are chock full of fallacies.
What is really stunning about your intellectual dishonesty is that your very next statement is pure ad-hominem -- "Americans tend to be more strict and sensitive when it comes to censorship..." That has absolutely no bearing on the validity of my point that it is the job of parents to provide context that children don't generally have because of a lack of personal experience.
You deny something and then perfectly illustrate it with your very next sentence. It is like you are deliberately parodying yourself.
reply
share
DYouKnowWhatIMean
11 years ago
I am not being dishonest, you simply fail to understand the claim. Or it could be that you are choosing to misinterpret so as to avoid the truth that your beliefs are wrong and irrational.
"That has absolutely no bearing on the validity of my point that it is the job of parents to provide context that children don't generally have because of a lack of personal experience."
Then I have either misinterpreted your point or you changed it. I thought that you claimed in general that R rated movies were harmful to children which is why they should either be watched with parental guidance.
Regardless, a parent is not needed to provide context for a film with adult themes. The child will either ignore it, forget it soon after the scene is over or will go to their parents and ask questions about it. A parent present during the viewing of the film is therefore unnecessary (unless the child and parent wish to mutually enjoy the film). The end result will be the same either way. The only difference? The child will have a sense of independence without having a parent around every time they watch an R rated movie.
Here is an example that I believe everyone has experienced at some point. Perhaps as an adult or teenager you watched a film that you hadn't seen in a very long time. You noticed certain elements that you never did before as a child. Perhaps it was a sexual innuendo, or a reference to something you had not been aware of as a child, but later gained the knowledge through first hand experience. This shows that concepts that children are simply too young to grasp don't phase them and if they do, they will ask questions.
Perhaps we should restart the discussion fresh. Make our initial points very clear and thorough to avoid any misinterpretations or confusion.
Merlin - I am a sorcerer, I have magic
reply
share
DaliParton
11 years ago
I am not being dishonest, you simply fail to understand the claim. Or it could be that you are choosing to misinterpret so as to avoid the truth that your beliefs are wrong and irrational.
Dude, it is right there in black and white. There is no misinterpretation. You said one thing and then you flatly denied saying it. It could not be more clear.
I thought that you claimed in general that R rated movies were harmful to children which is why they should either be watched with parental guidance
Really? What part of this was so hard to grasp?
"It is about the parent being aware of what happened in the movie and then being able to talk about it and bring more context to the events in the movie."Or this?
"It is the role of a parent to provide that context for movies and everything else in life."No, you understood perfectly. You are just stuck in this black-and-white mindset that children don't learn anything from watching movies. That either they fully understand the concepts involved or they completely miss that the concepts even exist. That is a patently absurd belief. The idea that children don't ever gain partial understanding or even incorrect understanding of concepts in movies is so ridiculous that you might as well be claiming that water is not wet.
reply
share
DYouKnowWhatIMean
11 years ago
Because I didn't say it. You put it up in quotes as if it were words typed on the screen, but I never did, despite you claiming that I did. I also further elaborated on what was said because you misinterpreted the meaning.
"Really? What part of this was so hard to grasp? "
I am not sure what you mean. Are you implying that you support that claim?
If so, it isn't a matter of being able to grasp it. It is a matter of pure disagreement on the basis of evidence. I do not see any harmful effects to a child of, lets say 10 years old, watching an R rated film without a parent or guardian supervising them.
Merlin - I am a sorcerer, I have magic
reply
share
DaliParton
11 years ago
Because I didn't say it. You put it up in quotes as if it were words typed on the screen, but I never did, despite you claiming that I did.
Wow, refuge in literalism. EXACTLY as predicted. You are trolling me, right?
You know how ridiculous it is that I can predict your intellectually dishonest posts before you make them, I even tell you that you are going to make them and yet you still go and do it? Admit it, you are a troll. Nobody is that stupid, right?
At this point, I'm satisfied with where this ended up - you made a fool of yourself by using terms you don't know the meaning of - "ad hominem," constantly stating your conclusion as the premise - "Children learn from experience, not from fictional movies," and following the exact path of intellectual dishonesty as predicted in writing. The only thing missing is outright capitulation, and that really never happens on IMDB.
reply
share
DYouKnowWhatIMean
11 years ago
"But that is not what you wrote. You said children don't learn from movies.
Here's where you prove your mettle. Are you honest enough to admit what is plain to anyone reading along - that you deliberately conflated "Children learn by experience" with "Children don't learn from movies" in order to score points at the expense of honest debate? Or do you deny/ignore it as if such intellectual dishonesty is of no consequence? Your move. "
Now who is being dishonest? I don't appreciate words being sprung into my mouth. If you still have a problem with it, see later where I elaborated on the actual statement.
Also, why did you skip over my refutal? You keep trying to derail the main argument which is still not resolved.
Merlin - I am a sorcerer, I have magic
reply
share
CardinalsBaseball
7 years ago
I don't want to get dragged into you two's two year old pissing match, but I thought I would mention two things.
1. The R rating requires kids under the age of 17 to be accompanied by a parent or adult guardian. This has nothing to do with content being explained by the adult. The intent is to keep someone from seeing the film without their parent's permission. The parent or guardian's presence implies permission.
2. DaliParton is a pretentious a-hole.
reply
share