Why do the majority of you Hate other bands?
Jose A. Ramirez
like is the best *because* you like it and that is enough justification for you
to hate other music. All of you get upset *because* all those teeny boopes and
whoever else vote for BSB or Britney on TRL. I have a great idea for all of
you who get upset over these petty matters... GET A LIFE! It's just music,
that's all. Sure, some of it *might* have powerful messages in them, but does
that make them any better than the BSB or Britney or whoever? I'd hate to
agree with anyone out there since I am the black sheep of alt.music.nin but is
all of this argument really necessary?
Jose
visit my webpage at:
http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/comingintothesoul/index.html
_______AmNinCode v2.0__________
N+ L+ H++ B+ M- T-- A-- U+ I+
P+ F++ S++ NC-- V- R-- D-- PB-
_________________________________
mac...@mindspring.com
>like is the best *because* you like it and that is enough justification for you
>to hate other music. All of you get upset *because* all those teeny boopes and
>whoever else vote for BSB or Britney on TRL. I have a great idea for all of
>you who get upset over these petty matters... GET A LIFE! It's just music,
>that's all. Sure, some of it *might* have powerful messages in them, but does
>that make them any better than the BSB or Britney or whoever? I'd hate to
>agree with anyone out there since I am the black sheep of alt.music.nin but is
>all of this argument really necessary?
I don't hate any music; I just have a certain tolerance level for it:
with Nine Inch Nails, my tolerance level is a 10 out of 10, and with
Country music and the Backstreet Boys, my tolerance level is a 1 or 2
out of 10, which means I can't last very long when listening to it
before I start developing "mania".
D.M.
Five Gold Stars kick ass
>you
>like is the best *because* you like it and that is enough justification for
>you
>to hate other music.
Who is this you that you speak of? oh and it's the best becuz whomever likes
it becuz it's whomever's opinion...
k::bush sucks ass!! my strong opinion there::c
A NEW GUITAR GOD: http://www.wesjeans.com
Feed the hungry: http://www.hungersite.com
Periodic
"Jose A. Ramirez" wrote:
> Wouldn't that make all of you hypocrites? You assume that the music that you
> like is the best *because* you like it and that is enough justification for you
> to hate other music. All of you get upset *because* all those teeny boopes and
> whoever else vote for BSB or Britney on TRL. I have a great idea for all of
> you who get upset over these petty matters... GET A LIFE! It's just music,
> that's all. Sure, some of it *might* have powerful messages in them, but does
> that make them any better than the BSB or Britney or whoever? I'd hate to
> agree with anyone out there since I am the black sheep of alt.music.nin but is
> all of this argument really necessary?
>
> Jose
> visit my webpage at:
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/comingintothesoul/index.html
>
> _______AmNinCode v2.0__________
> N+ L+ H++ B+ M- T-- A-- U+ I+
> P+ F++ S++ NC-- V- R-- D-- PB-
> _________________________________
Shut up wrestlingboi! ;)
Actually, I think there is such a thing as 'better' music, regardless of tastes.
Truly good music transcends genres and is simply music that can be appreciated by
anyone. The Fragile is a good example of this, although Trent's earlier stuff I
think would fall into the category of industrial or 'pop'. Alot of Bowie's stuff
is like that as well.
I think the worst people are the ones who stick to one genre and absolutely loathe
any band that isn't trying to be as cliched and typical as the other bands in that
category. If it doesn't RAWK then it isn't cool.
Britney Spears is musically terrible. Ask any musician, its just bad music. Its
like art, people can develope tastes for certain artforms, but there IS such a
thing as just bad art. (www.badart.com has some great examples...)
-Periodic.
angel_...@my-deja.com
magd...@aol.com (Jose A. Ramirez ) wrote:
> Wouldn't that make all of you hypocrites? You assume that the music
that you
> like is the best *because* you like it and that is enough
justification for you
> to hate other music.
Well now, another one not able to handle the stress? I think there is a
difference between hating other band simply because you can't think of
something more creative to do with your time, and actually recognizing
that some music is truly bad, pointless, and lacking any meaning
whatsoever. And there is music like that out there, lots and lots of
it. Which as i see it is justification enough just to acknowledge nin.
you don't have to like it, but you recognize the talent and meaning
that is there. Can anyone out there in all honesty say this about BSB
or Britney Spears? If so, you have done a good job at deluding yourse;f
and chances are you are living a lie....
~Raziel
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
SJC
"Jose A. Ramirez " <magd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000109155939...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
> Wouldn't that make all of you hypocrites? You assume that the music that
you
> like is the best *because* you like it and that is enough justification
for you
boopes and
> whoever else vote for BSB or Britney on TRL. I have a great idea for all
of
> you who get upset over these petty matters... GET A LIFE! It's just
music,
> that's all. Sure, some of it *might* have powerful messages in them, but
does
> that make them any better than the BSB or Britney or whoever? I'd hate to
> agree with anyone out there since I am the black sheep of alt.music.nin
but is
> all of this argument really necessary?
>
> Jose
> visit my webpage at:
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/comingintothesoul/index.html
>
Well, by the looks of it, you are posting things to make people say "oh,
I've just GOT to reply to this".
P.S. Your webpage sucks r0x.
Mark Edler
<20000109155939...@ng-fw1.aol.com>...
>Wouldn't that make all of you hypocrites?
Not really.
>You assume that the music that you
>like is the best *because* you like it and that is enough justification for
you
>to hate other music.
Since my only way of perceiving the world is through my own eyes and brain,
as far as I'm concerned the music I like IS the best music.
>All of you get upset *because* all those teeny boopes and
>whoever else vote for BSB or Britney on TRL.
No I don't. I don't even have TRL. Or even cable.
I have a great idea for all of
>you who get upset over these petty matters... GET A LIFE! It's just music,
>that's all. Sure, some of it *might* have powerful messages in them, but
does
>that make them any better than the BSB or Britney or whoever?
Well, yes.
> I'd hate to
>agree with anyone out there since I am the black sheep of alt.music.nin but
is
>all of this argument really necessary?
Well, yes.
Mark
TSchoon276
>
>> Wouldn't that make all of you hypocrites? You assume that the music that
>you
>> like is the best *because* you like it and that is enough justification for
>you
>and
>> whoever else vote for BSB or Britney on TRL. I have a great idea for all
>of
>> you who get upset over these petty matters... GET A LIFE! It's just music,
>> that's all. Sure, some of it *might* have powerful messages in them, but
>does
>> agree with anyone out there since I am the black sheep of alt.music.nin but
>is
>> all of this argument really necessary?
>>
>> N+ L+ H++ B+ M- T-- A-- U+ I+
>> P+ F++ S++ NC-- V- R-- D-- PB-
>> _________________________________
>
>Shut up wrestlingboi! ;)
>
>Actually, I think there is such a thing as 'better' music, regardless of
>tastes.
>Truly good music transcends genres and is simply music that can be
>appreciated by
>anyone. The Fragile is a good example of this, although Trent's earlier stuff
>I
>think would fall into the category of industrial or 'pop'. Alot of Bowie's
>stuff
>is like that as well.
>
>I think the worst people are the ones who stick to one genre and absolutely
>loathe
>any band that isn't trying to be as cliched and typical as the other bands in
>that
>category. If it doesn't RAWK then it isn't cool.
>
I agree, but also have to add that (in my opinion) music is something that
comes out of your heart and mind. In Britney's case, her ass. Music shouldn't
be about making money. Just my thoughts...
Lord jasoN
>You assume that the music that you
>like is the best *because* you like it and that is enough justification for
>you
>to hate other music. All of you get upset *because* all those teeny boopes
>and
>whoever else vote for BSB or Britney on TRL. I have a great idea for all of
>you who get upset over these petty matters... GET A LIFE! It's just music,
>that's all.
It is *never* "just music." Music is the single largest source of enjoyment my
life. I play several insturments an spend basically every extra penny I have on
CD's or new equipment; without it I would be very bored (and yes, I would take
music over drugs 9 times out of 10 and over sex... well, I still enjoy music
very much). However, I do agree about the more tolerance thing (my collection,
for instance, includes everything from Doors to Merzbow to Fear Factory), but
only up to a certain point. I think that music that represents the work of an
intelligent, creative individual furthering the sonic envelope *is* necessarily
better than used up, cliche drivel, no matter what the genre.
np: MBM - 99%
- LordjasoN
-----------------------------
"As I watch the sun sink down
on the bloodred edge
of the bloodred town
there are shadows for sale." - John Balance
Periodic
>
> And by the way, as a classically trained pianist and career musician,
> I would like to go on record as saying that I absolutely disagree with
> you. Britney Spears' music is a FINE example of well-crafed pop music,
> so stick that shit in your pipe and smoke it, werd?
Ow. :)
-Periodic.
blackrose
>Wouldn't that make all of you hypocrites? You assume that the music that you
>like is the best *because* you like it and that is enough justification for you
>to hate other music. All of you get upset *because* all those teeny boopes and
>whoever else vote for BSB or Britney on TRL.
Doesn't this post make an ASS out of U? (not ME)
I defend Britney Spears, Hanson, BSB - all of them, on the basis that
taste is subjective and the people who buy their records have a strong
feeling for them that is no different than what we all feel for our
favorite bands - and that that should not be discounted.
My experiences with Duran Duran back in the Eighties really taught me
a lesson. Duran Duran were not taken seriously - they were a "teeny
bopper" band. But I liked them, I stuck by them, and everyone else
could fuck off. That experience made me always remember never to put
down other people's music no matter what I might think of it.
Many people here agree with me, many don't - but you shouldn't just
ASSUME that anyone does or does not. Most of the people in this group
are eloquent and reasonable.
br
@-}-
blackrose[at]radiofreeamerica[dot]net
"You couldn't cut me deeper with a
knife if you tried." - Duran Duran
alt . music . nin geek code v1.02
N++ L H++ B M- T+++ U++ I-
P+ F* S+ NC V- R-- D-- PB+
alt . music . d-d geek code v1.04
L Fnr O I++ !X H C+ S P- Y++ 7609!
blackrose
<peri...@thefragileDELETE.com> said:
>Britney Spears is musically terrible. Ask any musician, its just bad music. Its
>like art, people can develope tastes for certain artforms, but there IS such a
>thing as just bad art. (www.badart.com has some great examples...)
No, there is NOT such a thing as bad art. There is art that YOU might
find bad, but art absolutely cannot be pinned down to "good" and
"bad." All jokes aside, there it is. This CANNOT be argued with.
br
DJ OKFM - Legs of Steel and a Platinum Palm
> No, there is NOT such a thing as bad art. There is art that YOU might
> find bad, but art absolutely cannot be pinned down to "good" and
> "bad." All jokes aside, there it is. This CANNOT be argued with.
of course it can be argued with. and you, in your inability to criticize
due to the corner you've painted yourself into with your 'subjectivity
all of things' brush, would not be able to properly defend the argument
against criticisms. all criticisms, artistic expressions of philosophy
(for what else is philosophy but art, and art philosophy?), would be
valid, whether or not you agreed with them. your argument allows
counterarguments because you accept as a premise that there is no 'good'
or 'bad' argument.
further, of course, many people would argue that your entire subjectivity
line is total bullshit, that there is a real, objective set of things
that are 'good' or 'bad.' if you are in disagreement with the objective
standards, you happen to be wrong; objectivity remains steadfast to all
illusory subjective criticism.
i would disagree, but they too would claim that they CANNOT be argued
with. either way, their argument is neither 'good' nor 'bad,' right?
there's no such thing as bad art/philosophy, as you would have it.
best way out: never say 'this CANNOT be argued with' about anything. it
sounds especially hollow when your previous point was that art has no
absolute standards because everything can be argued with (this, too, can
be argued with, as seen above). saying there are no absolutes except
that there are no absolutes is a tricky business. when you're painting
big brushstrokes, always leave a path to tiptoe out the door.
DJ
--
|Damin J. Toell - djo...@teknowhore.com - dog...@censor.com|
|http://www.teknowhore.com/dj - my personal page |
|http://www.teknowhore.com - the official BiLe page |
|"I can't stop thinking of/All the people I've ever loved" |
|-Matt Johnson - The The - 'Lonely Planet' |
_________AmNinCode v2.0__________
N+ L H++ B M T-- A++ U++ I++*
P++ F S++ NC++ V++ R D+ PB-
_________________________________
-stark-
> That experience made me always remember never to put
> down other people's music no matter what I might think of it.
Two words: Fight Club.
Woo Hah. Gotcha all in check. ;)
(music, movies...it's all art...)
--
-[Bustahstark]-
"say it. say it."
"your kung fu is the best...
Thlayli
>Music shouldn't be about making money.
Hate to burst your bubble, but ...
Everyone who ever signed a recording contract in the history of the world did
so to make money. Once you open the garage door and play where someone else
can hear you, it's about making money. That's the way it is.
--
Thlayli BMF - 31337er than you
SENATOR HUEY LONG ASSASSINATED, CAJUN STYLE
Dies 'Real Spicy-Like,' Say Witnesses
- The Onion Presents: Our Dumb Century
*** Replace "theglobe.com" with "usa.net" to email me ***
Shawn Leslie
>you. Britney Spears' music is a FINE example of well-crafed pop music,
>so stick that shit in your pipe and smoke it, werd?
Yeah, but Christine Algularia's [sic] songs are *much* more palatable.
Plus, in my subjective opinion, any girl who sings "You gotta rub me
the right way" kicks ass.
SL
David McKay
tastes.
> Truly good music transcends genres and is simply music that can be
appreciated by
> anyone. The Fragile is a good example of this, although Trent's earlier
stuff I
> think would fall into the category of industrial or 'pop'. Alot of Bowie's
stuff
> is like that as well.
Maybe I don't understand you properly, but if what you say is
true (everyone would appreciate The Fragile) you are very wrong.
If EVERYONE in the world liked The Fragile, don't you think
it would be selling slightly better than it currently is?
There isn't one song or album that anyone in the world would
automatically like... everyone has different tastes.
Dave McKay
f3tisha
>
>Everyone who ever signed a recording contract in the history of the world did
>so to make money. Once you open the garage door and play where someone else
>can hear you, it's about making money. That's the way it is.
>
>--
>Thlayli BMF - 31337er than you
>
>SENATOR HUEY LONG ASSASSINATED, CAJUN STYLE
>Dies 'Real Spicy-Like,' Say Witnesses
> - The Onion Presents: Our Dumb Century
>
>*** Replace "theglobe.com" with "usa.net" to email me ***
>
Hey, how else are they going to pay for the rent? I dont think the landlord is
gonna take rent money in the form of a song.
DL
AmNinCode v2.0__________
N++ L H++ B M T-- A+++ U++ I-
P+ F- S? NC- V- R-- D- PB+
"You want cuffs with that?"
-stark-
> Yeah, but Christine Algularia's [sic] songs are *much* more palatable.
>
Plus, Christina can sing, unlike the COMPLETELY untalented Ms. Spears.
Wait, not fair. Britney can dance like a fucking robot, hitting every
mark with accurate, white-girl precision and NO soul whatsoever. SO
there's one talent.
Eric just likes her because of her name. ;)
--
-[stark]-
Five Gold Stars kick ass
>Everyone who ever signed a recording contract in the history of the world did
>so to make money.
er...not every considering the less than likely chance of making much of
anything (esp to live off of) with smaller label. Some people do it just to
get their music distributed becuz they're too lazy to start their own company.
I'm thinking more about people who are already financially stable and don't
actually need to make money. It would be hard to call them just greedy and
wanting more money cuz in that case they really should have signed to say,
Warner Bros instead of Mr Lady.
~k
Patrick Miller
: Eric just likes her because of her name. ;)
Every time I see her name I think
Christina AGHLUBGLUBHGLUBHLUGBHGLUBH
p@
(now where are the haikus?)
--
Pisces: (Feb. 19--March 20)
Earth magick is strong in your sign this week. You know, if there were such
a thing as shit magick, it'd probably be pretty strong in your sign, too.
ISWIWDead
"Patrick Miller" <pmi...@cis.ysu.edu> wrote in message
news:85grl8$mun$1...@news.ysu.edu...
Shannon Robert Burge
What about "just like you imagined"? Doesn't everybody love odd-time
instrumentals with atonal piano?
I bet they would if Trent and co wore rib-knit sweaters and danced in
their videos.
srb
---------AmNinCode v2.0---------
N L- H++ B M- T-- A- U++ I! P
F- S-- NC- V-- R-- D? PB+
--------------------------------
Shannon Robert Burge
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Shawn Leslie wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 02:24:47 GMT, no_...@pls.thx (blackrose) wrote:
>
> >you. Britney Spears' music is a FINE example of well-crafed pop music,
> >so stick that shit in your pipe and smoke it, werd?
>
> Yeah, but Christine Algularia's [sic] songs are *much* more palatable.
>
> Plus, in my subjective opinion, any girl who sings "You gotta rub me
> the right way" kicks ass.
>
Yeah, there's no time for double entendres these days. :P
srb, wondering if anyone remembers that awful "lick it" song from a few
years back...
Proctor X
>their videos.
LOL! Thanks for that image. WITT all choreographed out ala Backstreet
Boys.
I'm crackin' up :)
blackrose
Platinum Palm <dog...@censor.com> said:
>of course it can be argued with. and you, in your inability to criticize
>due to the corner you've painted yourself into with your 'subjectivity
>all of things' brush, would not be able to properly defend the argument
>against criticisms.
Don't bet on it.
>all criticisms, artistic expressions of philosophy
>(for what else is philosophy but art, and art philosophy?), would be
>valid, whether or not you agreed with them. your argument allows
>counterarguments because you accept as a premise that there is no 'good'
>or 'bad' argument.
I never said there were not "good" or "bad" _arguments_ about the
relative merits of one piece of art versus another (or one piece of
art on its own for that matter), so put away the straw man. I have
said (and still say) that it is not possible to make a broad claim
that _the art itself_ is intrinsically good or bad, because that
claim, whether made on behalf of an individual or millions of
individuals, is a subjective claim.
To say anything less is to cheapen the very meaning of art, which is
personal. Art is subjective, it is not objective. You can't simply say
"this sucks" and have it be so to anyone but yourself.
>further, of course, many people would argue that your entire subjectivity
>line is total bullshit, that there is a real, objective set of things
>that are 'good' or 'bad.' if you are in disagreement with the objective
>standards, you happen to be wrong; objectivity remains steadfast to all
>illusory subjective criticism.
If I am in disagreement with these so-called "objective" standards,
then just exactly how can you call them objective? From my point of
view, they would be nothing of the sort.
People may well argue, but argument itself is not enough to change the
reality of what we're talking about.
>best way out: never say 'this CANNOT be argued with' about anything.
If I did that, how would I raise your ire?
blackrose
said:
>> That experience made me always remember never to put
>> down other people's music no matter what I might think of it.
>
>Two words: Fight Club.
WELL OK THIS MIGHT BE VALID IF FIGHT CLUB DIDN'T SUCK <--more
provocative humor
>Woo Hah. Gotcha all in check. ;)
OH SURE BE LOGICAL! :P
>(music, movies...it's all art...)
I do, of course, hope that it is painfully clear that my provocative
remarks about Fight Club are meant in good humor. I could mention
things about Fight Club that I *did* like too, and I would never
attack you personally for liking the movie, (ie: Fight Club sucks, and
if you don't think so it's because you're a fucking idiot just like
all Fight Club fans) - you know? I would never insinuate that David
Fincher was a complete talentless dipshit, etc.
I just really thought the story was stupid. Like I think TPD lyrics
are stupid. But if I sound like I'm violating my own views on personal
integrity when it comes to art, I apologize - that's not my intention,
I'm only trying to be fun!
rave
why is this a place where bands like the backstreet boys and n stink have a
chance at making it big.
Music is not just music. Music is something a hell of a lot deeper then you
could even imagine. Id like to see any fuckin teeny bopper band make a song
as harsh and fragile as "something i can never have", it wont happened.
If you gave a random group of people a nin cd and asked them to ananyze the
lyrics, they might all some up with something different because it means
something.
How fuckin hard is it to analyze the BSB???
- rave
"Jose A. Ramirez " <magd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000109155939...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
> Wouldn't that make all of you hypocrites? You assume that the music that
you
> like is the best *because* you like it and that is enough justification
for you
> to hate other music. All of you get upset *because* all those teeny
boopes and
> whoever else vote for BSB or Britney on TRL. I have a great idea for all
of
> you who get upset over these petty matters... GET A LIFE! It's just
music,
jo...@amnin.com
> Where is america going.
> why is this a place where bands like the backstreet boys and n stink have a
> chance at making it big.
> Music is not just music. Music is something a hell of a lot deeper then you
> could even imagine. Id like to see any fuckin teeny bopper band make a song
> as harsh and fragile as "something i can never have", it wont happened.
> If you gave a random group of people a nin cd and asked them to ananyze the
> lyrics, they might all some up with something different because it means
> something.
> How fuckin hard is it to analyze the BSB???
> - rave
i have to disagree with you. sometimes music *IS* just music. that's why pop music is so big (or, in
other words, POPular). not everyone gives a shit whether their music is deeper than a few catchy lyrics
and a good beat you can dance to. to some people, THAT is the art of music. there are more people who
would rather not spend their type analyzing their music and would rather just enjoy it. who cares if
the lyrics mean something? besides, it's my opinion that trent's weakest point is his cheesy lyrics. i
never thought of them to be so deep. it's the rest of it that keeps my interest.
bands like bsb and nsync have been able to make it big for quite some time. just look at the monkeys -
a total formula band put together for the sake of a TV show (see also: david cassidy ;) and what about
old beatles ("i wanna hold your hand"? oh. real deep!)? i could go on and on and on, but i don't
really feel like it ;)
on a side note, why is it that people think it's so hysterical to take the name of a band and change it
to something stupid when they don't like them? it's a serious question. i just don't get it.
love and friends,
jody :)
--
****************************************************************************
jody tamar match:) (jo-jo on #amnin, #nin & #kmfdm) e-mail:jo...@amnin.com
"stay sane inside insanity" - columbia
"fare thee well...let your life proceed by its own design." - gd
<bunnyhed> my lips are chapped and i'm groping around in the dark for
jody's box...
http://www.amnin.com/jojo - #amnin rogues gallery
__________________AmNinCode v2.0____________________
N++ L+ H++ B++ M T- A! U++ I++*~ P++ F++ S+++* NC++*
V R+* D++ PB+ 1337 I Am Elitist! :)
____________________________________________________
DJ OKFM - Legs of Steel and a Platinum Palm
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 01:23:23 -0500, DJ OKFM - Legs of Steel and a
> Platinum Palm <dog...@censor.com> said:
>
> >of course it can be argued with. and you, in your inability to criticize
> >due to the corner you've painted yourself into with your 'subjectivity
> >all of things' brush, would not be able to properly defend the argument
> >against criticisms.
>
> Don't bet on it.
it's not a 'bet.' it's an internal contradiction in your argument.
> >all criticisms, artistic expressions of philosophy
> >(for what else is philosophy but art, and art philosophy?), would be
> >valid, whether or not you agreed with them. your argument allows
> >counterarguments because you accept as a premise that there is no 'good'
> >or 'bad' argument.
>
> I never said there were not "good" or "bad" _arguments_ about the
> relative merits of one piece of art versus another (or one piece of
> art on its own for that matter), so put away the straw man. I have
> said (and still say) that it is not possible to make a broad claim
> that _the art itself_ is intrinsically good or bad, because that
> claim, whether made on behalf of an individual or millions of
> individuals, is a subjective claim.
as far as i can see, 'it is not possible to make a broad claim [...]' is
the same thing as saying 'making a broad claim [...] is a bad argument'.
no straw man, you've said it outright.
> To say anything less is to cheapen the very meaning of art, which is
> personal. Art is subjective, it is not objective. You can't simply say
> "this sucks" and have it be so to anyone but yourself.
entirely arguable, despite your claim otherwise.
> >further, of course, many people would argue that your entire subjectivity
> >line is total bullshit, that there is a real, objective set of things
> >that are 'good' or 'bad.' if you are in disagreement with the objective
> >standards, you happen to be wrong; objectivity remains steadfast to all
> >illusory subjective criticism.
>
> If I am in disagreement with these so-called "objective" standards,
> then just exactly how can you call them objective? From my point of
> view, they would be nothing of the sort.
an objectivist would say that your disagreement is meaningless. no
matter what your claim is, it does not affect the objective standard;
your point of view doesn't factor into the equation.
> People may well argue, but argument itself is not enough to change the
> reality of what we're talking about.
and above you've just given an objectivist argument, see? 'argument
itself is not enough to change...reality' is *exactly* an objective
argument; you claim that subjective personal disagreement fails to change
objective reality. you're arguing for an *objective* standard that says
art is *subjective*. that is the contradiction i have been trying to
point out and your above sentence encapsulates it *perfectly*.
the 'bet' pays off.
DJ
--
|Damin J. Toell - djo...@teknowhore.com - dog...@censor.com |
|http://www.teknowhore.com/dj - my personal page |
|http://www.teknowhore.com - the official BiLe page |
|"I do not envy people who think they have a complete explanation of the|
|world for the simple reason that they are obviously wrong." -S. Rushdie|
TRez...@webtv.net
Reznor is like comparing wallpaper to a Picasso painting. Yeah both can
cover a space on a wall, but there's a huge difference. Manufactured pop
is not art. It may be flawlessly crafted into a cash cow, but that does
not make it art. If I draw a circle with a compass I am not making art.
There in an objective and absolute difference even if it requires some
subjectivity to realize this. The Supreme Court has tackled a similar
subject for years now. Some things just aren't art and it only takes
common sense to realize this. People who want to argue that BSB is art
are only doing so for the sake of arguing. Of course there are a lot of
people on here who only argue things for the sake of arguing.
And it's also ridiculous to say that every band that makes music is
motivated by money. What about bands like Pavement, Flaming Lips, or
Sebadoh? They all have long histories of making music that can't
possibly sell a lot of records. Shouldn't they have come up with some
pop songs, or some ballads or some sweet accoustic pieces to make some
cash? Are they just stupid? Or is there some other motivation involved
here besides making money? The Flaming Lips actually had to lose money
on one of their records (Zaireeka, that's probably misspelled) just to
release it because it was a quadruple record. But it's not just indie
bands who have done things like that. Metallica didn't make a cent on
any of the casette versions of And Justice For All (and casettes were
more popular than cds at the time.) They demanded that their record
company put out the tape on one tape instead of two (to keep the price
down for fans), but that forced their record company to use an expensive
manufacturing process and they demanded that the band eat the cost. So I
guess Metallica was stupid too.
blackrose
Platinum Palm <dog...@censor.com> said:
>> >you... <snip>
>> >would not be able to properly defend the argument
>> >against criticisms.
>>
>> Don't bet on it.
>
>it's not a 'bet.' it's an internal contradiction in your argument.
I was saying don't bet on me not being able to defend my position.
>as far as i can see, 'it is not possible to make a broad claim [...]' is
>the same thing as saying 'making a broad claim [...] is a bad argument'.
>no straw man, you've said it outright.
No. Here, let me simplify things for you.
My original contention:
>No, there is NOT such a thing as bad art.
Here is your characterization, in an immediate followup, of my
contention:
>your argument allows counterarguments because you accept
>as a premise that there is no 'good' or 'bad' argument.
I said nothing about arguments relating to art. I only made a
statement about art itself.
The fact remains that if I say "Hit Me Baby One More Time" is a good
song, and you say it sucks, neither one of us is more or less correct
than the other.
>> To say anything less is to cheapen the very meaning of art, which is
>> personal. Art is subjective, it is not objective. You can't simply say
>> "this sucks" and have it be so to anyone but yourself.
>
>entirely arguable, despite your claim otherwise.
Then argue it. Explain to me how, in judging art, if I say white and
you say black, you could possibly lay claim to being "more correct?"
>> If I am in disagreement with these so-called "objective" standards,
>> then just exactly how can you call them objective? From my point of
>> view, they would be nothing of the sort.
>
>an objectivist would say that your disagreement is meaningless. no
>matter what your claim is, it does not affect the objective standard;
>your point of view doesn't factor into the equation.
Please show me a passage from any Objectivist literature that contends
that art, like aerodynamics, is quantifiable. Otherwise, don't pretend
that an Objectivist would seriously defend your position.
>and above you've just given an objectivist argument, see? 'argument
>itself is not enough to change...reality' is *exactly* an objective
>argument; you claim that subjective personal disagreement fails to change
>objective reality. you're arguing for an *objective* standard that says
>art is *subjective*. that is the contradiction i have been trying to
>point out and your above sentence encapsulates it *perfectly*.
And yet, I don't disagree. In fact, the *only* objective statement
that I would ever agree could be applied to art is that art is not to
be measured Objectively. I see no contradiction.
I see only protection. Of what art means.
>the 'bet' pays off.
You betcha.
br
@-}-
blackrose[at]radiofreeamerica[dot]net
"There's no sea deeper than the piss of the bottle
and none speaks the truth like the drunk."
- Barry Graham
-stark-
> you're arguing for an *objective* standard that says
> art is *subjective*. that is the contradiction i have been trying to
> point out and your above sentence encapsulates it *perfectly*.
>
I am so fucking scared of you.
But it's in a good way, trust me. Confuscious say you make great
attorney and partner with hot wife of fat loser for much success in
life.
--
-[stark]-
[ jim at kenefick dot net - http://www.23x.com/stark - ICQ 752212 ]
- - - - - - - - - 3 1 3 3 7 e r t h a n y o u - - - - - - - - - -
Hey Joanna...what's up?
DJ OKFM - Legs of Steel and a Platinum Palm
> >entirely arguable, despite your claim otherwise.
>
> Then argue it. Explain to me how, in judging art, if I say white and
> you say black, you could possibly lay claim to being "more correct?"
ok. we're human beings with faulty senses. we live our lives seeing the
world filtered through imperfect faculties which constantly fool us
(optical illusions, auditory hallucinations, etc.). when it comes down
to it, we have no clue what we are seeing or hearing or smelling.
however, 'out there,' there is the world. it exists, independant of us.
some things are black and other things are white. the black/white status
of an object cannot be changed; it, too, is independant of us. when we
sense the whiteness or blackness of an object, we are doing so through
usage of our faulty senses. still, practice and discipline can let one
better use his or her senses to better grasp sensual data (phenonmena)
and its relationship to independant reality (noumena). a disciplined
person (Plato's good person who has lived a number of lives, perhaps) can
get a good grasp on noumena, better than other people. if i am such a
person, i can better sense the black/white state of an object than you.
when you say white and i say black, i am more correct than you in a
meaningful way; i understand what i am seeing while you are tricked by
inexperience and ignorance.
think the argument's crap? fine. it still exists, despite your claim
that your position could not be argued against.
> >an objectivist would say that your disagreement is meaningless. no
> >matter what your claim is, it does not affect the objective standard;
> >your point of view doesn't factor into the equation.
>
> Please show me a passage from any Objectivist literature that contends
> that art, like aerodynamics, is quantifiable. Otherwise, don't pretend
> that an Objectivist would seriously defend your position.
you're mixing Objectivism with objectivism. i am not discussing Ayn
Rand's Objectivist movement. i am discussing the following word:
Main Entry: ob·jec·tiv·ism
Pronunciation: &b-'jek-ti-"vi-z&m, äb-
Function: noun
Date: 1854
1 : any of various theories asserting the validity of objective phenomena
over subjective experience; especially : REALISM 2a
a defender of a standard of the validity of objective phenomena over
subjective experience could most certainly claim that art, like
aerodynamics, is quanitifiable. the theory lends itself to such an
argument, whether or not anyone has ever written such a passage. one
could take Plato's theories, for instance, and make claims that 'good'
art is a representation of the form of 'good,' while 'bad' art is a
representation of the form of 'bad,' and these are things that exist 'out
there' that are standards that we cannot touch; instead, we can only hope
to better understand these objective standards during our lives. none of
that really matters, though, because i don't need an appeal to authority
to defend a purely theoretical position; i don't care if the argument has
never been made before, it doesn't affect the quality of said argument.
simply put, an objectivist position could say that art is quantifiable.
the position exists, (once again) despite your claim that your position
cannot be argued against.
and please don't mistake any of this as 'my position.' my position is
that the objective argument *exists*, even as you deny its very
existence. i don't think i've taken any position on the value of either
side, only that the claim that your position is immune from
counterarguments is rubbish. if anything, my position in all this would
be an agnostic one. i have no clue if there is an objective standard of
good or bad out there. maybe Plato and Kant were right. i have no idea
and no way of finding out. your claim that you have access to higher
knowledge and that higher knowledge tells you there are no objective
standards sounds fishy to me; i doubt that you have the ability to know,
either. instead, i choose not to make such sweeping statements because
they would be intellectually dishonest; i would be speaking from pure
ignorance. still, you're in good company in your choice to take a
position, and more power to you (just don't claim that no one can
disagree). i, however, would rather sit it out.
> And yet, I don't disagree. In fact, the *only* objective statement
> that I would ever agree could be applied to art is that art is not to
> be measured Objectively. I see no contradiction.
art cannot be measured objectively other than the objective claim that
art cannot be measured objevtively. no contradiction? i find the
objectivity of subjectivity to be a contradiction, sorry.
> I see only protection. Of what art means.
and sound argumentation be damned.
DJ
--
|Rev. Damin J. Toell - djo...@teknowhore.com |
|http://www.teknowhore.com - the official BiLe page|
|http://www.teknowhore.com/dj - my personal page |
|http://www.teknowhore.com/dj/sw.html - my SW Page |
|"So be it...jedi" - Emperor Palpatine |
Olly
Why does everyone use BB and Britney Spears as examples of bad music? Sure
they are bad. But there is lots of other bad stuff out there. Get creative
when writing posts goddammit!
Olly
Jose, take a chill pill.
First of all if we liked the bands we like which we do (duh?!), than be
logical deduction it would mean that all the other music out there we
wouldn't like. Therefore we would hate that music (even though that might be
too harsh a word). I suppose that is a justification. If I don't like a band
then I hate it. As for all those vote things... MTV top 100 hundred or
whatever..... I couldn't give a llamas dick about them. And if a song has
meaning in it then, yes, it is a better song (to whomever sees meaning in
it). Is all of this argument really necessary? no.
What are you 12?
jo...@amnin.com
> Comparing the Backstreet Boys/Britney Spears etc. to artists like Trent
> Reznor is like comparing wallpaper to a Picasso painting. Yeah both can
> cover a space on a wall, but there's a huge difference. Manufactured pop
> is not art. It may be flawlessly crafted into a cash cow, but that does
> not make it art. If I draw a circle with a compass I am not making art.
> There in an objective and absolute difference even if it requires some
> subjectivity to realize this. The Supreme Court has tackled a similar
> subject for years now. Some things just aren't art and it only takes
> common sense to realize this. People who want to argue that BSB is art
> are only doing so for the sake of arguing. Of course there are a lot of
> people on here who only argue things for the sake of arguing.
you replied to my post, but i don't know if you are talking to me, so i'll respond anyway.
my point was, more people would rather spend money to wallpaper their homes than to purchase a
picasso. i'm not saying the wallpaper is nicer, just that it makes more sense to the masses.
same goes for pop music. some people just want to hear music and not have to think about it. just like
some people want their walls covered and don't need the conversation piece. i never compared bsb to
trent. nor would i ever. it's apples and oranges. i like oranges. a lot more people like apples. ;)
love and friends,
jody :) <trent's an orange?? i think i meant something else... ;)>
--
****************************************************************************
jody tamar match:) (jo-jo on #amnin, #nin & #kmfdm) e-mail:jo...@amnin.com
"stay sane inside insanity" - columbia
"fare thee well...let your life proceed by its own design." - gd
<bondgirl> so sasha e-mails me 20 times a day saying...
<jo-jo> trent has a mustache?
<faeriehed & bunnyhed> lolololololol
Thlayli
>And it's also ridiculous to say that every band that makes music is
>motivated by money. What about bands like Pavement, Flaming Lips, or
>Sebadoh?
They're just as motivated by money as anyone else.
>They all have long histories of making music that can't
>possibly sell a lot of records. Shouldn't they have come up with some
>pop songs, or some ballads or some sweet accoustic pieces to make some
>cash? Are they just stupid? Or is there some other motivation involved
>here besides making money?
Perhaps they haven't made AS MUCH money as they could have, but if they
weren't concerned with making money at all, they wouldn't have made records in
the first place. You can "express your art" all you want in the privacy of
your own home, but once you start asking people to pay for it the rules
change. Anyone who thinks they don't needs a reality check.
>Metallica didn't make a cent on
>any of the casette versions of And Justice For All (and casettes were
>more popular than cds at the time.) They demanded that their record
>company put out the tape on one tape instead of two (to keep the price
>down for fans), but that forced their record company to use an expensive
>manufacturing process and they demanded that the band eat the cost. So I
>guess Metallica was stupid too.
Quite the contrary. They made an investment in customer loyalty, an
investment that paid off *very* handsomely down the road.
Shannon Robert Burge
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 TRez...@webtv.net wrote:
> And it's also ridiculous to say that every band that makes music is
> motivated by money.
Just every band that sells it.
What about bands like Pavement, Flaming Lips, or
> Sebadoh? They all have long histories of making music that can't
> possibly sell a lot of records. Shouldn't they have come up with some
> pop songs, or some ballads or some sweet accoustic pieces to make some
> cash?
Or appear on Beverly Fucking Hills 90210, like Flaming Lips did?
srb
Shannon Robert Burge
I'm starting to find 98 Degrees a lot creepier than BSB. they're
like...pod people.
f3tisha
>like...pod people.
>
>srb
>
Did they find them in some gym? They just scare me to no end, the "Britney"
clones are the worst. They get skinnier, blonder (not sure if that is a word),
and their voice gets higher. Either way, what rock are they looking under to
find these people?
goatbear
if i understand the arguments correctly...
br's claim "art cannot be measured objectively" refers only to how art can
be measured (i.e. says that art is subjectively aesthetic). the scope of
the claim does not include itself.
i think "measure" is getting used in two different ways. in one sense it
refers only to the pleasing qualities of art, in the other it refers to any
statement which classifies art.
thus in a sense his statement is not contradictory.
--
gb
amnincode v2.0
N L- H++ B! M- T-- A U++ I P F- S-- NC-- V-- R-- D-- PB+
if you feel the urge to e-mail me, change domain to hotmail...
tperfect
> gb
>
> amnincode v2.0
> N L- H++ B! M- T-- A U++ I P F- S-- NC-- V-- R-- D-- PB+
>
> if you feel the urge to e-mail me, change domain to hotmail...
Goatbear! Where have u been?
--
_________AmNinCode v2.0__________
N++ L+ H++ B+ M- T-- A++ U+ I-
P F- S-- NC- V-- R-- D-- PB+
_________________________________
"life is what happens when you are busy making other plans."
http://www.9inchnails.net
Brendan Casey's News
Olly wrote in message <85ka97$o24$4...@possum.melbpc.org.au>...
>> Country music and the Backstreet Boys, my tolerance level is a 1 or 2
>
>Why does everyone use BB and Britney Spears as examples of bad music? Sure
>they are bad. But there is lots of other bad stuff out there. Get creative
>when writing posts goddammit!
>
How about Poof Daddy? I would put Backstreet Boys ahead of his slice and
dice work.
blackrose
Platinum Palm <dog...@censor.com> said:
>still, practice and discipline can let one
>better use his or her senses to better grasp sensual data (phenonmena)
>and its relationship to independant reality (noumena).
And who is the judge of who has the better grasp phenomena and its
relationship to noumena? You? And does this judgement somehow
magically escape your human filter and become an infallible objective
standard, and not simply your own subjective, personal judgement like
I have been contending all along?
Are you insinuating that you have a better grasp on the phenomena
around you and its relationship to noumena than I do? On what basis
could you EVER possibly make that claim?
>think the argument's crap? fine. it still exists, despite your claim
>that your position could not be argued against.
You started out the argument saying that everything is filtered
through your human perception, but yet still conted that one human's
perceptions could possibly be better than another. I disagree that
that truism can be stated.
You may think that you have a better grasp of the reality in which you
find yourself than the paranoid schizophrenic, but that does not make
it so. It only seems so as filtered through your human perception. Try
as you might there is no getting around it. We are far too limited.
You admit as much, but still want to box me into accepting that
somehow, there is an objective way to quantify art, and that one
person's quantifications could possibly hold more meaning than another
person's.
>you're mixing Objectivism with objectivism. i am not discussing Ayn
>Rand's Objectivist movement. i am discussing the following word:
>
>Main Entry: ob搜ec暗iv搏sm
I gotcha. Ok.
>a defender of a standard of the validity of objective phenomena over
>subjective experience could most certainly claim that art, like
>aerodynamics, is quanitifiable.
Art is quantifiable, in that you can classify it - a painting, a
sculpture. But this is not what I am talking about.
>the theory lends itself to such an
>argument, whether or not anyone has ever written such a passage. one
>could take Plato's theories, for instance, and make claims that 'good'
>art is a representation of the form of 'good,' while 'bad' art is a
>representation of the form of 'bad,' and these are things that exist 'out
>there' that are standards that we cannot touch; instead, we can only hope
>to better understand these objective standards during our lives.
All well and good, but you are taking my argument further than I would
ever take it. I wasn't saying that the words "bad" and good" could not
be applied to art given certain defined circumstances, I only said
that a broad, all-encompassing "this is GOOD art" and "this is BAD
art" was not possible. If you say "all art that uses red is GOOD and
all art that uses BLUE is bad, now go out there and tell me which art
is good and which is bad, you could easily classify art using the
words 'good' and 'bad,'" but this has absolutely NOTHING to do with
what I have said.
>none of
>that really matters, though, because i don't need an appeal to authority
>to defend a purely theoretical position; i don't care if the argument has
>never been made before, it doesn't affect the quality of said argument.
If you're comfortable with that, then ok.
>simply put, an objectivist position could say that art is quantifiable.
>the position exists, (once again) despite your claim that your position
>cannot be argued against.
When I said "this simply CANNOT be argued with," it was with the
unspoken understanding that of course, *anything* can be argued. I was
saying that it cannot be argued convincingly. I leave it up to the
people reading this thread to decide for themselves if you have done
so. For me, you have not.
>maybe Plato and Kant were right.
Kant is usually not practical, but I think he's right in many
respects. You can't possibly know anything at all other than the fact
that you exist, which can be accepted as a de facto deduction based on
the fact that you (or what you perceive as you) were able to pose the
question in the first place.
Art is unique. Art isn't a day-to-day drudgery, and unlike most
things, with art, EVERYONE has an equal footing to decide for
themselves the quality thereof. Furthermore, you're also free to judge
the relative abilities of those around you to judge art!
So long as you remember, there's no possible way you could be sure you
were more right than they.
>art cannot be measured objectively other than the objective claim that
>art cannot be measured objevtively. no contradiction? i find the
>objectivity of subjectivity to be a contradiction, sorry.
um. ok.
>and sound argumentation be damned.
Again, just because you say it does not make it so.
DJ OKFM - Legs of Steel and a Platinum Palm
> And who is the judge of who has the better grasp phenomena and its
> relationship to noumena? You? And does this judgement somehow
> magically escape your human filter and become an infallible objective
> standard, and not simply your own subjective, personal judgement like
> I have been contending all along?
you're arguing back. wonderful. the point is arguable.
> Are you insinuating that you have a better grasp on the phenomena
> around you and its relationship to noumena than I do? On what basis
> could you EVER possibly make that claim?
more arguing. amazing for an unarguable point.
you asked me to present an argument. i did. i don't believe it, but i
presented it, as requested. the argument exists, even as you claimed
your position was unarguable.
> You started out the argument saying that everything is filtered
> through your human perception, but yet still conted that one human's
> perceptions could possibly be better than another. I disagree that
> that truism can be stated.
you disagree that something can be stated? Plato stated it and the world
didn't blow up as a result.
> You may think that you have a better grasp of the reality in which you
> find yourself than the paranoid schizophrenic, but that does not make
> it so.
i've claimed no such thing, nor would i.
> You admit as much, but still want to box me into accepting that
> somehow, there is an objective way to quantify art, and that one
> person's quantifications could possibly hold more meaning than another
> person's.
i want to do no such thing. i want to prove to you that your point is
arguable.
> All well and good, but you are taking my argument further than I would
> ever take it. I wasn't saying that the words "bad" and good" could not
> be applied to art given certain defined circumstances, I only said
> that a broad, all-encompassing "this is GOOD art" and "this is BAD
> art" was not possible. If you say "all art that uses red is GOOD and
> all art that uses BLUE is bad, now go out there and tell me which art
> is good and which is bad, you could easily classify art using the
> words 'good' and 'bad,'" but this has absolutely NOTHING to do with
> what I have said.
huh? i was discussing the 'all-encompassing' phrases you were. using
silly premises like 'red is good' doesn't get us anywhere; i'm really
confused by why you're getting into all that.
> When I said "this simply CANNOT be argued with," it was with the
> unspoken understanding that of course, *anything* can be argued.
huh? talk about contradictions.
> I was
> saying that it cannot be argued convincingly. I leave it up to the
> people reading this thread to decide for themselves if you have done
> so. For me, you have not.
because you choose not to be convinced; it cannot be argued convincingly
*for you*. you choose to limit yourself. others are quite convinced.
that's my point.
you said "this simply CANNOT be argued with." if you meant something
else, you didn't do a good job of it.
> Again, just because you say it does not make it so.
kinda like when you said your point could not be argued against?
it think you're really missing the boat here, br. while you choose to
believe that nothing can sway your opinion, others hold a different
opinion and are convinced of it. while you imply that your opinion is
convincing (i.e., because counterarguments are not convincing, your
argument must be convincing), i find it to have a basic contradiction.
while you said that your opinion could not be argued with, you've now
backpedaled to say that you meant something entirely different. if you
had said 'i refuse to believe anything but this, no matter what anyone
else says' from the start, we could've avoided this whole thread.
and since you've completely backpedaled on the point i was discussing and
refuse to be swayed from your opinion, this thread no longer has any
point.
g'night.
DJ
--
|Damin J. Toell - djo...@teknowhore.com - dog...@censor.com|
|http://www.teknowhore.com/dj - my personal page |
|http://www.teknowhore.com - the official BiLe page |
|"not cool or down with it, |
|loser, just stay seated" - BiLe, 'You Can't Love This' |
DJ OKFM - Legs of Steel and a Platinum Palm
> br's claim "art cannot be measured objectively" refers only to how art can
> be measured (i.e. says that art is subjectively aesthetic). the scope of
> the claim does not include itself.
of course it does, because the claim is itself one concerning whether or
not art can be measured as good or bad. saying 'art cannot be measured
objectively' does the very thing it claims cannot be done, it creates an
objective standard for the measuring of art (which is that art can never
be measured). saying 'art is only subject to subjective standards'
creates an objective standard for art. that is a contradiction.
> i think "measure" is getting used in two different ways. in one sense it
> refers only to the pleasing qualities of art, in the other it refers to any
> statement which classifies art.
maybe as you've read it; as i've been using the phrase, it has only meant
the measuring of art as good or bad.
DJ
--
|Damin J. Toell - djo...@teknowhore.com - dog...@censor.com|
|http://www.teknowhore.com/dj - my personal page |
|http://www.teknowhore.com - the official BiLe page |
|"I...turned all of my friends into enemies/And now the past|
|has returned to haunt me" - M. Johnson - The The - 'GIANT' |
goatbear
> Goatbear! Where have u been?
at home, away from my beautiful fast connection...hey, i'm supposed to
be sending you something, right? send me an email to bring me up to
date.
--
gb - np:
amnincode v2.0
N L- H++ B! M- T-- A U++ I P F- S-- NC-- V-- R-- D-- PB+
is pain so bad when one believes in nothing?
goatbear
> > i think "measure" is getting used in two different ways. in one sense it
> > refers only to the pleasing qualities of art, in the other it refers to any
> > statement which classifies art.
>
> maybe as you've read it; as i've been using the phrase, it has only meant
> the measuring of art as good or bad.
thus statements which refer to "measuring" art without classifying it as good or
bad are not (necessarily) subject to rules regarding how art can be
aesthetically (i.e. good vs. bad) classified. thus the statement "art cannot be
measured objectively", as it isn't classifying art as good or bad, can be stated
without contradicting itself, depending on your interpretation of "measure".
perhaps that's not what he meant, but it's a way i see of avoid the
contradiction you pointed out.
the above makes sense to me, but will it to anyone else?
goatbear
> tperfect wrote:
>
> > Goatbear! Where have u been?
>
> hey, i'm supposed to be sending you something, right? send me an email
> to bring me up to date.
whoops, wrong person. yeah, it's good to be back. living w/ parents is
getting more and more loathsome...
blackrose
Platinum Palm <dog...@censor.com> said:
>you're arguing back. wonderful. the point is arguable.
So you have no argument with original contention that art cannot be
classified as "good" or "bad" objectively, only that you disagree with
me using an obviously egregious phrase like "this cannot be argued
with?"
Pardon me for straining out the gnat, but do you really suppose that
I'm that stupid?
>more arguing. amazing for an unarguable point.
You're the one who stated that one could have a better grasp on
phenomena as it relates to noumena - not I. I never said that that
couldn't be argued with. Nice diversion though.
>you asked me to present an argument. i did. i don't believe it, but i
>presented it, as requested. the argument exists, even as you claimed
>your position was unarguable.
You have still not presented an argument against that which I have
stated could not be argued against. I have basically said, throughout
this entire thread (no matter how you care to characterize it) that no
one can definitively say they have a better grasp on phenomena as it
relates to noumena than another person. That's what it boils down to.
Despite all your posturing, you have still not made any sort of
argument against that.
>> I disagree that
>> that truism can be stated.
>
>you disagree that something can be stated?
No, I disagree that something can be stated as a truism, an absolute.
>> When I said "this simply CANNOT be argued with," it was with the
>> unspoken understanding that of course, *anything* can be argued.
>
>huh? talk about contradictions.
An "argument" is meaningless (and therefore not an argument at all) if
the basis for the argument has no foundation. You could argue that
your perception of the talents of Britney Spears is better than mine,
but you could never have a basis for such an argument, because you are
not me, and you don't know what factors go into my argument against
what you have said, nor would it matter.
>because you choose not to be convinced; it cannot be argued convincingly
>*for you*. you choose to limit yourself. others are quite convinced.
>that's my point.
Oh are they?
>you said "this simply CANNOT be argued with." if you meant something
>else, you didn't do a good job of it.
I meant, as I said, that it cannot be argued against with any
efficacy. It stands to reason that anything can be argued with - I was
not attempting to state otherwise.
By using semantics to make me look weak, you have shown up what your
true intention in this thread was: to make me look weak, and little
more.
>and since you've completely backpedaled on the point i was discussing and
>refuse to be swayed from your opinion, this thread no longer has any
>point.
Perhaps, but I have only backpedaled in that you have made me state
the obvious, as though it shouldn't have been taken for granted from
the start - and as if that somehow made my contention intellectually
inferior.
tperfect
>
> goatbear wrote:
>
> > tperfect wrote:
> >
> > > Goatbear! Where have u been?
> >
> > hey, i'm supposed to be sending you something, right? send me an email
> > to bring me up to date.
>
> whoops, wrong person. yeah, it's good to be back. living w/ parents is
> getting more and more loathsome...
>
> --
> gb - np:
yeah-was gonna say-you were supposed to get the hlah devo cover from me
tho-did u ever get it?
tperfect
>
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:50:18 -0500, DJ OKFM - Legs of Steel and a
> Platinum Palm <dog...@censor.com> said:
>
> >you're arguing back. wonderful. the point is arguable.
>
> So you have no argument with original contention that art cannot be
> classified as "good" or "bad" objectively, only that you disagree with
> me using an obviously egregious phrase like "this cannot be argued
> with?"
>
> Pardon me for straining out the gnat, but do you really suppose that
> I'm that stupid?
>
> >more arguing. amazing for an unarguable point.
>
> You're the one who stated that one could have a better grasp on
> phenomena as it relates to noumena - not I. I never said that that
> couldn't be argued with. Nice diversion though.
>
> >you asked me to present an argument. i did. i don't believe it, but i
> >presented it, as requested. the argument exists, even as you claimed
> >your position was unarguable.
>
> You have still not presented an argument against that which I have
> stated could not be argued against. I have basically said, throughout
> this entire thread (no matter how you care to characterize it) that no
> one can definitively say they have a better grasp on phenomena as it
> relates to noumena than another person. That's what it boils down to.
> Despite all your posturing, you have still not made any sort of
> argument against that.
>
> >> that truism can be stated.
> >
>
> No, I disagree that something can be stated as a truism, an absolute.
>
> >> unspoken understanding that of course, *anything* can be argued.
> >
> @-}-
>
> blackrose[at]radiofreeamerica[dot]net
>
> "There's no sea deeper than the piss of the bottle
> and none speaks the truth like the drunk."
> - Barry Graham
my..head..hurt SO bad right now....
Wes Jeans kick ass
>your own home, but once you start asking people to pay for it the rules
>change.
Not exactly, you do have to charge if people like what you do and want to hear
it. Last I heard studio time, recording equipment, blank cds and cd burners
aren't free. Doesn't mean that particular artist is motivated by money as much
as, say, someone who's over charging for manufactured crap.
~k
A NEW GUITAR GOD: http://www.wesjeans.com
Feed the hungry: http://www.hungersite.com
goatbear
> yeah-was gonna say-you were supposed to get the hlah devo cover from me
> tho-did u ever get it?
for some reason i couldn't get it but i ended up getting it elsewhere --
thanks anyway.
--
gb - np: the cure - bloodflowers
blackrose
<webmi...@9inchnails.net> said:
>my..head..hurt SO bad right now....
Moo. MOO I SAY!
DJ OKFM - Legs of Steel and a Platinum Palm
> You're the one who stated that one could have a better grasp on
> phenomena as it relates to noumena - not I. I never said that that
> couldn't be argued with. Nice diversion though.
i never made that claim. i presented an argument that makes that claim,
as requested. it was not *my* argument.
> No, I disagree that something can be stated as a truism, an absolute.
like 'art is subjective'?
> >because you choose not to be convinced; it cannot be argued convincingly
> >*for you*. you choose to limit yourself. others are quite convinced.
> >that's my point.
>
> Oh are they?
see: David Hume's 'On Taste.' Hume was convinced that some people could
better judge things (music, art, food, wine, etc.) than others.
> By using semantics to make me look weak, you have shown up what your
> true intention in this thread was: to make me look weak, and little
> more.
i took you to task for *exactly what you said*. please be honest and
acknowledge that you didn't qualify your statement until *later in the
thread*.
> Perhaps, but I have only backpedaled in that you have made me state
> the obvious, as though it shouldn't have been taken for granted from
> the start - and as if that somehow made my contention intellectually
> inferior.
then i suggest you start saying what you mean right away instead of
claiming what you meant was obvious from the start. i meant no slight by
responding to *exactly what you said*. i ignored nothing obvious; you
said it and i responded to it, very simple. indeed, what you claim was
obvious was not so obvious at all; your *explicit words* made your now-
obvious addendum quite clouded.
none of this was intended as a personal attack, eric, although heated
philosophical discussions always run that risk. i try my best to
separate philosophy from people, and i hope i didn't fail here.
DJ
--
|Damin J. Toell - djo...@teknowhore.com - dog...@censor.com|
|http://www.teknowhore.com/dj - my personal page |
|http://www.teknowhore.com - the official BiLe page |
|"How can anyone know me/When I don't even know myself?" |
|-Matt Johnson - The The - 'GIANT' |
Disco Stu
"blackrose" <no_...@pls.thx> wrote in message
news:387fead9....@news.phnx1.az.home.com...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 13:48:36 GMT, tperfect
> <webmi...@9inchnails.net> said:
>
> >my..head..hurt SO bad right now....
>
> Moo. MOO I SAY!
>
Pernicious Damsel
Platinum Palm <dog...@censor.com> wrote:
*snipimportantphilosophicalargument*
Don't worry dj, i think that the group sex at nincon will straighten
everyone out. All will be absolved.
Damsie YAY(tm)
blackrose
Platinum Palm <dog...@censor.com> said:
>i never made that claim. i presented an argument that makes that claim,
>as requested. it was not *my* argument.
As I have mentioned repeatedly, my statement "this cannot be argued
with" was egregious. For your benefit, it probably should have
probably been phrased "although anybody can argue about anything, it
is my opinion that this cannot be argued against effectively," but I
wasn't expecting to discuss the semantics of my phrasing of this
statement, I was expecting a discussion on whether or not art can be
classified as "good" or "bad" objectively.
>> No, I disagree that something can be stated as a truism, an absolute.
>
>like 'art is subjective'?
No, like "this art is good" and "that art is bad," which is the
opposite of "art is subjective."
>i took you to task for *exactly what you said*. please be honest and
>acknowledge that you didn't qualify your statement until *later in the
>thread*
I did not qualify the statement until later in the thread.
>then i suggest you start saying what you mean right away instead of
>claiming what you meant was obvious from the start. i meant no slight by
>responding to *exactly what you said*. i ignored nothing obvious; you
>said it and i responded to it, very simple. indeed, what you claim was
>obvious was not so obvious at all; your *explicit words* made your now-
>obvious addendum quite clouded.
What you are saying then, is that the statement "this cannot be argued
with" should have been understood by everyone to mean that I actually
believe that no one could write a post arguing with it?
Like you all lost your fingers or something?
I mean, that's where you ultimately stand, and I'm standing here
watching, amazed at your apparent credulity. I don't believe for a
minute you actually believe that I thought you all lost your fingers
immediately after I made that post.
I think you just like to argue! Which is ok, since that's why I posted
in the first place, so I don't know what I'm complaining about.
Heh.
>none of this was intended as a personal attack, eric, although heated
>philosophical discussions always run that risk. i try my best to
>separate philosophy from people, and i hope i didn't fail here.
Not at all, and I feel the same way. I enjoy this sort of thing - if I
didn't, I wouldn't do it. I know you're the same way. There's no sense
being pissed off about something when it's entertaining you so much.
By the way, I had a discussion with a good friend and co-worker of
mine who was a philosophy major, and who is so far over my head
sometimes that I can't understand half of the concepts we talk about -
and I presented this conversation to him.
He said that in his opinion, I was wrong for saying that "art cannot
be classified as good or bad," because that is a conclusion that I'm
making from a negative, ie: just because we have not been able and may
never be able to establish an objective standard for art, it does not
necessarily follow that there is no such standard. He said that you
need to be willing to admit that, indeed, as of yet, we have not
established a universal objective standard for art, and that from
these two perspectives the conversation could go on. The argument
would likely center mostly around whether or not an objective standard
*could* be determined for art, and that this was some sort of classic
blah blah blah... ;)
DJ OKFM - Legs of Steel and a Platinum Palm
> >> No, I disagree that something can be stated as a truism, an absolute.
> >
> >like 'art is subjective'?
>
> No, like "this art is good" and "that art is bad," which is the
> opposite of "art is subjective."
opposite side of the same coin. both are absolute statements. this is
one of things i've been trying to point out during this thread: the
statement "there are no absolutes" is itself an absolute.
> What you are saying then, is that the statement "this cannot be argued
> with" should have been understood by everyone to mean that I actually
> believe that no one could write a post arguing with it?
>
> Like you all lost your fingers or something?
>
> I mean, that's where you ultimately stand, and I'm standing here
> watching, amazed at your apparent credulity. I don't believe for a
> minute you actually believe that I thought you all lost your fingers
> immediately after I made that post.
hey, i just responded to what you said. don't turn the tables and blame
me for not being generous when you failed to be clear.
> I think you just like to argue! Which is ok, since that's why I posted
> in the first place, so I don't know what I'm complaining about.
of course i like to argue. my goal was to take you task for saying 'this
cannot be argued with' (along with a few other points along the way). i
think i achieved that goal.
> He said that in his opinion, I was wrong for saying that "art cannot
> be classified as good or bad," because that is a conclusion that I'm
> making from a negative, ie: just because we have not been able and may
> never be able to establish an objective standard for art, it does not
> necessarily follow that there is no such standard. He said that you
> need to be willing to admit that, indeed, as of yet, we have not
> established a universal objective standard for art, and that from
> these two perspectives the conversation could go on. The argument
> would likely center mostly around whether or not an objective standard
> *could* be determined for art, and that this was some sort of classic
> blah blah blah... ;)
see one of my earlier posts in this thread when i said:
> if anything, my position in all this would be an agnostic one. i have
> no clue if there is an objective standard of good or bad out there.
> maybe Plato and Kant were right. i have no idea and no way of finding out.
> your claim that you have access to higher knowledge and that higher knowledge
> tells you there are no objective standards sounds fishy to me; i doubt that
> you have the ability to know, either. instead, i choose not to make such
> sweeping statements because they would be intellectually dishonest; i would
> be speaking from pure ignorance.
i think i captured (or at least tried to capture) what your friend was
pointing out.
DJ
--
|Damin J. Toell - djo...@teknowhore.com - dog...@censor.com |
|http://www.teknowhore.com/dj - my personal page |
|http://www.teknowhore.com - the official BiLe page |
|"I am a stranger to myself" -Matt Johnson - The The - 'GIANT'|
mommagoth
Damsel <dam...@YAY.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 01:57:56 -0500, DJ OKFM - Legs of Steel and a
> Platinum Palm <dog...@censor.com> wrote:
>
> *snipimportantphilosophicalargument*
>
> Don't worry dj, i think that the group sex at nincon will straighten
> everyone out. All will be absolved.
>
> Damsie YAY(tm)
Er, um... was this in our rooming agreement?
<flipping pages to section 8, paragraph 13>
OH! <blush>
Heh.
Time to start that exercise regimen. <G>
momma
...perfectly content just to photograph the event ;)
> >none of this was intended as a personal attack, eric, although heated
> >philosophical discussions always run that risk. i try my best to
> >separate philosophy from people, and i hope i didn't fail here.
> >
> >DJ
> >--
Antichrist
Alicat <isal...@jps.net> wrote in message
news:n6ts7sk4dscv4rabt...@4ax.com...
> On 09 Jan 2000 20:59:39 GMT, magd...@aol.com (Jose A. Ramirez )
> wrote:
>
> <snipped whatever...>
>
> I'd hate to
> >agree with anyone out there since I am the black sheep of alt.music.nin
>
> <snip!>
> >
> >Jose
> >visit my webpage at:
> >
> >http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/comingintothesoul/index.html
> >
> >_______AmNinCode v2.0__________
> > N+ L+ H++ B+ M- T-- A-- U+ I+
> > P+ F++ S++ NC-- V- R-- D-- PB-
> >_________________________________
>
> "The black sheep of alt.nin"?
>
> One should not give oneself airs.
>
> (have you any wool?)
>
> adios,
> alicat
> sig. file says BAAAAAAAAAAAAA
FEE FI FO FUM
I SMELL SHEEP
I WANT ME SOME
FUM FI FO FEE
I WANT ME
A SHEEP TO EAT
Antichrist
James Kilbane
Techno. Not into bubblegum pop, or that alternashit.