Merged Whitney Houston dead

[Mudcat]

Given that you don't know much about some of the most popular and talented musicians of the last 50 years, what would be the point in giving you a list of 30 musicians who care about what they do? You'd just say you don't know anything about them.

No. I am accepting you as the expert in your field. Post those names and I'll live up to my end up to my end of the bargain. Some caveats, from my original post in case subtlety is beyond you: You, yourself, must have met them personally. Any names that "I heard is" is automatically disqualified.

They must be currently have been active in the past (but not up to) twenty years. I'm being extremely generous here. Because I know you can't think of the names of 30 of these 'artists' that care about what they are doing.

 

[Mudcat]

To you. Why does your opinion matter?

Why does yours? Because you agree with the majority?

No, prove that nothing useful or beneficial came from those artist. You made the claim, back it up.

Shifting burden of proof, really? How the heck do you provide evidence for a negative? You're the one claiming that something useful and beneficial came from these artists. You prove it.

You said Houston would be forgotten while placing her in the company of singers that aren't.

Ah that was my mistake, sorry. Speaking of which, do you 'remember' the others?

 

[Mudcat]

Your pretzel logic is only dancing circles around yourself.

You mind start making sense any time soon? Thanks in advance.

2. A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction.

Music is obviously not a chemical but in what way does it not "affect the central nervous system" or "causes change in behavior"? And maybe I missed a memo stating otherwise but I also heard music described as "addictive".

So tell me, how is music not a drug? I'm not saying it's a harmful drug or anything, but there you have it. You could say the same thing about movies, television, video games, etc.

 

[crimresearch]

No. I am accepting you as the expert in your field. Post those names and I'll live up to my end up to my end of the bargain. Some caveats, from my original post in case subtlety is beyond you: You, yourself, must have met them personally. Any names that "I heard is" is automatically disqualified.

They must be currently have been active in the past (but not up to) twenty years. I'm being extremely generous here. Because I know you can't think of the names of 30 of these 'artists' that care about what they are doing.

Let's see... you cited John Lennon. When you, yourself, met him personally...

...did you happen to notice that he smelled kind of funny?

So what have we got here so far? Let's see.... adding to the overpopulation crisis, and building bridges are things of 'value', but being a visible part of the engine that drives a multi-billion dollar industry which employs hundreds of thousands is of less value than 'pond scum'... because you say so.

Creating forgeries of things other people said to avoid backing up your assertions is winning an argument... because you said so.

And its 'Ochams's Razor' and it states that the simplest answer is always the best answer.... because you say so.


The parsimonious answer is that you've been giving a textbook example of trolling.

 

[Gazpacho]

Still no sign of those sophisticated arguments for music

 

[Matthew Best]

No. I am accepting you as the expert in your field. Post those names and I'll live up to my end up to my end of the bargain. Some caveats, from my original post in case subtlety is beyond you: You, yourself, must have met them personally. Any names that "I heard is" is automatically disqualified.

They must be currently have been active in the past (but not up to) twenty years. I'm being extremely generous here. Because I know you can't think of the names of 30 of these 'artists' that care about what they are doing.

This is remarkably silly. I could easily list 30 names of musicians who care about what they are doing that I personally have met. I am a musician myself and I've met a lot of other musicians. You wouldn't know who any of them are but that isn't one of your caveats.

The idea that people spend, in many cases, thousands of hours practising something they don't care about is such an extraordinary claim that I think you are the one who should be providing some evidence for it.

 

[Kopji]

Sad she's gone but as noted before, not entirely unexpected. For some artists there seems like a component of self destruction that comes with talent. Perhaps art requires more than reason to persist. I don't really know, just a thought.

An interesting trait of artists is that just sometimes - they attain a kind of immortality about them. To die but not to perish is to be eternally present.

There is a great chasm between Mozart and Whitney, but they both added something to the legacy of art that persists and will be drawn from as inspiration to new artists. And so they never die.

So what is so irrational about a thread about such a person?

 

[Quinn]

True story: I happen to be visiting the city of Houston today. A friend texted me earlier this evening, "How's Houston?"

My reply: "Pretty dead tonight."

 

[Mudcat]

Let's see... you cited John Lennon. When you, yourself, met him personally...

He was dead a long time before I was born, meant to cite this source. This is called citing. You might try doing the same.

So what have we got here so far?

A spectacularly poor dodge by you, to be sure. This question still begs your attention: Do you think saving lives and alleviating human suffering a valuable talent? Yes or no? I don't care about the billions, only the one life.

but being a visible part of the engine that drives a multi-billion dollar industry which employs hundreds of thousands is of less value than 'pond scum'...

Meh, what's frustrating is I can't refute that without looking as foolish as you.

This, this is useful... or can be.

Creating forgeries of things other people said to avoid backing up your assertions is winning an argument... because you said so.

Can you rephrase this in a way that makes sense please? Thanks in advance.

And its 'Ochams's Razor' and it states that the simplest answer is always the best answer.... because you say so.

This is a non-sequitur. Doesn't even belong in this discussion. Also I disagree (as my signature should make more then clear), the simplest answer might be the best answer but it isn't the only answer nor is it always the right one.

The parsimonious answer is that you've been giving a textbook example of trolling.

So far you've been doing a bang up job of failing to comprehend, so let me set you straight. Talking about Whitney Houston's death doesn't it automatically follow we talk about her career and talent? How is it off topic to compare that to other people's careers/talents in the same field? How is it provoking readers into an emotional response to disagree with the majority opinion?

Explain it, or drop it. Or get reported.

 

[Orphia Nay]

True story: I happen to be visiting the city of Houston today. A friend texted me earlier this evening, "How's Houston?"

My reply: "Pretty dead tonight."

Was that before or after you heard the news?

 

[Mudcat]

This is remarkably silly. I could easily list 30 names of musicians who care about what they are doing that I personally have met. I am a musician myself and I've met a lot of other musicians.

And you don't... why?

You wouldn't know who any of them are but that isn't one of your caveats.

No, it isn't.

The idea that people spend, in many cases, thousands of hours practising something they don't care about is such an extraordinary claim that I think you are the one who should be providing some evidence for it.

[Sarcasm]And I suppose the hope for instant wealth and wealth has absolutely nothing do with it.[/Sarcasm]

 

[Quinn]

Was that before or after you heard the news?

I had just heard within the hour. Sick and twisted, admittedly. But what are the odds of the universe handing you a setup like that?

 

[Orphia Nay]

I had just heard within the hour. Sick and twisted, admittedly. But what are the odds of the universe handing you a setup like that?

I will always love you.

 

[Matthew Best]

And you don't... why?

Because you'd find some other excuse not to follow through on your promise. You know it, I know it.

[Sarcasm]And I suppose the hope for instant wealth and wealth has absolutely nothing do with it.[/Sarcasm]

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. How is that relevant. The reason why people care about what they do was also not part of your claim.

 

[crimresearch]

He was dead a long time before I was born, meant to cite this source. This is called citing. You might try doing the same.


A spectacularly poor dodge by you, to be sure. This question still begs your attention: Do you think saving lives and alleviating human suffering a valuable talent? Yes or no? I don't care about the billions, only the one life. Meh, what's frustrating is I can't refute that without looking as foolish as you.

This, this is useful... or can be.

Can you rephrase this in a way that makes sense please? Thanks in advance.

This is a non-sequitur. Doesn't even belong in this discussion. Also I disagree (as my signature should make more then clear), the simplest answer might be the best answer but it isn't the only answer nor is it always the right one.


So far you've been doing a bang up job of failing to comprehend, so let me set you straight. Talking about Whitney Houston's death doesn't it automatically follow we talk about her career and talent? How is it off topic to compare that to other people's careers/talents in the same field? How is it provoking readers into an emotional response to disagree with the majority opinion?

Explain it, or drop it. Or get reported.

ROTFL!!!

Go right ahead and 'report' me for being skeptical of your assertions all you want, I'm sure the mods will be properly scandalized that I'm not buying what you're selling....

It still won't do any more to support invalid claims than your use of sophomoric evasions and logical fallacies have.

 

[Quinn]

I will always love you.

Bwaaah! FTW!

 

[Gazpacho]

Report him. Do it.

 

[SezMe]

This thread went to hell in a hand basket in very short order.

 

[Matthew Best]

Yes, shortly after Mudcat started posting in it. An odd coincidence, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Mudcat]

Because you'd find some other excuse not to follow through on your promise. You know it, I know it.

So You got nothing, just what I thought.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. How is that relevant. The reason why people care about what they do was also not part of your claim.

It's called motive. It's actually important, despite anything you might have heard to the contrary.

I understand it's a professional field, I get that. Musicians expect to get paid, I get that. Musicians expect to get recognition, I get that too. But don't you think that the profession needs individuals who care about what they are doing on a deeper level than that?

Go right ahead and 'report' me for being skeptical of your assertions all you want, I'm sure the mods will be properly scandalized that I'm not buying what you're selling....

I was going to go with Flame Baiting, actually. Your posts do you no favors.

It still won't do any more to support invalid claims than your use of sophomoric evasions and logical fallacies have.

I've answered all your questions and I have been quite civil about the whole thing. How is that an evasion?

I've also conceded that the music industry does provide some benefit, it generates revenue and provides jobs. Since I'm being generous I'll even concede it helps do charity related stuff, despite my misgivings about their motives for doing so. No such thing as a completely selfless act, so I can't criticize them too harshly.

And if there are any fallacies you'll have to point them out to me. Thanks in advance.