Angelina Jolie's decision

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 81 - 100 of total 106 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
GDavis

Social climber
SOL CAL
May 15, 2013 - 11:48am PT
Yeah what he/she said.
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
May 15, 2013 - 11:55am PT
Your opinion on abortion doesn't matter because you are a man.

Your opinion on child protection laws don't matter because you don't have kids.

Your opinion on military policy issues don't matter because you are a not a veteran.

Your opinions on race issues don't matter because you are white.

Now we just need to come up with cutsie terms like "mansplaining" for all of the above...
JMM

Boulder climber
May 15, 2013 - 12:03pm PT
I don't remember ever saying that your opinion doesn't matter, Kos. But I'm having a lot of trouble reconciling the fact that you feel like you are coming under ad hominem attacks while you are doing the same thing to someone else ("it's just for the publicity, you know, because of who she is and all"). You can't have it both ways.

*Mansplaining. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
May 15, 2013 - 12:17pm PT
But I'm having a lot of trouble reconciling the fact that you feel like you are coming under ad hominem attacks while you are doing the same thing to someone else


Ummm...you don't seem to understand what an ad hominem is.

The topic of the thread is Angelina Jolie. She is the issue.

Is it an ad homiem to criticize Obama on the political threads?

*Mansplaining. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It doesn't matter what it means.

But some of these are funny:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mansplaining

JMM

Boulder climber
May 15, 2013 - 12:33pm PT
Oh. Clearly I misunderstood. The title of the thread is "Angelina Jolie's decision" which I should have taken to mean "Angelina Jolie" period. And the OP's statement about hearing others' perspective "regarding such a choice, esp. if you've had fairly direct experience with cancer" was really some sort of code for "be all judgmental about a celebrity's past, while also coming up with completely ridiculous theories about ulterior motives."

Now I'll know not to discuss: 1. What she said about her experience or 2. The cultural significance of her experience as it relates to others with cancer and/or the BRCA1 or 2 gene mutation and instead attack her for being a celebrity. Because clearly that's the real issue.
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
May 15, 2013 - 01:12pm PT
"be all judgmental about a celebrity's past, while also coming up with completely ridiculous theories about ulterior motives."

I never said anything about her past. But now that I'm the bad guy, it's OK to make stuff up.

(Now that you mention her past...that Billy Bob Thornton thing was kinda trampy!)

Carly Fiorina used her breast cancer as an election issue. Was that cool?

couchmaster's point about "making lemonade when life gives you lemons" sums it up pretty well.

But some lemonade I'd rather not drink.
JMM

Boulder climber
May 15, 2013 - 01:24pm PT
I never said anything about her past. But now that I'm the bad guy, it's OK to make stuff up

I was adding rSin into that, I know you didn't say anything about her past. And in a logical argument (as you seem to want, having opposed logical fallacies being used against you), making stuff up isn't okay. It damages your position.

So let's look again at what ad hominems are:

Criticizing Obama for extensive use of drone warfare? Fine and good. Criticizing Obama for being President, black, or Christian? General ad hominem

Criticizing Angelina for her performance in a movie? Fine and good.
Criticizing Angelina for writing about her experience because she is a celebrity and will allegedly profit from it? Circumstantial ad hominem. You are attacking the person (AJ) rather than debating the issue at hand (BRCA1&2 mutation, cancer, traumatic surgery, etc.)
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
May 15, 2013 - 01:30pm PT
Oh! You almost sorta got it right!

Here it is:

 Criticizing someone for what they are: ad homenim

 Criticizing someone for what they do: not


(General name calling, like "you are pathetic" is also ad homenim.)

And the "circumstantial ad homenim" claim is way off:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

Where does a word like "mansplaining" fit in here?
crusher

climber
Santa Monica, CA
May 15, 2013 - 01:31pm PT
Kos, this is not "minor surgery". Really insulting to the "non celebrity", "regular" women who've gone through this.

Thanks JMM, well said.

JMM

Boulder climber
May 15, 2013 - 01:53pm PT
Criticizing someone for what they do: not

Wrong, Kos, but good try.

A circumstantial ad hominem is an attack on a person (rather than the issue at hand) that hinges on his or her position. Hence your claim that AJ's position as a celebrity makes her message somehow less valid (or not valid at all. AKA it's just a publicity thing) because her celebrity makes her an attention whore. Hence ignoring the message altogether.

See the structure of the circumstantial ad hominem here: http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

Person L says argument A.
Person L's circumstance or character is not satisfactory.
Argument A is not a good argument.

In other words, AJ writes about her significant experience. Oh! but she's a celebrity. Therefore, the experience is contrived for attention.

Mansplaining is when a woman, who is intimately familiar with a fact, circumstance, or experience, has a man, who is less familiar with the fact, circumstance, or experience, explain to her in great detail what it "means." In other words, you have felt the need to explain how Hollywood women get "boob maintenance" or how actresses are attention whores without actually being intimately familiar with Hollywood women, the pressures they face, or what it means for them.

Mansplaining is also telling me that the "thread is about AJ" when I have read it myself (I'm actually quite good at reading) and am perfectly capable of judging what this thread is or isn't about on my own.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 15, 2013 - 02:04pm PT
so,

given that Angelina is already a multi muli millionaire

why would one assume her motive is to "profit" by this surgery?

and lets say she does intend to profit, how would this surgery get her more profitable movie roles?

seems like the reverse would be true, that she would not be in movie demand much at all
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
May 15, 2013 - 02:28pm PT
This "mansplaining" is a wonderfully ironic word!

your claim that AJ's position as a celebrity makes her message somehow less valid

I absolutely never claimed that her "message is not/less valid."

Her message, that women should be proactive and seek the best healthcare available, is extremely valid. I agree 100% with her message.

I am claiming that her motives for stepping up and choosing to publicize her message are mixed.

Kos, this is not "minor surgery"

I do agree that my use of "minor" surgery was an inappropriate description of the procedure. I certainly meant no insult to anyone who had a similar experience, but I did a poor job of choosing my words in that particular sentence.

But I still remain cynical about those who exploit charitable causes.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2013 - 03:32pm PT
JMM, I was right with you at your first post....then got to this:

"And the OP's statement about hearing others' perspective "regarding such a choice, esp. if you've had fairly direct experience with cancer" was really some sort of code for "be all judgmental about a celebrity's past, while also coming up with completely ridiculous theories about ulterior motives."

Sometimes underlying motivations get lost in these threads, so I can understand your misinterpretation. For the record, though, I'd suggest you go back and re-read my OP in the context of someone who has been directly impacted by this type of cancer, and supports AJ 100%in her choice.
JMM

Boulder climber
May 15, 2013 - 04:04pm PT
I am claiming that her motives for stepping up and choosing to publicize her message are mixed.

So now we are back to the issue of the voice vs. the body scanner. Because she is a celebrity and, worse, a woman with an ambiguous and multivalent reputation, she should just be silent and let everyone else define her experience for her. (Shhh. Sweetheart, just stfu and let the tabloids do their job.) That somehow she is not capable of speaking the truth of her experience because anything she says will be purposefully colored (e.g. "mixed motives") to make her look good, which semantically affects the message (in other words, it affect the very nuts and bolts of her message). Hence the whole idea of "I'm just referring to her motives" is still an circumstantial ad hominem.

But I still remain cynical about those who exploit charitable causes
And the charitable cause here is what? And how is it being exploited? By whom?

Sometimes underlying motivations get lost in these threads
whoa apogee!--that post you're referring to was a sarcastic response to Dave Kos, based on where this thread has gone vs. the initial point of the thread. I think you initial post was excellent, and it's a shame that the thread got derailed by Dave and rSin with things that are completely irrelevant.

I'm actually not a huge fan of AJ, but I think she handled the situation really well. She made the decision that was right for her and she expressed her experiences beautifully.
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
May 15, 2013 - 04:41pm PT
Because she is a celebrity and, worse, a woman with an ambiguous and multivalent reputation, she should just be silent and let everyone else define her experience for her.

[...]

and it's a shame that the thread got derailed by Dave and rSin with things that are completely irrelevant.

First, I am not rSin. You lose a lot of credibility in your arguments when you simply lump us together as one and interchangeably use our words.

Second, there's a prevailing tone in your posts that emphasizes the gender of your debate opponents. Would you be reading (and misquoting) my words differently if my name was Susan Kos?

Finally, this is SuperTopo, nothing is really relevant except climbing.

I can understand if you want to have a discussion about breast cancer and treatments - it is a worthy goal and an important subject. If you want to have that discussion I suggest you start a thread that is focused on that topic and leave names out. (Perhaps that's what apogee was trying to do here, but I think it was a mistake to frame it in the context of a celebrity.) I'll stay out of the discussion, as I promised my wife that I won't look at any more boob threads.

Patrick Sawyer

climber
Originally California now Ireland
May 15, 2013 - 04:54pm PT
I agree, this thread did get sort of hijacked by a couple of people, who have beef to grind, for whatever reason. What kind of beef, I don't know. (EDIT Fillet or striploin?)

I usually like Dave Kos's comments, then when I really noticed that his avatar was Patton (or is it Gen. 'Buck' Turgidson?), oops, George C Scott (a fine actor, great in Dr Strangelove), I began to wonder about Dave. ;-)

I hope you do not think that was an ad Ad hominem attempt.

Just joking Dave. I'm just trying to lighten things up.

But it was a tough choice, she made it and her publicizing the issue makes her a decent human being, and if she gets to "build her brand" in the process, so what?

I agree with Couchmaster (and that is not often).
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
May 15, 2013 - 05:13pm PT
Sorry if I hijacked the thread. The way it went down for me was that apogee asked me directly for my opinion, I gave it, and then he started literally calling me an "as#@&%e," "pathetic," etc.

Let's recall that I never criticized anyone except a movie star that nobody here really knows anything about.

I should have stopped there, but I felt the need to defend myself.

These stories touch a nerve for me, I have a pet peeve with the exploitation of the sick and needy for marketing purposes, some of it based on legitimate life experience. Of course this situation is a little odd because I am claiming that someone is exploiting themselves (as well as others, indirectly) for marketing purposes. I got caught up in what believe is a relevant but often neglected ethical question.

Still, I stand by more core arguments, even if they are not popular. I believe my only substantial mistake here was offering a dissenting opinion in a feel-good "hero" conversation. Lesson learned.
JMM

Boulder climber
May 15, 2013 - 05:37pm PT
First, I am not rSin.
Yet, you are using the same type of "she's a celebrity therefore cannot be trusted to speak absolutely about herself, it's all just self-serving publicity" type of message. Though, you are more articulate about it than rSin.

Would you be reading (and misquoting)
(haha, good one)
my words differently if my name was Susan Kos?
No, because not all women are feminists. Not all women believe that women are equal to men or that they have the same right to speak of their experiences without being placed on the good girl vs. bad girl scale. In other words, because Phyllis Schlafly's cronies are still alive and well.

if you want to have a discussion about breast cancer and treatments - it is a worthy goal and an important subject. If you want to have that discussion I suggest you start a thread that is focused on that topic and leave names out. (Perhaps that's what apogee was trying to do here, but I think it was a mistake to frame it in the context of a celebrity.)
It was the point of this thread, as apogee said in his/her OP, before you jumped in with your "it was probably little more than an elective boob job that some attention whore celebrity put a positive PR spin on."

I have a pet peeve with the exploitation of the sick and needy for marketing purposes, some of it based on legitimate life experience. Of course this situation is a little odd because I am claiming that someone is exploiting themselves (as well as others, indirectly) for marketing purposes.
So then riddle me this. The tabloids would have published it eventually, yes?. So the woman come out and says, "yes, this happened to me. It sucks, but I'm handling it." And that means that she's exploiting herself and others? I'm really not following the logic. Should every person who faces a serious illness keep silent about it because someone on the interwebs might think they're in it for the sympathy points? Unless there's some information that you have forthcoming, there's been no proof that this was done for "marketing purposes." I, for one, saw no call for money in the Op Ed, nor any mention of the incredibly misleading Susan G. Komen Foundation, AJ's next film doesn't come out until 2014 (by which time this will not be considered news), and Myriad Genetic's monopoly is, hopefully, about to come to an end since their argument for SCOTUS was was very poorly presented. It is only publicity in so far as any information that circulates about a public figure, whether released by them or by someone else, is "publicity."
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2013 - 09:03pm PT
Dave, most of the time I regard you as a fairly middle-of-the-road type, but the comments you made last night....

"It's a shame that a tragic disease has become a vehicle for corruption and profit."

"It's all about return on investment."

...with the ridiculous, cynical insinuation that someone would do this solely & primarily for 'profit & return on investment'...

To my eye, those are pathetic comments of an as#@&%e.

Maybe I've misread your persona all along. I'll try to be more observant. In the meantime, you've been around ST long enough to know that when one puts out strong positions like yours, you'd best have a good thick skin.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
May 15, 2013 - 10:44pm PT
All based on 3rd hand gossip from a real estate agent who sold a house to Brittney Spears.

DMT
Messages 81 - 100 of total 106 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews