View Single Post
Old 09-19-2012, 04:08 PM   #198
charl_huntress
The Offender
 
charl_huntress's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Outside the doors of Arkham Ayslum
Posts: 9,158
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevaratoiel View Post
If I may add, charl_huntress, and don't get me the wrong way, I'm not trying to put you down or offend you in anyway: It's not only the supporters who are defensive about their opinions. It's also non-supporters. I've seen it happen many a time (not just on this forum) and it bothers me greatly. People should be allowed to voice their own opinions with out being offensive or rude to one and other. An honest and fair discussion is never wrong.
Nevaratoiel, I so agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. View Post
In that case, you’re being evenhanded and consistent with your analyses. I can only say that I have run into (other) folk who were both staunch critics of SR and staunch fans of (for example) SII. Yet some of the specific reasons cited in criticizing SR would seem to apply, just as easily, to SII. And it strikes me as sound to draw attention to the apparent bias and/or inconsistency.

It’s not that someone’s opinions or personal tastes are wrong. But forums like this would be rather sterile and boring places if everyone just expressed a raw judgment without further commentary. (“You like chocolate? Hey, I like vanilla.” The end.) A post/review/article - positive or negative - customarily includes reasons for the opinion. And it’s those stated reasons that are available to scrutiny and possible rebuttal - because they may be invalid.

Let me give you a hypothetical example of this. Suppose I say that Movie X is bad. Well, that’s my opinion - so it’s not wrong. But then I’m inspired to defend my view and I offer one reason (among others) why I think it’s bad: there’s a conspicuous plot hole in the second act! As it turns out, however, I missed a crucial bit of dialogue that explains/fixes the alleged plot hole. Now this correction doesn’t change my impression of the movie - I still think it’s bad. But if I want to continue the discussion, I need to reconsider my arguments and come up with different/better criticisms. Moreover, it was entirely fair for the opposition to point out my mistake. In doing so, they’re not saying that my overall opinion is wrong, just that my stated reasons are (or might be) suspect.

So back to (less hypothetical) SR. I do not declare someone’s negative view of the film to be mistaken (or that I can logically argue them into liking it). But if they’re moved to provide analysis in support of their conclusion, that analysis is open to my best efforts at rebuttal. (That is, I’m disputing the mode and structure of the specific argument, not the final opinion.) To disqualify this on the basis that it represents an unwelcome challenge to personal tastes would reduce our discussions, it seems to me, to uninteresting - and very short! - statements (again - “You like chocolate. I like vanilla.”).

(Yes, I’m aware that this post is “philosophical” - which you’ve mentioned is not your thing. Apologies. )
If I like chocolate and you like vanilla then it is what is is. Simply because my reasons for liking chocolate cannot be disputed. You cannot invalidate my reasons for liking chocolate just as I cannot invalidate you reasons for liking vanilla. There are no INVALID reasons. If you feel there are then you are wrong!!!!! PERIOD.

It was to nice wax with you...but I'm now done with you!

You are on ignore and that cannot be disputed.

__________________
Mission Accomplished!
"Domine secundum actum meum noli me iudicare: nihil dignum in conspectu tuo egi. Ideo deprecor maiestatem tuam, ut tu Deus deleas iniquitatem meam."

Last edited by charl_huntress; 09-19-2012 at 04:55 PM.
charl_huntress is online now   Reply With Quote