You still haven't proven that reading Harry Potter is actually a drag on society. Btw, ignoratio elenchi usually refers to a group of arguments, which one are you talking about specifically? However, if you want to say I'm distracting from the argument then I'll break that down too. I have not distracted from the argument. To restate myself, I defined by my terms what dragging society down is, thus "to be a drag on society, you’d have to be doing something really horrible or completely useless, like be addicted to drugs or WoW (sorry it’s true, my brother and his friends play it and can’t do anything else)". This is not distracting, but defining as one cannot premise an argument without first defining what a word or phrase means. Now let's continue with this definition since you insist it's a red herring. If one reads Harry Potter, at the very least the books (even the 800 page ones) take about 2 days and at most a couple of weeks of several chapters/night. Now if you're obsessed and must finish the book in 2 days, then what you lose 2 days of productivity? Not exactly a huge loss now is it, and most responsible adults tend to do this on the weekend unless they want to lose their jobs. As far as people who read at leisure, well, I'm sure they pace themselves for their own reasons. Unless you can prove to me threw official statistics that Harry Potter lowers the population's IQ, lowers grades in schools, reduces workplace productivity, reduces profits, and/or otherwise turns the population into believing that witchcraft is possible, then your argument is moot.
Your argument that Harry Potter is dumbing down America is itself a fallacy. You see the conclusion, that is, Americans are getting dumber, and then you blame it on a premise (Harry Potter) which has no bearing on the conclusion. This is called post hoc ergo propter hoc, or after the fact therefore the fact. There is no linking evidence that READING a children's book dumbs down people. First, reading one book/2 years (this is when they're released) will not lower anyone's IQ. Second, to be "dumbed down" one would have to suffer say a hit to the head or the lost of brain cells due to substance/drug abuse. If I follow your argument, then the next time I write a bad paper, I'll just use Harry Potter as an excuse to my professor that I've been "dumbed down" due to the book. I'm sure he'll fall for it.
I see worse things than reading a children's book, especially one that has themes of courage, selflessness, love, and friendship. I've read Nietzsche and yes I have grasped it. How would you know that I haven't? Have I thus spoken so (yes a lame pun)? Here's thesis I wrote using Nietzsche's Zarathustra and Lacan's Mirror Stage:
In Lacan's Mirror Stage, he claims that we strive towards our perfect image and may come close, but we never reach it. If so, how can this be reconciled with Nietzsche's overcoming? If we must assume the "armour of an alienating identity" to deal with imperfection, then how do we ever fully accept ourselves in order to create our own values? Also, Zarathustra gets past his "I" eventually, but is this really possible for us in a Lacanian framework?
Now if you can tell me what it is I'm talking about here, then you can prove that YOU have an understanding of Nietzsche. And while you're at it, tell me which of the three for Nietzsche would be most desirable, the Camel, the Lion, or the Child and which would laugh the most? FYI: This is a thesis I used in one of my master's classes so you can see I'm quite "young" to this world and "full" of optimism.
You still haven't proven that reading Harry Potter is actually a drag on society. Btw, ignoratio elenchi usually refers to a group of arguments, which one are you talking about specifically? However, if you want to say I'm distracting from the argument then I'll break that down too. I have not distracted from the argument. To restate myself, I defined by my terms what dragging society down is, thus "to be a drag on society, you’d have to be doing something really horrible or completely useless, like be addicted to drugs or WoW (sorry it’s true, my brother and his friends play it and can’t do anything else)". This is not distracting, but defining as one cannot premise an argument without first defining what a word or phrase means. Now let's continue with this definition since you insist it's a red herring. If one reads Harry Potter, at the very least the books (even the 800 page ones) take about 2 days and at most a couple of weeks of several chapters/night. Now if you're obsessed and must finish the book in 2 days, then what you lose 2 days of productivity? Not exactly a huge loss now is it, and most responsible adults tend to do this on the weekend unless they want to lose their jobs. As far as people who read at leisure, well, I'm sure they pace themselves for their own reasons. Unless you can prove to me threw official statistics that Harry Potter lowers the population's IQ, lowers grades in schools, reduces workplace productivity, reduces profits, and/or otherwise turns the population into believing that witchcraft is possible, then your argument is moot.
Your argument that Harry Potter is dumbing down America is itself a fallacy. You see the conclusion, that is, Americans are getting dumber, and then you blame it on a premise (Harry Potter) which has no bearing on the conclusion. This is called post hoc ergo propter hoc, or after the fact therefore the fact. There is no linking evidence that READING a children's book dumbs down people. First, reading one book/2 years (this is when they're released) will not lower anyone's IQ. Second, to be "dumbed down" one would have to suffer say a hit to the head or the lost of brain cells due to substance/drug abuse. If I follow your argument, then the next time I write a bad paper, I'll just use Harry Potter as an excuse to my professor that I've been "dumbed down" due to the book. I'm sure he'll fall for it.
I see worse things than reading a children's book, especially one that has themes of courage, selflessness, love, and friendship. I've read Nietzsche and yes I have grasped it. How would you know that I haven't? Have I thus spoken so (yes a lame pun)? Here's thesis I wrote using Nietzsche's Zarathustra and Lacan's Mirror Stage:
In Lacan's Mirror Stage, he claims that we strive towards our perfect image and may come close, but we never reach it. If so, how can this be reconciled with Nietzsche's overcoming? If we must assume the "armour of an alienating identity" to deal with imperfection, then how do we ever fully accept ourselves in order to create our own values? Also, Zarathustra gets past his "I" eventually, but is this really possible for us in a Lacanian framework?
Now if you can tell me what it is I'm talking about here, then you can prove that YOU have an understanding of Nietzsche. And while you're at it, tell me which of the three for Nietzsche would be most desirable, the Camel, the Lion, or the Child and which would laugh the most? FYI: This is a thesis I used in one of my master's classes so you can see I'm quite "young" to this world and "full" of optimism.
Reply to this Comment