If you think you can then pop your answers in the comments section (or send the Just Skeptics team an e-mail!). The best answer will win a tall glass of smug satisfaction - so read on and see how much you can spot!
Person 1 “What you been up to then?”
Person 2 “Not much, I've done a bit of house work in front of the TV.
Person 1 “Anything good on?”
Person 2 “Not really. I've just been going through a few DVDs, today was Mel Gibson.”
Person 1 “Are you serious? You actually like that guy?”
Person 2 “I think that’s a bit strong. He’s done some really good films.”
Person 1 “Are you kidding? He's racist and violent, I wouldn’t watch his films if you paid me.
Person 2 “Both true - but he has done some great films!”
Person 1 “Look here matey - I know what makes a good film, good story, good action, good direction and you know what some attractive women wouldn’t hurt either.”
Person 2 “I think Braveheart ticks all of those boxes”
Person 1 “Sure good direction and Sophie Marceau does qualify as attractive but I mean come on - there’s no variance, for example there's no humour, no comic relief - a film needs that too.”
Person 2 “Come on, a whole battlefield of Scots mooning an army of English!”
Person 1 “Phrt”
Person 2 “One of them gets shot in the arse, you can’t tell me that didn’t make you chuckle.”
Person 1 “And that’s another thing, the action - bows, arrows, swords? Real action has guns and stuff not bows and arrows.
Forever young, rubbish!
What Women Want, sexist AND rubbish.
The Patriot - historically inaccurate and rubbish.”
Person 2 “I’m not sure if that fairly represents his career.”
Person 1 “Let’s be fair; you know as much about picking good films as Kevin Costner did in the late 90’s.”
That is the end of the argument, for the post in audio format just listen to episode 8 of Just Skeptics.
All answers will be appreciated and the conversation will be discussed in the 9th episode of Just Skeptics, so tune in for the answers.
All answers will be appreciated and the conversation will be discussed in the 9th episode of Just Skeptics, so tune in for the answers.
- Alex Dennerly
I'm afraid that all comments will have to be moderated - Google's spam filter is letting far too many spam-bots through!
ReplyDelete1.“Are you kidding? He's racist and violent, I wouldn’t watch his films if you paid me.
ReplyDeleteAd hominem
2.“Sure good direction and Sophie Marceau does qualify as attractive but I mean come on - there’s no variance, for example there's no humour, no comic relief - a film needs that too.”
Moving the goalpost
3.Let’s be fair; you know as much about picking good films as Kevin Costner did in the late 90’s
Equivocation
4.And I don't know what you would call the fallacy, but Person 1 is constantly asserting his subjective opinions as facts.
Person 1 “Are you kidding? He's racist and violent, I wouldn’t watch his films if you paid me.
ReplyDeletered herrings
Person 2 “Both true - but he has done some great films!”
Person 1 “Look here matey - I know what makes a good film, good story, good action, good direction and you know what some attractive women wouldn’t hurt either.”
Simple minded certitude
Person 2 “I think Braveheart ticks all of those boxes”
Person 1 “Sure good direction and Sophie Marceau does qualify as attractive but I mean come on - there’s no variance, for example there's no humour, no comic relief - a film needs that too.”
Moving the goalposts
Person 1 “And that’s another thing, the action - bows, arrows, swords? Real action has guns and stuff not bows and arrows.
Forever young, rubbish!
What Women Want, sexist AND rubbish.
The Patriot - historically inaccurate and rubbish.”
weasel words, straw men , more simpleminded certitude
Person 2 “I’m not sure if that fairly represents his career.”
Person 1 “Let’s be fair; you know as much about picking good films as Kevin Costner did in the late 90’s.”
ad hominem - Red herring ?
All in good nature, and in the interests of education and debate I'm going to contest one or two things.
ReplyDelete1. In the above post "Simple minded certitude" is mentioned a couple of times which I understand means "The advocate has an unshakeable belief which remains unchanged even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence."
As we are dealing with mere subjective opinion, overwhelming contrary evidence is not possible.
2. I can't see how strawman is relevant here. Person 1 is not misrepresenting anyone else's opinion and arguing against it. He is only asserting his own views.
3. Ad hominem isn't correct for the Costner remark due to the fact that Person 2's ability to pick good films is entirely relevant to the debate. It is however an equivocation fallacy. Person 1 is equivocating Person 2's taste in films to a movie star's unfortunate choices in projects during the late 90s.
4. I have heard "cherry picking" mentioned by other people for the three films that are listed by Person 1 near the end. This isn't necessarily fair either.
To establish cherry picking in this case you would have to show that Person 1 actually enjoys other Mel Gibson movies but has conveniently chosen these three to support his "Mel Gibson is Crap" conclusion.
For all anyone knows Person 1 could give a much longer list of Mel Gibson movies that he hates. He could also like precisely none. These three movies listed could easily be a true reflection of the bigger picture.