Michael Jackson's racist rant resurfaces

[Jimboid 10]

On 3/25/2019 at 6:20 PM, nicolasrumet said:

False analogy.

N-word is a slur. Jew isn't. You can use the word jew in a university today. You can't use the N-word.

Try harder. 

 

The method of argumentation that you employ repeatedly seeks to establish authority through asserting a higher level of critical thinking and faculty.  In itself, this is disrupted through a seemingly unquestioned adherence to singular interpretation of texts.  This is further compounded by a problematic relationship to the media, your argumentation repeatedly uses this as a barometer, yet it is precisely this which you use to bolster the stance which you debate. 

 

As an example,

 

nicolasrumet said:  And for those who don't know, MJ had painkiller addiction, source CNN:

"While the doctor said "nothing implied" that Jackson was abusing painkillers, there was one incident during house call in 2002 that caused him to suspect Jackson might be getting additional shots of the powerful opioid Demerol from another doctor. He noticed "a little blood spot" on Jackson's T-shirt after he gave him a shot, he said."

 

 

Slippage between these two positions is difficult to reconcile.  It is also worth noting that the source you have chosen to cite to evidence Jackson’s painkiller addiction actually is very cautious about avoiding exactly that.  It explicitly states the doctor claims ‘nothing implied’ that Jackson was abusing painkillers and goes on to suggest what he ‘suspected’ and the reasons behind those suspicions.  Sources from the autopsy conducted on Jackson’s body might have served your purpose better here?

Your own critical thinking appears to often dismiss or denigrate that of others:
          ‘don’t be simple-minded’,
          ‘let me re-use words you used, so that maybe you can understand better.’
          ‘nice distorted oversimplification of what I said’,
          ‘First, please learn to read’
          ‘Learn to debate in an intellectual way’ etc. 

This problematizes the thinking and responses of others but appears not to subject your own thought to such scrutiny.  Whether it is intended or not, it also establishes a power hierarchy and lends the points from which you argue, the appearance of intellectual snobbery which by turn often results in disallowing the viewpoints or stances of others due consideration a result of which predisposes an antagonistic reception.

nicolasrumet said: You can’t really come for me.  I know what I’m talking about when it comes to this.  Try again. 

You might choose to believe this, but that does not mean unequivocally a truth!  Readers themselves will decide the reception for your written argumentation.  If you feel there is a failure to grasp the points you are making, rather than assuming that failing lies upon their side, it might be as well to consider the construction and communication of your argument.  Not one of us is infallible.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

@JimboidFirst of all, let's stop with this fallacious argument that if I said we need to be skeptical of certain media reports about MJ, it means that I can't use a quote from a media article, attributed to one of MJ doctors. Do I really to need to go over this and explain the flaw in your argument? You should know better if you are trying to lecture someone on their way of argumentation. Perhaps it's better that you don't start with fallacies yourself right off the bat.

Secondly, regarding the quote, I was merely trying to establish that MJ was using opioids long before his death in 2009 (mind you that he also died because of opioids). And I specifically picked that quote from 2002, because it preceded the date of this recorded voicemail that we're talking about. So no, the autopsy report wouldn't have served me better.