From: dru_mcd@THRWHITE.remove-dii-this
To: alt.battlestar-galactica,
Please do not cross post, this has nothing to do with ST, SG-1, or Atlantis.
It barely has to do with homosexuality as it is, but I left it in.
"John Shocked" wrote in message
news:Xv54f.77408$lq6.33776@fed1read01...
> "dru_mcd" wrote in message
news:255c7$43506f9e$18d664a3$9831@KNOLOGY.NET...
> > "John Shocked" wrote in message
> > news:1jU3f.77348$lq6.47371@fed1read01...
> >> "dru_mcd" wrote in message
> > news:2b270$434ffab4$18d664a3$14920@KNOLOGY.NET...
> >>clipped irrelevant
> At least you possess an excellent attitude.
Thank you.
>
> >> >> Gambling is a product of right wing, libertarian ACLU supported
Organized Crime.
> That portrayed nexus between Hollywood Homosexuals and Organized Crime is
real.
Organized crime is a sub-set of illegal activities,
(drugs, gambling, prostitution, or "crime") not the
other way around. Another way to look at it would
be the word itself: ORGANIZED (adjetive) crime.
This misplaced sylogism that you promote is key to your thesis,
and to why your argument, as formed, is incorrect.
> > If the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises, this is
Begging the Question.
>
> This sounds like a circular argument.
Correct.
> >> Again, the role of this BSG episode is to advertise these Organized
Crime products.
> >> The fact that other small time individuals may also purvey these
products is an irrelevant detail.
> > Details are relevant.
> > It is a Fallacy of Exclusion if important evidence which would undermine
an inductive
> > argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all
relevant information be included
> > is called the "principle of total evidence".
>
Yes, we agree that Organized Crime facilitates gambling,
drug use, prostitution, etc. But as illustrated, one can have
crime that is not necessarily "Organized Crime".
Therefore the depiction of a crime is not necessarily the
depiction of an organized crime.
Period.
I feel that you are trying to work your way into a larger issue
in the form of "What is the difference between depction
and advertisement"?
For example, does the depiction of smoking or drinking in
popular media equate to a tacet approval of those activities?
What about perceived sex roles for both men and women,
for example, a female president on that new ABC show
as well as BSG? Or what about fathers being depicted
as mindless simpletons like Homer on The Simpsons?
Do movies like "Man on Fire" promote murdrous
rampages? My point is that media's effect on society
is a germain topic for discussion that does not require
appealing to an unidentified authority (e.g. Hollywood
Homosexuals) and their supposed agenda. Nor is this
issue limited to BSG.
If this is in fact your concern, my suggestion is to
please invest your time and energy into a mass-media
or other public communications class at your local university.
> >> >> The clear message is, if these two guys can pervert heterosexual sex
to Bestiality in this way, what
> >> >> could possibly be so wrong with 2 men, like Apollo and Zerak, or
Zerak and Meier, and Sodomy ?
> >> > Ignoring the fact that the statement preceding this one was false,
this
> >> > is a classic example of the slippery slope.
> >> That statement and this one must be proven to be false, before this
claim can be validated.
> > Begging the question... ibid.
>
> Which statement are you claiming was false ?
A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy
or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions
also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the
advocated policy and the consequent policies. A popular example of the
slippery slope fallacy is, "If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you
know
we'll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine." This slippery slope is a
form
of non sequitur, because no reason has been provided for why legalization
of one thing leads to legalization of another. Tobacco and alcohol are
currently legal, and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal.
> >> >> The giggling fit of Starbuck in this scene conjured up the effects
of drugs, even laughing gas.
> >> > In context, Starbuck's giggling is due to anoxia, a known symptom -
slothful induction.
> >> There is no perception within the viewing public that anoxia causes a
giggling fit, even if this is true.
> >> And TV is all about playing to the viewers' perceptions, unless they
take
> >> time to educate the viewers about this detail.
> > I clearly remember seeing the oxygen gauge dropping while the CO2 and
the
> > nitrogen gauge remained
> > stationary. If that's not perception, I don't know what is.
>
> Drug abuse often leads to oxygen deprivation of the brain which is often
directly related to the
> 'high' experienced. For instance, dopamine increase during cocaine usage
can constrict blood vessels
> leading to this condition. Alcohol also has the effect of starving brain
cells of oxygen.
>
Yes, anoxia can be a side-effect of drug use. However I disagree
that it is the primary stimulation from or reason for using drugs.
Drugs have many, complex effects on the body and brain. Cocaine
for example has multiple effects on the seretonin cascade, and an indepth
discussion of that is out of scope of this debate.
The point, however, is similar to the one above because the sylogism is
incorrect.
Anoxia from drug-use is a subset of all the possible causes of anoxia.
>
> There is a positive reinforcement in the portrayal of drug effects in this
episode, which is what the
> giggling fit was meant to portray. Viewers likely would watch that scene
and think that depriving their brain of oxygen,
> through cocaine or alcohol or other drug abuse is a fun thing to try.
>
That is assuming the viewers were clueless in understanding
that they were about to die. There are other, more direct depictions
on TV of drug use being represented as being "positive". This just
doesn't happen to be one. This is still slothful induction.
> The term "sodomy" has a strict and non-strict connotation.
That "non-strict connotation" was strict enough to have a friend of
mine, an Army Warrant-Officer Pilot, convicted of that crime
and sentenanced to a term of seven years in the Military Prison
at Ft. Levenworth, KY. All over a blow-job and Politics.
To summarize, you appear to be trying to link portraied activities
with approval of the same activities. While the point you bring up
is valid, your syllogisms are illogical and therefore the argument fails.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
