13 ms·

While you're arguing a straw man, that portion was only exposition to support the subject and underlying argument of the piece, which is that PM has a good memo

While you're arguing a straw man, that portion was only exposition to support the subject and underlying argument of the piece, which is that PM has a good memory. But in particular, that portion was not well-supported nor all that compelling. It was, as you say, "anecdote." The idea the PM "doesn't just take pictures with random people" is absurd on its face, neither provable nor unprovable. Surely there are hundreds or thousands of such pictures.[1] [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=paul+mccartney+with+fans&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=paul+mccartney+with+fans&tbm...

bryanrasmussen 4y ago
>underlying argument of the piece, which is that PM has a good memory frankly your first post did nothing to indicate you knew that was what the underlying argument of the piece was about, secondly unless you dispute the text you wrote is somehow falsified I'm not sure how my response could be described as arguing a straw man? You wrote something, I quoted it, I pointed out that the first few minutes of reading described a feat of memory you did not address. If anything I'd say you were arguing a straw man by only focusing on the musical arguments for McCartney's memory made in the article; the article makes several arguments for things McCartney has remembered being out of the ordinary that were not musical, you dismissed his having a phenomenal memory by essentially saying all trained musicians remember music. Which has hardly any bearing on the arguments in the article. I agree that the article's examples are not well supported, or from my viewpoint based on more supposition than someone should make when trying to establish something as freakish. But whether they were well supported or not you just didn't address them at all!
- Maursault 4y ago
  > frankly your first post did nothing to indicate you knew that was what the underlying argument of the piece was about The title of the piece is "Paul McCartney's freakish memory." I don't believe anyone was confused about the author's argument. > unless you dispute the text you wrote is somehow falsified I'm not sure how my response could be described as arguing a straw man. You wrote something, I quoted it, I pointed out that the first few minutes of reading described a feat of memory you did not address. You are correct that I did not address it, so it is a straw man because it wasn't my argument. You attacked an argument that was not mine. > If anything I'd say you were arguing a straw man by only focusing on the musical arguments for McCartney's memory made in the article I only argued against the essence of the piece, that McCartney's memory is not anything more than exhibiting ordinary abilities of someone who is literate (in the loser sense) in music in the same way it is ordinary that someone that is literate (in the narrow sense) can read. I ignored the irrelevant anecdote about his memory because it was only relayed to support the argument that Paul McCartney is a good musician because he has good memory, and because that portion was not well-supported nor even clear that is what occurred, that he remembered the woman and recognized those must have been her children. It was a ridiculous notion on its face and more easily explained by coincidence using Occam's Razor. The same is true of McCartney's composition of She's Leaving Home, that it is more easily explained by the author seeing connections after the fact rather than McCartney consciously contriving the piece for those outrageously specific reasons. > But whether they were well supported or not you just didn't address them at all! It is not required to address every single point in order to defeat the author's fundamental argument.

bryanrasmussen 4y ago

>underlying argument of the piece, which is that PM has a good memory frankly your first post did nothing to indicate you knew that was what the underlying argument of the piece was about, secondly unless you dispute the text you wrote is somehow falsified I'm not sure how my response could be described as arguing a straw man? You wrote something, I quoted it, I pointed out that the first few minutes of reading described a feat of memory you did not address. If anything I'd say you were arguing a straw man by only focusing on the musical arguments for McCartney's memory made in the article; the article makes several arguments for things McCartney has remembered being out of the ordinary that were not musical, you dismissed his having a phenomenal memory by essentially saying all trained musicians remember music. Which has hardly any bearing on the arguments in the article. I agree that the article's examples are not well supported, or from my viewpoint based on more supposition than someone should make when trying to establish something as freakish. But whether they were well supported or not you just didn't address them at all!

Maursault 4y ago
> frankly your first post did nothing to indicate you knew that was what the underlying argument of the piece was about The title of the piece is "Paul McCartney's freakish memory." I don't believe anyone was confused about the author's argument. > unless you dispute the text you wrote is somehow falsified I'm not sure how my response could be described as arguing a straw man. You wrote something, I quoted it, I pointed out that the first few minutes of reading described a feat of memory you did not address. You are correct that I did not address it, so it is a straw man because it wasn't my argument. You attacked an argument that was not mine. > If anything I'd say you were arguing a straw man by only focusing on the musical arguments for McCartney's memory made in the article I only argued against the essence of the piece, that McCartney's memory is not anything more than exhibiting ordinary abilities of someone who is literate (in the loser sense) in music in the same way it is ordinary that someone that is literate (in the narrow sense) can read. I ignored the irrelevant anecdote about his memory because it was only relayed to support the argument that Paul McCartney is a good musician because he has good memory, and because that portion was not well-supported nor even clear that is what occurred, that he remembered the woman and recognized those must have been her children. It was a ridiculous notion on its face and more easily explained by coincidence using Occam's Razor. The same is true of McCartney's composition of She's Leaving Home, that it is more easily explained by the author seeing connections after the fact rather than McCartney consciously contriving the piece for those outrageously specific reasons. > But whether they were well supported or not you just didn't address them at all! It is not required to address every single point in order to defeat the author's fundamental argument.