The Difference Between Good and Bad Music

I don’t see any purpose in responding point by point. You are only repeating yourself.

What’s going on here is that you are so emotionally driven to defend your own taste, to defend the worth of what you like, that you are literally incapable of grasping my arguments or understanding the issue.

You recast observations as “assumptions,” establish false categories, attribute to me arguments I’m not making, distort other arguments (“Sorry, but I find the contention that the people who created CCM did so based on being acclimatized to lust and violence laughable on the face of it.” (I’ll be sure and tell the mental health profession that you have determined them to be wrong about the phenomenon of desensitization through exposure.)) and fail to realize that you have already conceded the argument (“No, the music exists”). You insist that your taste and not the observations of those who disagree with you must be the criterion by which music is judged, then have the nerve to call other people “unreasonable.” Most counter-productively of all, perhaps, is that you are still under the sway of the misconception that you can invalidate an argument by calling it a generalization.

We’ve wasted a lot of time here as a result of your emotional desperation to defend that which you like, and I’m motivated to give you a little tip. In view of your concession of my central argument (“That such music exists has not been disputed.”) your entire first note should have read along the lines of, “Some rock music is E&V, but not all is.” We could then have discussed whether or not rock music that is not E&V has other unsavory features or connections.

At this point, I’m so tired of your insulting attitude, that I’m not interested in discussing that or any other question with you.

If I continue this discussion, it will be with those more open to exploring the issue.

“100. Is the author of this article completely correct, in every detail?”

Well, I don’t completely agree with every point, but I have thought for a long time that the basic principle is correct.

“If we could begin to examine where our points of disagreement lie, and become more apt to recognize that they are often fairly minor points, I think that we can become less rancorous in our discussions.”

I have a theory that, if one could devise some disinterested, dispassionate way of quantifying the rancor, one would see the onset of rancor and a higher level of rancor from whichever side is making arguments that would please the Dark One.

“…although I do not doubt that those folks "feel" that the inverse is true.”

They may, but one side is right and the other wrong. It would be interesting to devise some way of settling that issue. And if you could, that would be another way to tell whether you were on the right side of an issue.

I don’t see any purpose in responding point by point. You are only repeating yourself.

I, too, see no point, as you appear unable to reply in substance to what I actually said.

What’s going on here is that you are so emotionally driven to defend your own taste, to defend the worth of what you like, that you are literally incapable of grasping my arguments or understanding the issue.

Uh-huh. That's a rather curious conclusion, since I have no particular love, or distaste, for that matter, of rock music. I have indeed grasped your arguments, and, as should be obvious, found them about as solid as sand, and about as worth holding on to.

You recast observations as “assumptions,” establish false categories, attribute to me arguments I’m not making, distort other arguments (“Sorry, but I find the contention that the people who created CCM did so based on being acclimatized to lust and violence laughable on the face of it.”

Wildly inaccurate. What you cite as your observations are clearly couched in assumptions about music as a whole, and that you cannot see that is typical of the responses I've seen you post here.

(I’ll be sure and tell the mental health profession that you have determined them to be wrong about the phenomenon of desensitization through exposure.))

Make sure you do, as you clearly don't understand that dynamics of that any more than you do music, if you think that that concept has the anything to do with what we've been discussing.

and fail to realize that you have already conceded the argument (“No, the music exists”).

That was never the argument in the first place. What are you talking about?

You insist that your taste and not the observations of those who disagree with you must be the criterion by which music is judged, then have the nerve to call other people “unreasonable.”

Wow. I'm not sure if you're consciously lying or simply delusional now. My taste has zero to do with the arguments I made.

Most counter-productively of all, perhaps, is that you are still under the sway of the misconception that you can invalidate an argument by calling it a generalization.

Let's see here. You rely on generalizations, you get called on that, and then you try to devalue someone pointing this out by stating that they've pointed it out. Right.

We’ve wasted a lot of time here as a result of your emotional desperation to defend that which you like, and I’m motivated to give you a little tip.

I'm afraid that neither of us have resorted to emotional tactics here, but I'm not suprised you can't see that.

In view of your concession of my central argument (“That such music exists has not been disputed.”) your entire first note should have read along the lines of, “Some rock music is E&V, but not all is.” We could then have discussed whether or not rock music that is not E&V has other unsavory features or connections.

That's what I've been saying the entire time, Einstein. You, however, seem almost unnaturally concerned with attempting to re-direct my points to better suit the rather transparent nature of your defense of your own.

At this point, I’m so tired of your insulting attitude, that I’m not interested in discussing that or any other question with you.

Indeed, this will be my last post on this issue.

If I continue this discussion, it will be with those more open to exploring the issue.

It is impossible to continue something one is incapable of starting in the first place.

I have a theory that, if one could devise some disinterested, dispassionate way of
quantifying the rancor, one would see the onset of rancor and a higher level of
rancor from whichever side is making arguments that would please the Dark One.
I think you may well be right, but I also think that it is more complicated than that.
In a global sense, one could legitimately say that the results of the anger we may see on FR (name-calling, bitterness, hatred, false witness, divisiveness, party spirit, etc) clearly give pleasure to Satan. One might even think of them as being OWNED by the Devil.
On the other hand, we must remember that situations arise which engender anger, even if they are on the "right" side of an issue. (Not, necessarily, this particular post.) Sometimes, someone will post a comment to someone, and include words which anger that person.
As an example, (although from real life, not FR) I once was in an informal conversation with a retired couple and a Black woman. The wife said, or asked something about "colored people." (If memory serves, we were talking about some racial issue, but it was very low key, and, essentially, all three of us "European" Americans were trying to be indicate sympathy with Blacks.
Since I later had several weeks of acquaintance with this couple, and know that they were kind-hearted and sympathetic folks, I do not think that there is the slightest possibility that any harm or insult was intended. Nevertheless, the Black lady immediately jumped all over that good woman, for using the word "colored." She said that it was a hate word, since it was used in South Africa to indicate Asians or mixed race people.
Well, as it happened, I knew that little fact, but this couple were retired farmers from South Dakota, and not up on current events in Africa. They may have never had a conversation with a Black woman before.

So, anger can be engendered even in the absence of malice. Although I think the Black woman was not justified, it is entirely possible for an innocent comment can engender anger, even though the one angered is "in the right."
But, not all anger engendering comments are innocent. Consider the posts which seem to be deliberately intended to arouse anger, and ill considered retorts. How can we know, with certainty, what the motivation for these posts might be. Some possibilities are: bullying, maliciousness, liberal trolls (from DU, etc.) even people who feel inferior, and want to feel a little bit bigger, by manipulating others to anger (of course, they do this only when they can hide behind a computer screen).

Then there are people who post harsh, illucid arguments about subjects wherein they have "no dog in that hunt."
Finally, we get to the people you may be thinking about; people who become angry because of cognitive dissonance, become angry, and set about to overpower, mischaracterize, and demonize anyone who tells him that some port of his life does not conform to his self-image.

So, there are all of these reasons (and probably many I cannot even imagine) INCLUDING the innocent poster who inadvertently uses some anger-tiggering words. So, we don't really KNOW what motivates people to anger, (or, conversely, pseudo anger) we can only go by what they have written, and respond accordingly.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.