TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- SVD, overrated or underrated?
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 @Redd, it's a progressive track, your taste is obviously as old as you are.

what is an old taste?

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 @Redd, it's a progressive track, your taste is obviously as old as you are.

Appeal to Novelty Logical Fallacy

exactly what it sounds like? not liking something just because it's new and progressive.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Appeal to Novelty Logical Fallacy

that works both ways. Prematurely claiming something is bad because it is new and different as well.

like EddieZilker said, total logical fallacy rape there

me not liking this track somehow equals I don't like anything new and progressive. you're a moron

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 exactly what it sounds like? not liking something just because it's new and progressive.

You're an idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by Kris G Oh, and what ever event you went to, it was definitely not a 'rave'

It was a massive.. 15,000 people.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 exactly what it sounds like? not liking something just because it's new and progressive.

Then you've created a Straw Man logical fallacy out of another logical fallacy. He doesn't like it because it sucks - it is of a quality beneath his standards; not because it's new and he prefers old music. It would be a lot easier to assail his point if it were because he was unfashionable, but even then, you'd still have to prove what was fashionable and what, in his taste, made it unfashionable - and then you'd have to prove that because his points indicated a preference for the unfashionable, he disliked fashionable music.

You've done none of this. What's more is that you've proven that you only think ideas which parallel logical fallacy which makes your position even less likely than if you'd just not posted anything.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Then you've created a Straw Man logical fallacy out of another logical fallacy. He doesn't like it because it sucks - it is of a quality beneath his standards; not because it's new and he prefers old music.

he doesn't like it because he doesn't like it, not because it sucks or is of a quality beneath his standards. You can't turn someone's opinion into a fact to support your "logical" claims.

Besides, where did I use the appeal to novelty logical fallacy? I never said it was good BECAUSE it was new and progressive, I implied that he didn't like it because it was. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he does like proggy stuff, but nowhere did I say that progressive was good because it was new or popular.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 he doesn't like it because he doesn't like it, not because it sucks or is of a quality beneath his standards. You can't turn someone's opinion into a fact to support your "logical" claims.

When you argue against, what you believe to be his opinion with multi-layered logical fallacy, you are the one regarding his opinion as fact and, in your interrogation of the fact in dispute, using poorly constructed logic.

I haven't even heard SVD - ever - but I have read your arguments and I have found them wanting.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker I haven't even heard SVD - ever - but I have read your arguments and I have found them wanting.

Right, and his argument wasn't even against SvD, it was against a track that he played one time live. So it was completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread anyways. How is "proving" that a track is "bad/dull/shitty" saying anything about SvD's style, when it's not even his track? I was making the point that Sander is NOT "jumping on the electro house bandwagon" by showing that he plays tracks that are progressive and very much unlike the kinds of tracks played by electro house/tech house/whatever you want to call it, dj's, and it was dismissed because someone thought that specific track was shitty. That is what doesn't make sense. Whether you like it or not, that track is nothing that could come close to being considered electro anything.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Besides, where did I use the appeal to novelty logical fallacy? I never said it was good BECAUSE it was new and progressive, I implied that he didn't like it because it was. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he does like proggy stuff, but nowhere did I say that progressive was good because it was new or popular.

I say the absolute value of x is not equal to or greater than one. When I make the declaration regarding variable x, I have immediately implied it has a value of zero. If, therefore, someone else has come along and proposed I said x = 0, I can't contradict myself by saying I never said that even though, in a strictly literal since, I never actually assigned the value to x, in the first place. That would make me look like an idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Right, and his argument wasn't even against SvD, it was against a track that he played one time live. So it was completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread anyways. How is "proving" that a track is "bad/dull/shitty" saying anything about SvD's style, when it's not even his track? I was making the point that Sander is NOT "jumping on the electro house bandwagon" by showing that he plays tracks that are progressive and very much unlike the kinds of tracks played by electro house/tech house/whatever you want to call it, dj's, and it was dismissed because someone thought that specific track was shitty. That is what doesn't make sense. Whether you like it or not, that track is nothing that could come close to being considered electro anything.

And I was pointing out that while you were attempting to make that point, you were using a multitude of logical fallacies which actually worked against you making any point, what-so-ever.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker I say the absolute value of x is not equal to or greater than one. When I make the declaration regarding variable x, I have immediately implied it has a value of zero. If, therefore, someone else has come along and proposed I said x = 0, I can't contradict myself by saying I never said that even though, in a strictly literal since, I never actually assigned the value to x, in the first place. That would make me look like an idiot.

Okay, but people don't speak like that. You can quote all the logic you want, but the fact of the matter is, you don't know what I meant, and since I didn't literally say "Progressive music is good because it is new" you can't assume that that's what I meant, no matter how much logic you quote.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Okay, but people don't speak like that.

Appeal to Populace Logical Fallacy

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Appeal to Populace Logical Fallacy

all you're doing is trying to push buttons. you're not talking about music at all. This isn't a logic forum, and you've never heard this music before.


http://forums.philosophyforums.com/...logic-6816.html

have fun

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Okay, but people don't speak like that. You can quote all the logic you want, but the fact of the matter is, you don't know what I meant, and since I didn't literally say "Progressive music is good because it is new" you can't assume that that's what I meant, no matter how much logic you quote.

So why can you assume what Redd meant but EZ can't assume what you meant?

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Appeal to Populace Logical Fallacy

wrong. I was pointing out that people don't speak in the form "I say that the absolute value of x is...." which is a fact. Nobody talks like that, which is the point I was making. Besides, for me to be using the Argumentum ad populum logical fallacy, I would have to be saying that something was true because most people believed it to be true, when I was only pointing out the fact that you're construing your arguments in a manner that supports themselves, namely rewording things I said (or didn't) in a way that makes you seem correct.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery So why can you assume what Redd meant but EZ can't assume what you meant?

you're right. I admit I just assumed that he didn't like that track because it was something new/progressive. If I was wrong in that, my apologies.

However, I still maintain that whether one thinks it's good or not, it does show that he doesn't solely play electro/tech house, and still plays a diverse assortment of tracks in his shows/mixes.

so overrated that now you don't have to type his complete name and use acronym instead

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 all you're doing is trying to push buttons. you're not talking about music at all. This isn't a logic forum, and you've never heard this music before. http://forums.philosophyforums.com/...logic-6816.html have fun

You're not talking about music, either. Inherently, almost any musical composition is the manifestation of a complex mathematical algorithm which proposes and resolves an argument within a set of quantifiable limitations applied to that argument. In-so-being, there is an inherent logic to music.

Perhaps people might find a little more awe in your spell-binding arguments, here:

http://forums.about.com/ab-kidsmusic/


I'm quite sure you'll fit right in for about fifteen minutes.

quote:

Originally posted by Palladium so overrated that now you don't have to type his complete name and use acronym instead

haha, do you think PVD and AVB are overrated as well? I think it's just easier than saying the whole name lol

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker You're not talking about music, either. Inherently, almost any musical composition is the manifestation of a complex mathematical algorithm which proposes and resolves an argument within a set of quantifiable limitations applied to that argument. In-so-being, there is an inherent logic to music. Perhaps people might find a little more awe in your spell-binding arguments, here: http://forums.about.com/ab-kidsmusic/ I'm quite sure you'll fit right in for about fifteen minutes.

Argument Ad Hominem =)

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Argument Ad Hominem =)

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.