Attacking a person instead of attacking their point.
I have not attacked one person on this thread
Ah. I was taught that it also had to do with insulting what you are arguing about rather than actually arguing your point. I looked it up though and that is apparently wrong. Does anybody know what that fallacy would be called?
Ad hominem is also used by many to mean appealing to emotions instead of appealing to logic, which can fit in this case, I guess…
Zhare apparently doesn’t know how to argue things. See the Requiem for a Dream thread.
The title of Worst Arguer can officially be passed from Hades.
since when is this an argument I simply stated that The Sex Pistols are untalented not that they suck
It isn’t an arguement in the heated manner, but an arguement in the manner of a discussion. So, discuss your points. Why do you feel that the Ramones are more talented than the sex pistols?
Since you decided you were going to tell people they were wrong.
because with The Ramones the music came first and with The Sex Pistols the punk came first for example listen to The Blitzkrieg Bop and then listen to Anarchy in The UK and you will see that The Ramones are more talented than The Sex Pistols
So its ‘style over substance’ = Sex Pistols
pretty much yeah
I agree that the Sex Pistols were mostly style, but their one album is actually worth listening to. The lyrics are quite funny, and Johnny Rotten’s delivery is far from insincere (although the rest of the band was insincere, I think it is clear that Lyndon actually believed for some silly reason). As for the Ramones… well… they didn’t even know how to play their instruments when they started, just like I’d say for many of the Sex Pistols. The difference is that The Ramones had more time to refine their music while the Sex Pistols died fairly quickly.
I really actually don’t care about most of that, however. What I care about is that you state heavy metal sucks without saying WHY you think that it sucks. If you give me a reason, at least I’ll know where you’re going.
this is about 1/10 as hardcore as Jean-Paul Sartre refusing the Nobel Prize for literature.
is it 1/100 as hardcore as Sartre years later asking if he can just get the money.
that said, the sex pistols pale in comparison to John Lydon’s later band, Public Image Ltd. and what they did for rock and roll music.
I also find it a poor use of the word ‘genre’ in this eraserhead guy’s posts. as nebulous as the word is in other disciplines, in music, popular music at that, the word has very little meaning outside of whatever that ‘genre’s’ fans find convienent in a social context. even if you can apply the word ‘genre’ to popular music today, i think one could argue that case that the Sex Pistols are exempt, as they came at such an early stage in the progression of the ‘genre’ to truly qualify as appeasing a commercial interest based around a formula.
to any person who knows the circumstances of the band, this will seem a nonsense statement, the band clearly being designed by mclahren to satisfy a particular audience (lydon being something of an exception to the manufacturing process), though i think this still makes sense in someway that i’m a little too tired to think about at given moment.