(no subject)
Feb. 4th, 2004 12:55 pmNot to put a damper on the logical fallacies running rampant today, but cause, fault, malice, and intent are not the same thing, and where blame is assigned depends on proper definitions of them. Justin is undoubtedly the cause of the Pro Bowl ban -- that'd be his hand ripping off Janet's clothes and starting the whole cascade. Justin just surely had no malice towards JC in this -- does anyone doubt that there was anything going on in his head besides 'Whoo! Janet!' and 'Whoo! Publicity!'? I even went hunting through the friendslist of some of the people most vocal about attacking that and found not a single accusation of malice. I'm sure there's one that exists somewhere out there, but mostly people seem to be attacking a straw man.
But lack of malice does not mean no fault. The guy who sets off fireworks in a field in the middle of the California dry season probably isn't thinking anything but "Whoo! Sparklies!" but that doesn't mean if houses burn down that people don't get to blame him. And before the posts about 'She said Justin was as bad as an arsonist!' start, that's an example, not a equation.
So it comes down to our fourth exciting contestant, intent. If Justin thought he was merely ripping away a false front, he's not at fault. If he was an equal partner with Janet, well, yes, it is his fault. Along with Janet, and to a lesser degree the media et al that have been helping the fire along. It's quite a drunken party out there in that dry field.
So people are being accused of tinhattery because they don't believe that the spin from a star's PR is necessarily entirely truthful. And that's just nuts, and unworthy of some of the smart people that have been ranting about it.
But lack of malice does not mean no fault. The guy who sets off fireworks in a field in the middle of the California dry season probably isn't thinking anything but "Whoo! Sparklies!" but that doesn't mean if houses burn down that people don't get to blame him. And before the posts about 'She said Justin was as bad as an arsonist!' start, that's an example, not a equation.
So it comes down to our fourth exciting contestant, intent. If Justin thought he was merely ripping away a false front, he's not at fault. If he was an equal partner with Janet, well, yes, it is his fault. Along with Janet, and to a lesser degree the media et al that have been helping the fire along. It's quite a drunken party out there in that dry field.
So people are being accused of tinhattery because they don't believe that the spin from a star's PR is necessarily entirely truthful. And that's just nuts, and unworthy of some of the smart people that have been ranting about it.