Before I forget it, Sarahfeena, 2005 Tony Awards for featured role and lead role for females in dramatic performances both went to West Tennessee women. How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm?
[QUOTE=galt]
Yes, and coincidentally, it shows that you have no fucking clue how to construct a logical argument.
[/QUOTE]
Here is a logical argument.
If A then B.
A.
Therefore B.
If classical music is popular, then it does not need tax funding.
Classical music is popular. Therefore it does not need tax funding.
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
Here is a logical argument.
If A then B.
A.
Therefore B.
If classical music is popular, then it does not need tax funding.
Classical music is popular. Therefore it does not need tax funding.
[/QUOTE]
Ha! Ha! Ha! wipes eyes
Well, it’s a kind of logic, I guess.
Or, in other words, you have yet to show the least bit of proof for the bolded premise, whereas the converse has been shown - it’s popular, yet still needs funding.
You know, I heard that the thing that’s so nice about banging your head against a brick wall is that it feels great when you stop.
OTOH the pattern of hair, skin, bone and other matter arrayed on the wall if you keep going could probably win the Turner, provided the wall is at the Tate.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Ha! Ha! Ha! wipes eyes
Well, it’s a kind of logic, I guess.
Or, in other words, you have yet to show the least bit of proof for the bolded premise, whereas the converse has been shown - it’s popular, yet still needs funding.
[/QUOTE]
I thought Converse was a shoe company.
If you are talking ‘converse’ as a logical term, what do you mean ?
If A is true, then B is true. You are saying the converse has been shown. I.E. If B is true, A is true.
So, you are saying ‘If classical music does not need tax funding, then classical music is popular’.
I have not studied formal logic for a while. Please tell me what you mean by ‘converse’.
Why do you write “Ha ha ha” all the time ?
My argument is perfectly logical. You are fine to question the truth of the premises. But I cannot see how you can say ‘It is a kind of logic’.
[QUOTE=Zoe]
Sarahfeena, I live literally within 15 minutes of the Southern Baptist Convention. Should I go with predominate local tastes? States-wide preferences? Pin my hopes on travelling art?
Don’t count too much on stereotypes. Nashville voted blue. It’s in a red state, but the Western third of the state is liberal. Yet I grew up near Skullbone, a tiny widespot in the road, and the Kingdom of Skullbonia, touted in the New York Times for its bizarre white supremest/Hell’s Angels/friendly neighborhood rock and country concerts that attract good music, a diverse crowd and 3,000 motorcycles. All of this takes place pretty much in the backyards of the Mennonites.
I’ve lived in Nashville over 40 years and never seen a performance of the Grand Ole Opry. Shame on me for that though. I like Appalachian music and some of the older country pieces and the Celtic sound that much of it is based upon.
But my favorite music is jazz, especially Latin jazz. That’s what I was listening to Friday afternoon when last I drove past the Graylines Tour Bus and the Southern Baptist Convention.
Thanks to Dr. Frist, we have us some Egyptian Culture right now, but we may need help from the outside world after that. We even sent scouts to Oklahoma and Arkansas to take leftovers.
[/QUOTE]
OK, and I’m a conservative who lives in one of the most liberal towns in America…what does that prove? I understand what the culture is here, and I accept that I am in the minority. I never, ever said that deciding things like arts funding at the state level means EVERYONE is happy. This would be impossible in a democracy. BUT, the lower the level of government, the MORE representative it is. Seems like a simple concept to me.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Actually, I think you’ve been plenty clear. It’s just that your position is not internally consistent. If you’re going to say that it’s wrong to make people pay for art they don’t like, you cannot turn around and say that you think its okay for states to fund arts. Any state-run arts program is going to produce art that offends some of the people whose taxes paid into the program. This is inherent in the nature of art: nothing is going to appeal to everyone. If it’s some sort of injustice that a person in North Carolina has to pay to make art they don’t like in Arizona, then it is equally an injustice if that person has to pay to make art they don’t like in North Carolina. I’m afraid your position in this thread is simply not logical.
[/QUOTE]
I believe that arts education, libraries, museums etc. Are worthwhile things for the government to pay for, as they serve everybody (or should, if they don’t.) I happen to think these kinds of things should be run at the state level. It’s a states’ rights issue. As I said in response to Zoe’s post, government gets more representative at the local levels. True that everyone will not be happy, but IF you are going to have arts funding, that is the best way to make sure that the local populace gets something out of it…and isn’t that supposed to be the point?
Two things:
I said it won’t change my opinion about the Constitution or states’ rights. Is that the only thing we discuss here? And is there NO opinion that YOU hold that is unlikely to change? Or have I just not found quite the right words to convince you that libertarianism is the right path?
Teaching Intelligent Design is not an establishment of religion, IMO. Not to mention again, states’ rights issue.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Or have I just not found quite the right words to convince you that libertarianism is the right path?
[/QUOTE]
What is it with dyed in the wool conservatives calling themselves libertarians? Is that the new thing?
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
If you are talking ‘converse’ as a logical term, what do you mean ?
[/QUOTE]
No, “converse” as an English term - I understand Idiot may be your first language, but around here, one of the meanings of “converse” in English is “reverse”.
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
If A is true, then B is true. You are saying the converse has been shown. I.E. If B is true, A is true.
[/QUOTE]
No, I went on to say what I meant by the converse in the very next sentence fragment- you know, the one that ends the bit you quoted. Don’t blame me if you can’t read.
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
I have not studied formal logic for a while.
[/QUOTE]
I’m finding it really hard to believe you ever did.
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
Why do you write “Ha ha ha” all the time ?
[/QUOTE]
Something is amusing me.
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
My argument is perfectly logical. You are fine to question the truth of the premises. But I cannot see how you can say ‘It is a kind of logic’.
[/QUOTE]
Because it is “a kind of logic” - there’s nothing wrong with the formal proof, but the central premis has repeatedly been shown to be flawed.
Look, you and I both know you’ve got nothing, and attempting to obfuscate (whoops, a big word! Look it up , you know) things by slipping into some insane formal logic proof is just stupid. You are stupid. Just admit you were stupid, and things can move on - or is this going to be like wrestling a Pig?
blinkingblinking, even if we accept your fourth grade idea of “logic”, you *still * haven’t proven your point.
If A equals “300,000 people will show up to a **free ** classical concert.”
Then
B **might ** equal “Classical music is popular.” (Although B is at least as likely to = Free stuff is popular.)
However, B most assuredly **does not ** = “300,000 people would be willing to pay for season tickets to the Symphony.”
Got it?
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
Do I really have to prove that classical music is incredibly popular in the world now? Tell you what, you prove to me that it is not popular and I will refute you.
[/QUOTE]
The fact that it is struggling in some markets such as Toronto in the 1990’s and Vancouver in the 80’s (these are examples I gave earlier in posts with books as cites which provide AMPLE example as to how the orchestra works financially) These show the decline in classical music, Hell ill use myself as a cite, Our concerts never sell out! as a result this seasons soloists are significantly more small time then the seasons past!!! It is struggling!
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
You can believe what you want.
Luciano Pavarotti has sold over 100 million albums in his career.
‘Three Tenors in Concert’ has sold over 10 million copies worldwide.
Henryk Górecki’s Third Symphony sold more than 1 million CDs.
Gregorian chant CD sold over 4 million copies.
“Moreover, according to the National Endowment for the Arts, 30 million adults (16 percent) had attended a classical music event in the previous 12 months.”
http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/nerr/rr2003/q2/requiem.htm
Does that show that classical music is popular?
[/QUOTE]
Pavarotti, One tennor, The three tennors, Gorecki, one composer, Gregorian chant…dont get me started..
How much do you think the third horn player got on these recordings?
How about the guy who played Bass Drum and Cymbals?
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
Classical music is popular.
[/QUOTE]
Popular does not necessarily mean profitable. Even world-class orchestras are in constant financial peril. When looking up “converse”, look up “operating costs.”
You remind me of this moron I had an argument with years ago, back when I was a bank teller and stuggling to make ends meet. “But you HAVE TO be rich!”, he babbled, “Because you work with all that money all the time!” The bozo could not be convinced that I was not actually allowed to take that money home with me.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I believe that arts education, libraries, museums etc. Are worthwhile things for the government to pay for, as they serve everybody (or should, if they don’t.)
[/quote]
Which makes it different from NEA grants… how, exactly?
A states rights issue? Don’t be ridiculous. The exsistence of the NEA does not preclude states from giving out their own grants, as well. Disbursing arts fundings at a federal level does not take anything away from the states at all. States rights doesn’t even enter into the discussion.
Which is exactly what happens under the current model of federal art grants. Everyone pays for there to be more art in the nation as a whole. Individual states get to determine what sort of art is produced within their borders. The advantage to this is that poorer states, who might not be able to afford much art on their own, now have a national fund to draw from to create art that they think is appropriate.
Sure, there are lots of opinions I hold that I’m unlikely to change. There are no opinions I hold that I will state, unequivocally, will never change. And I think that libertarianism has a lot of good ideas. If you ever want to advance a libertarian argument, I’m more than willing to listen. However, I feel I should point out that you have not, in this thread, advanced any libertarian ideas. “The states should fund the arts, and not the feds,” is not a remotely libertarian argument. The entire idea of government funding for arts (or for just about anything, except for some very, very basic functions) is anathema to the libertarian philosophy.
I’d love to see you try and defend that position, but I suppose this isn’t the thread for it.
blinkingblinking, how about those movies? When are we going to hear back from you about that?
My point is that your cultural stereotypes are worthless. Taste in art is a matter of exposure and education. That varies from household to household and individual to individual more than by state.
I’m satisfied with the way the NEA is handled now – through the states – with people educated in the arts making the main decisions about funding. The masses can still voice their opinions and create a commotion, I guess. We are not just a Democracy. We are also a Republic with minority rights. Some of us are not afraid of art.
That doesn’t mean that I can always see the “art” in something on exhibit or that I enjoy a particular artist or school of painting or dance. But I definitely support public funding.
leave my thread for a few days and it explodes!
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
No, “converse” as an English term - I understand Idiot may be your first language, but around here, one of the meanings of “converse” in English is “reverse”.
No, I went on to say what I meant by the converse in the very next sentence fragment- you know, the one that ends the bit you quoted. Don’t blame me if you can’t read.
I’m finding it really hard to believe you ever did.
Something is amusing me.
Because it is “a kind of logic” - there’s nothing wrong with the formal proof, but the central premis has repeatedly been shown to be flawed.
Look, you and I both know you’ve got nothing, and attempting to obfuscate (whoops, a big word! Look it up , you know) things by slipping into some insane formal logic proof is just stupid. You are stupid. Just admit you were stupid, and things can move on - or is this going to be like wrestling a Pig?
[/QUOTE]
One of the meanings of ‘converse’ is ‘reverse’. I know. But since you were talking of logic, it was not clear what meaning, you were using.
As I already admitted, you can question the premise, but not the logic. Try learning some logic and you will understand that.
You can believe I am stupid if you like. I do not really care.
[QUOTE=DianaG]
blinkingblinking, even if we accept your fourth grade idea of “logic”, you *still * haven’t proven your point.
If A equals “300,000 people will show up to a **free ** classical concert.”
Then
B **might ** equal “Classical music is popular.” (Although B is at least as likely to = Free stuff is popular.)
However, B most assuredly **does not ** = “300,000 people would be willing to pay for season tickets to the Symphony.”
Got it?
[/QUOTE]
I get it. I never put forward that assertion. You have.
[QUOTE=percussion]
Pavarotti, One tennor, The three tennors, Gorecki, one composer, Gregorian chant…dont get me started..
How much do you think the third horn player got on these recordings?
How about the guy who played Bass Drum and Cymbals?
[/QUOTE]
How much did the seagull wrangler get for working on ‘Baywatch’? Well he only got paid minimum wage. Thus I have proven that TV is not a popular medium. Thus all TV should be tax funded.
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
One of the meanings of ‘converse’ is ‘reverse’. I know. But since you were talking of logic, it was not clear what meaning, you were using.
[/QUOTE]
No, *you *were talking “of logic”, *I *was talking Sense. And I made my damn meaning explicit in the same fucking sentence. So it is true - can’t read, huh? Must have made it hard to sit through Formal Logic 101, but you persevered, you trouper. Or not.
Sorry I derailed your attempted sideways leap. Well, not really sorry, as your feeble attempts at profundity added greatly to my amusement.
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
As I already admitted, you can question the premise, but not the logic. Try learning some logic and you will understand that.
[/QUOTE]
Au contraire, my sadly deluded friend, to question the premises is to question the logic. Because this is the Real World, not whatever logic class they threw you out of at Sheepfucker U*. A good formal proof of flawed premises is pissing in the wind. Hell, even Liberal fell for that, and compared to him, you have the intellect of a syphillitic flatworm. You actually had to debate the validity of his premises, whereas yours have been shown to be false right here in the same damn thread. You really are a bright one, if you think that’d fly.
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
You can believe I am stupid if you like. I do not really care.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you already showed how much you “really didn’t care” when you started calling me moron and feeble. C’mon, son, what happened to the fire? Go on, who’s your Daddy?
I’m aware you claim not to be Aussie. Insult still valid for NZ, Rural England and the
more “traditional” parts of the US.