Irony: a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other’s false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning – called also Socratic irony.
Sarcasm: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain.
Falafel,
I would say the entire article was ironic. However, to attain the overall irony, Cecil used sarcasm.
What would you say?
well that’s an over-analysis if i’ve ever seen one. but greymatters, i would say you are correct.
Little Greymatters,
That’s great that you defended your opinion that sarcasm was the best description of the rhetorical device used to answer the question. Nevertheless, to use your words, I find it almost impossible to believe that someone could miss the fact that Cecil was taking the term “addictive” to a literal extreme. It seemed that he chose to take the side of the argument that made “the teeming millions” look dumb rather than make a legitimate analysis of the facts. Have you scrubbed your nose clean enough to come to a different conclusion about Cecil’s original answer?
KidCharlemagne, you are coming perilously close to inacceptable behaviour in this forum (specifically with comments of the type “Have you scrubbed your nose clean enough?”) Though “dissing” Cecil Adams is not strictly forbidden (Cecil Adams being a “public” figure), slurs towards other posters are not allowed. I would advise you to think twice before posting.
moderator, «Comments on Cecil’s Columns»
Kid,
Where should I begin? So many openings I dare say I feel giddy with the excitement of the inevitable. I guess I will just begin.
Wait, I have to stop laughing first. OK, now I am ready.
Let’s start the lesson with some more definitions:
Rhetoric - the art of speaking or writing effectively.
Addiction - compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful.
Literal - a : according with the letter of the scriptures b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : ACTUAL <liberty in the literal sense is impossible – B. N. Cardozo> c : free from exaggeration or embellishment <the literal truth> d : characterized by a concern mainly with facts <a very literal man>.
Obviously, Cecil was not using rhetoric or we would not be having this discussion. Cecil was not being literal or he would not have written the quote below. Another example of Cecil not being literal is the TOTAL lack of facts in the article regarding the addictive qualities of the ingredients contained in lip balms, which was the question asked. Yet another example of Cecil not being literal is the use of hearsay to prove his sarcastic point.
I think I may understand why Cecil did this. It is probably because, there ARE no facts supporting the theory, lip balm is addictive. Now Lip Balm Anonymous, http://www.kevdo.com/lipbalm/ , has plenty of “evidence”, all hearsay, that irrefutably proves it is addictive. After I stopped laughing, I began to wonder if their use of The Hub’s Urban Legends’ article on lip balm’s addictive qualities really added much credibility to their argument.
If you take the literal definition of addiction, the theory falls apart. Lip balm is not harmful, other than for the already psychologically handicapped (which IS evidenced by the testimonials at: http://www.kevdo.com/lipbalm/testarch.html .) There are no well defined psychological withdraw symptoms, other than the well-defined symptoms of people suffering from Obsessive/Compulsive Disorder like compulsive lip-licking. And, there is no evidence that the evil slime causes the user to build up a tolerance.
Try some critical thinking and do some research next time, Kid.
Arnold - Was I not insulted with Greymatters first post?
Greymatter, Ummmmmmmmmmmm for the life of me I don’t see how your listing half the dictionary helped your argument. First off, sarcasm can be used as a rhetorical device and is used as one in this case. An attempt to persuade through making the opposing argument look so completely ridiculous as to make it not seem worthy of serious investigation is using rhetoric. I said in previous posts that the classic opiate-based definition of addiction is out of date. The term “addiction” is so wildly disputed, even by doctors, that it’s safe to say it’s open to interpretation. I still don’t know what problem you have with my thinking that Cecil’s interpretation of the word addiction was too literal, and therefore dismissed current shades of connotation. NONE of what you said could even remotely been considered an argument against my previous posts.
BTW I was using the definition of rhetoric that most people use. “the use of exaggeration in prose or verse in an unfavorable sense.” And, “the are of influencing the thought and conduct of one’s hearer’s” Rhetoric has a negative connotation today. Now, literal - that proves my case even more when a definition is taken “from the scriptures” and doesnt encompass the updated meanings.
Kid,
I think furthering this with you will only cause problems.
I stand by my posts as argument enough.
Bye.
In my opinion - No.
Another reminder - when I take to task a particular member in a forum, that doesn’t mean that other posters are welcome to come in the thread and say things like “see, the moderator agrees with me in thinking that you’re rude.” (Not that anyone has done this yet, but I am trying to prevent potential problem posts.) Any posters wishing to fight need to head down to The BBQ Pit.
moderator, «Comments on Cecil’s Columns»
Jeez, that was rude of you, Arnold.
In general, I think I agree with Kid. The overall feeling of the column has degraded to sarcastically (or ironically) answering stupid questions. If Cecil is getting 200 questions a week, you’d think there’d be something worthwhile to answer (besides Chapstick addiction).
My general observation is that there is something left to be desired in the answers to the questions about nuclear testing and most recently the lightning rods. My recollection is that questions of this caliber in the past were answered more thoughtfully, with regard to all aspects of the question, and usually with a significant dose of sarcasm/irony/humor thrown in for good measure.
If the purpose of the Straight Dope is fighting ignorance, why are some of these columns perpetuating it?
Arnold Winkelried posted:
GreyMatters first post referred to KidCharlemagne as “Little Kid”. While the “Kid” part could pass muster as an abbreviation of the username, adding the “Little” does appear to be a bit of a swipe. It could certainly be perceived by KidC as a belittling remark. Given GreyMatters tone in the reply, that interpretation is not without merit. I certainly read it that way.
KidC - Cecil did leap right on the literal sense of addictive rather than looking at the possibility of the broader sense of a vicious circle - the additives make the lips dryer or more sensitive, encouraging the user to use more.
I don’t know that I agree that the columns are getting worse.
GreyMatters, a agree with your assessment of sarcasm vs. irony. But I think you’re wrong going after KidC. About the only part of that response that seemed appropriate was the paragraph beginning: “I think I may understand why Cecil did this. It is probably because, there ARE no facts supporting the theory, lip balm is addictive.”
Irishman:
[ul]
[li]This is not really the proper forum to debate the validity or invalidity of moderator decisions.[/li][li]Could Kid Charlemagne have possibly felt insulted by GreyMatters? Of course. who am I to speak for Kid Charlemagne? I am stating what I feel is unacceptable behaviour in this forum, not what you or Kid Charlemagne think.[/li][/ul]
moderator, «Comments on Cecil’s Columns»
<< If Cecil is getting 200 questions a week, you’d think there’d be something worthwhile to answer (besides Chapstick addiction). >>
Jeez, how about you write a column every week? Let me tell you, 95% of those letters are pure crap: “Cecil, since you know everything, is my boyfriend cheating on me?” was among my favorites. “I got an itch in my crotch, and my girlfriend has little sores on her genitals, could they be related?” was another goodie.
Or trivia questions, like “Who played Fred MacMurray’s second cousin on that one episode of MY THREE SONS?” or “What does the word ‘oxymoron’ mean?” Even if Cecil bothered to answer, it would be one sentence, and he gets paid for a column, not a one-word answer.
We also get about a dozen questions that Cecil (or a Staff Report) has already answered, or one that is well-covered by Snopes (www.snopes.com) or the Word-Detective (www.word-detective.com) or similar. We try to respond to those by telling people how/where to find the answer, but our patience sometimes wears thin.
Or questions that have no answer that Cecil can give, he must get half a dozen “Is there a God?” or “What is Art?” each week.
From the handful of good questions, some of them take a great deal of research and mucho time. Sure, Cecil always knows, but Li’l Ed and Staff sometimes have to do a lot of digging to get the back-up evidence that the column demands.
Every once in a while, Cecil just feels like slumming, and he takes a bizarre question or a lame question or a what-the-hell question because it tickles his fancy. They can’t all be earth-shattering. And, just because you find a column here and there that you think are less than stellar, doesn’t mean Cecil “has become so lame.”
You don’t like the chapstick column? I don’t like the song-lyrics columns. Get over it. For every chapstick column, there’s a couple like dinosaur sex, stigmata, or Kimo-Sabe that make it all worthwhile.
[Edited by C K Dexter Haven on 08-29-2001 at 08:09 AM]
Markxxx: Why not take on the tough questions no one answers on this board?
Czarcasm: Such as…?
I assume by the lack of response, Mark is compiling a massive list of unanswered questions.
Or pehaps “Such as…?” is one of those tough questions no one answers.
sigh. The complaints about Cecil have become so lame.
this thread is no longer remotely related to the original column in question, so please Arnold, do us a favor and close this waste of time.
jonfromdenver - if you have any advice for a moderator on a thread that you think is in the wrong spot, or a poster that you think is disruptive, we prefer that you use e-mail. We all have e-mail addresses listed.
As far as closing the thread - I don’t like closing threads where people are critiquing “The Straight Dope” column, to avoid the inevitable accusations of censorship. This is a legitimate forum for discussing Cecil’s column - as long as no one becomes hostile or abusive.
moderator, «Comments on Cecil’s Columns»
Thanks to CK for giving a very complete description of the types of questions that are submitted. I theorized that out of 200 questions, there had to be something worthwhile to answer. Obviously, based upon CK Dexter Haven’s reply, my theory was wrong.
Let me therefore, restate my critique. Cecil’s getting some pretty lame questions to answer. If I were him, I’d give a wide berth to those, and wait for some with a little more quality.
However, in my opinion, that doesn’t account for what could be perceived as somewhat flippant answers to questions that, apparently someone is legitimately asking out of curiousity. Sometimes lately it seems there is too much emphasis on trying to make the answer funny (or sarcastic; i.e. Chapstick), than giving the masses what they are really wanting - THE STRAIGHT DOPE.
Is there any chance that all those inquiries could be dumped onto an accessible page so that the Teeming Millions could have a go at them?
Some questions which appeared to be frivolous or obvious might turn out to have complicated and interesting answers when dug into by the masses. Even though most of the pile would be unfruitful, SDers couldn’t criticize Unca Cece for his selection process…the proof of the detritus would be in front of them.
<< Is there any chance that all those inquiries could be dumped onto an accessible page so that the Teeming Millions could have a go at them? >>
“All”? No. But most of them get a stock response email that says, “If you’re interested in pursuing, please post this on the Message Board on our website.”
So, the answer is, that most of the questionners [b}are** already directed to such an accessible page, Sparteye. Right here.
Thanks for the suggestion, though.