Reader 5: But here’s a non-sequitur I’d like to talk about!

Reader 6: Good point, 5!

Reader 7: lol, you guyz.

Reader 8: Aha, but I think you are all forgetting to consider proposition N.

Reader 8: Oops, sorry, wrong thread!

Reader 5: (Quote)Oops, sorry, wrong thread! (/Quote)

Is it? Is it really?

Reader 8: Sometimes I don’t know anymore…

Reader 7: Lol, you guyz!

Reader 9: If we can just get back to the topic…

Reader 6: What was that again?

Reader 10: Want longer lasting s*? Click here to…

etc, etc, ad infinitum

the logical fallacy at work in most comments

Steven Poole at Unspeak.net [which is worth putting on your favourites] has a very pithy post about the frustration of blog commenting :

Blogger: As proposition p about Bs sentence s is false.

Reader 1: Oh my god, I cant believe you are defending everything B ever wrote!

Reader 2: But my completely different proposition q is true, so even if p is false, A is still right to say it!

Reader 3: Yes! Even though p is wrong, A is, er, morally right, because of yet another different proposition r !

Reader 4: Why wont you also condemn the notorious E? Oh my god, you must be a crypto-e-ist!

Blogger: Sigh.

And so it goes. Sigh.

Not just yet.

It’s a sign that one of us forgot to take their meds in the morning.

And with that, I debut the newest form of abuse, the auto ad hominem.

I think the logical fallacy at work in most comments so far is the fallacy of the false dichotomy. It’s not necessarily pornographic OR art. It could be both, by degrees. For an analogy see the furious light and noise around graffiti. Some of it is art, but most of it also still property crime. It can be both.

In such situations, I’m very sorry, but the legal considerations win out over the general principle that art should not be censored. In this case the legal consideration that children cannot give consent to be photographed naked for something that might be considered pornographic. Is it art? A lot of people think so. Is it pornographic? So sayeth the law, apparently. It’s turned out to be both, so tough titties for Henson.

OMG I’m glad I wasn’t brave enough to use my real name and give you my real email address, Jacques!

I’d have preferred an actual argument in rebuttal rather than a cheap ad hominem. If someone makes an error in logic, or intentionally misrepresents a situation in order to promote their existing prejudice, and someone else points it out, is that just, what, too artsy-fartsy intellectual and therefore un-Australian?

It may seem a subtle distinction, perhaps too subtle for some, but it is a real and very important distinction nevertheless.

Have you considered a career in medieval theology? I’d be fascinated to hear your views on how many obscurantist bullshit arstistes can dance on the head of a pin.

I’d like to claim credit but Uncle Pervy is actually a character from a Cheech and Chong album from the 70s (showing my age and dubious past again).

Perhaps he should have a role on Troppos love gods page

Yep, sell it? Set it up and sell it?

Has Troppo played with the possibility of nuance on its pages lately, so to make nuance a commodity? And all the rest of it? “left’ “right” “centralist” “nuance” “balanced” “tribal” That is, let’s use those terms, embrace them because of someone else, throw it around with vim, and thereby we stand woo hoo! Look here! (Hello ads).

A feast of content of same by which to bounce – but has Troppo become >Tabloid?

But then Im a white male benificiary of the patriarchy, so I would say that, wouldnt I.

*Waits for other shoe to drop*

*Crickets*

“David Jones used images of clothed under-18 models to promote their apparel offering” vs “Bill Henson used images of unclothed under-18 models, some of them in situations that are quite disturbing, to promote himself as an artist and photographer”. The error of his argument is easily missed as it bypasses the cerebral cortex and flashes past to the prurient pleasure centres of Andrew’s acolytes. It’s a simplistic comparison and perhaps you would forgive a Year 9 student for making it. The error is this: Bill Henson was not “promoting” himself as an artist with this exhibition. The photographs are not a promotion of his art; they are the art. He doesn’t use his models to promote his photography. They are the subjects of his photography. It may seem a subtle distinction, perhaps too subtle for some, but it is a real and very important distinction nevertheless.

Youre either with im or youre agin im on this issue, Im afraid.

Somehow I find Voltaire the more convincing on that argument. So no, not even a little bit do I have to be with him or against him. His work may not be pornographic, but if he ever asked my daughter to pose for something like that I’d put him on his arse and then on his way.

You’re either with ‘im or you’re a’gin ‘im on this issue, I’m afraid. You’re either a Hetty Johnson acolyte, or you’re a free thinking, non-aligned, unbiased human being. Art critic or not art critic. Ya can’t have a two bob bet each way, I’m sorry to say. Disturbing, challenging and confronting art it may well be, but pornographic and paedophilic, it is most certainly not.

Time for this nation to decide on issues such as this. Are we to allow freedom of expression in all of its forms, or are we not?

For the life of me, I can’t see how people identifying as feminsits could ever be considered allies of a libertarian. I’m not an expert and there may be a school of liberal feminism advocating people just be left alone to achieve what they want from life, but I suspect they don’t label themselves Feminists to begin with. But then I’m a white male benificiary of the patriarchy, so I would say that, wouldn’t I.

Google my name and you mostly get hits relating to a big computer game executive who has nothing to do with me!

Which is not the case.

I see the distinction youre seeking to make between teenage awkward sexual self-awareness and advertising sexual availability. But I suspect that it would be largely lost on any pedophile viewing either the DJs ads or Hensons work.

That might be a relevant critique if my criticisms of the advertising images had mentioned the putative appeal to paedophiles as a major point of emphasis. Commentors may have, I did not. I’m far more concerned with the cultural messages contained in the constant bombardment of sexualised images of fully clothed young girls.

Sorry about that.