Authenticity/Individuality - VOTE FOR GOD'S SAKE, VOTE !!!

[Tab]

MOD EDIT: Click here to see the Debate.

Hokay, It's all over bar the shouting, and by shouting I mean voting. A big thankyou to Fuse and Debaitor for competing in such excellent fashion.

How to Vote:

First do you have at least a hundred posts..? If so, read through the debate, decide for either me, Tab, or Fuse+Debaitor, and post that vote, along with a couple of reasons why you voted the way you did.

As is usual I will bump the hell out of the threat until either one side gets 10 votes, or until two weeks have passed.

ie. closing date: 9th December.

VOTE HERE
II
V

[objet petit a]

Hello everybody, I have read the debate and found it disappointing in the sense that i do not think that any of the debaters actually knew what this discussion was about. I found the debate stimulating for much the same reason. My personal opinion in this is that there are arguments to be made for both opinions and that, depending on the definition of 'authenticity' used, one might conclude to different positions. However, a definition was agreed on at the very start of the debate and although some debaters tried to change that later on I must consider that as sophistry. So, although I will personally always argue in favor of authenticity, I will not let my opinion get in the way of evaluating the way the positions ware argued.

I found the arguments Tab used much as I had anticipated beforehand, and not very creative, which supports his thought of non-authenticity in a strange sense. I found his examples very well found and properly argued. This surprised me because I do not think he knows exactly what he is talking about. Tab, if you want to I can point you to some literature. All you need to do is ask. The funniest thing is that Tab, of all participants, was the most authentic in the discussion because he has come to his opinions by his own research (into the research of others.. ), which dominated the entire discussion.
My biggest surprise was fuse. He grew into the argument, and although this user definitely had no idea what the discussion was going to be about, the user grew into the discussion. Fuse picked out the important points quite nicely and even reached some new conclusions I think. Well done.
My biggest disappointment in this debate was the user debaitor. I thought he had a promising start, which much surprised me. However, he appeared to change his argument almost at every turn and appeared unable to properly motivate his arguments. The horrible sophistries that followed lost both him and his partner my vote, which could have been in favor of their side if only fuse had argued it in (generally) the same way as was done now (which is impossible because every participant influences all others).

This means that Tab has my vote. To summarize: He dominated the discussion, forced one of his opponents to a new way of thinking about this and argued his position well.

Score:
Tab:1
VS
Deb + fuse:
0

[fuse]

Tab, Debaitor: Thanks guys - I enjoyed this contest.

[fuse]

objet petit a,

Thanks for your feedback.

[Tab]

And after this initial tidal wave of votes, as we can see, Fuse's and Debaitor's song and dance party has been rudely interupted by the Tab-mobile...



Thanks for the vote and the thoughts Objét.

[Tab]

Unashamed BUMP

[Tab]

Ich bin ein bump.

[Tab]

Je suis un boompe.

[tentative]

Hmmm, On the one hand, I can buy into the argument that it is impossible to know if or when authenticity is possible. Moreover I intuitively accept the concept of a continuum in which authenticity may or may not be present at any given time. I was a little put off by the argument that every action is authentic. That smacked of an attempt to lock up the conclusion in the definition... Fuse and Debaitor made some good points, but didn't follow up very well. On the other hand, Tab made his points as well - including submarining himself at the same time. Saying the the pervasive environment disallows the possibility of authenticity is the same locking up the conclusion in the definition. He did provide better backing for his arguments than did fuse And Debaitor.

My overall impression is that neither side really managed to prove and disprove, but I think it is a rather fuzzy concept to begin with. I'll give Tab the vote and a slight edge in the debate, but only because he's an old git and maybe has spent a little more time looking at the issue.

[Tab]

And a great big thank you to Tentative for the second vote of the competition.

The tally stands at 2-0 in favour of Tab.

I don't know about you, but this frenetic pace is beginning to get to me. I can only hope that the voting slows down, so I can catch my breath.

[Tab]

Ben bir bump'im.

[objet petit a]

Ich bin ein bump.

Say Tab, In German all nouns get a capitol letter. And on top of that the direct object makes the (male and neutral) article change into 'einen'. So it would be:

Ich bin einen Bump.

Oh yeah...
In French a word ending with -e is always feminine, so the article would be 'la' (and 'une')...bosse...

Je suis une bosse.

[Tab]

I concede that the French I learned about arrgh, ooh, 28 years ago may be somewhat lacking. And the German I co-opted from Kennedy's 'ich bin ein Berliner'...

Thanks for the pointers.

The Turkish however, is without parallel.

[objet petit a]

I never dared touch that one..

[Tab]

If you like, I could teach you the basics of Turkish in another thread..?

[objet petit a]

Although I would like to learn I should focus on more important matters...like asking Arzou to teach me Turkish for instance. She would be a much more desirable teacher.

[Tab]

Who Arzou..? Ah - Turkish girl's name. Gotcha.

Should be 'Arzu' though I think.

I can recommend Turkish girls. I married one afterall.

Oh and btw. Anyone else reading this - it's still 2-0 to me, Fuse and debaitor need your votes NOW!!!

[objet petit a]

Hmmm...Arzu, huh? Thanks, I might have messed up with that one.
I have to hand it to you though, the Turkish girls sure can be pretty...and temperamental I noticed.

[Tab]

They aren't a patch on their families. Seriously, check on Arzu's collection of big brothers before proceeding. Well, semi-seriously anyway.

[objet petit a]

Yeah, I heard her talking...

[Tab]

Knock knock.
Who's there..?

Bump.

For God's sake, somebody vote, please.

[fuse]

b U m P

[uglypeoplefucking]

i think it's a draw - basically, Tab deftly annihilates the notion of individuality and difference as being indicative of authenticity, but then Fuse disarms him with the simple point that one needn't be different to be authentic.

Debaitor, insofar as i've understood him, has boiled it down to the question of "if a painting can be authentic, then why can't an individual?" - i don't find this persuasive, as the standards of authenticity for a painting are (relatively) "objective" (Van Gough either painted it or not) whereas the standards of authenticity for an individual are as yet (despite numerous attempts throughout the forgoing exchange) unsatisfactorily defined and therefore remain, in the context of this debate, (relatively) "subjective".

so i don't think either side managed to eke out a clear win here - it was, as Objet points out, simultaneously frustrating and stimulating.

[Tab]

Bum-

Wha..? Holy shit, someone voted.

Thanks UPF, just for the sake of numbers, I'm gonna call your draw as 1-1.

That put's the score at:

F&D - 1 point

Tab - 3 points.

[objet petit a]

Hey wait, in soccer if a draw is 1 point for each team, then a win means two point for the winning team. That would make it 5-1!