07 Oct 05
1 edit
Attention ivanhoe and LH,
Please address the factual claims regarding the quality of heaven as
compared with that of the Vatican in this article from America's finest
news source.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30972
Please don't dismiss the article as unworthy of serious analysis.
And if you have any time left over, please comment on this underreported church policy:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31068
Thanks,
Dr. S
08 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesPlease don't dismiss the article as unworthy of serious analysis.
Attention ivanhoe and LH,
Please address the factual claims regarding the quality of heaven as
compared with that of the Vatican in this article from America's finest
news source.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30972
Please don't dismiss the article as unworthy of serious analysis.
And if you have any time left over, please comm ...[text shortened]... his underreported church policy:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31068
Thanks,
Dr. S
In this case, we can - because it's a parody. It doesn't attempt to make a serious argument.
Now I'm pretty sure you'll dig up some other extreme propaganda material instead.
08 Oct 05
5 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerHow can you say this without providing a full analysis of the points it raises? To say that parody doesn't attempt to make a serious argument shows a misunderstanding of the form. It is possible for parody to provide more gems of truth than propaganda.
[b]Please don't dismiss the article as unworthy of serious analysis.
In this case, we can - because it's a parody. It doesn't attempt to make a serious argument.[/b]
Your identifying something as parody and then dismissing it is quite similar to me identifying something as propaganda and then dismissing it. Both probably contain grains of truth, both are slightly amusing (although I have to say ivanhoe's made me laugh out loud while the Onion's didn't), and both authors took a small bit of reality, distorted it, and mixed in a large bit of fantasy, to portray an image which they deem to be more important than a factual consideration of the matters at hand.
08 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI wish Feivel were still around so he could comment on www.theonion.com/content/node/32550
Attention ivanhoe and LH,
Please address the factual claims regarding the quality of heaven as
compared with that of the Vatican in this article from America's finest
news source.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30972
Please don't dismiss the article as unworthy of serious analysis.
And if you have any time left over, please comm ...[text shortened]... his underreported church policy:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31068
Thanks,
Dr. S
09 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHow can you say this without providing a full analysis of the points it raises? To say that parody doesn't attempt to make a serious argument shows a misunderstanding of the form. It is possible for parody to provide more gems of truth than propaganda.
How can you say this without providing a full analysis of the points it raises? To say that parody doesn't attempt to make a serious argument shows a misunderstanding of the form. It is possible for parody to provide more gems of truth than propaganda.
Your identifying something as parody and then dismissing it is quite similar to me identi ...[text shortened]... image which they deem to be more important than a factual consideration of the matters at hand.
The point of a parody is to present something that is either exaggerated or false and for the audience to recognise that it is exaggerated or false. Parody, unlike propaganda, fails if the audience treats its assertions as factual.
Further, while a parody is an artistic commentary, it is not an argument in itself; i.e. it does not present premises that are meant to be true and derive conclusions from them.
Yes, a parody can provide gems of truth, but the truth is realised in transcending the parody itself to recognising the truth that the parody is a parody of.
Your identifying something as parody and then dismissing it is quite similar to me identifying something as propaganda and then dismissing it.
No - because a parody is never intended to be treated as a prima facie factual argument; whereas propaganda is.
Both probably contain grains of truth, both are slightly amusing (although I have to say ivanhoe's made me laugh out loud while the Onion's didn't), and both authors took a small bit of reality, distorted it, and mixed in a large bit of fantasy, to portray an image which they deem to be more important than a factual consideration of the matters at hand.
Once again, no. With parody, the author does not intend the image to be treated as factual, while with propaganda the author does believe the image corresponds to fact. This is why propaganda must be analyzed to see if the image does, indeed, correspond to fact, whereas parody does not.