man & nature # 208 ~ there's an odor in the air
Monday, August 17, 2009 at 10:59AM 
Dew Drop Inn ~ Saranac Lake, NY • click to embiggenOn my recent entry re: ignorance, Paul Maxim commented:
...I object to Mark's assertion that Paul is "ignorant". Clearly, he is not. His opinion, at this point, is simply different than Mark's.
I will not back down or stand corrected on the idea of Paul Lester's ignorance, not on the issue of healthcare in general, but rather on his "doubts" about / denial of re: the existence of healthcare expeditions - specifically the one held annually in Wise, Virginia.
As for Paul M's assertation that "name calling" might get one applause from the choir but will get one "precious few converts" and that "[I]t just hardens the opposition", well ... IMO and experience, the "opposition", especially the one in the healthcare debate, is simply not interested at all in being "converted", informed, knowledgeable, or learned. The "opposition" is completely case-hardened and organized around the principles of disinformation, disruption, and disassociation from the truth and reality of the issue at hand.
Those individuals and organizations who have rallied under the banner of the 3 "D"s are, in fact, quite worthy of the label of "ignorant", if for no other reason than that of their actions (irrespective of their so-called "opinions").
So, why not call a spade, a spade? Surely not in the cause of protecting the idea of "bi-partisanship".
And as for "opinions" based upon ignorance, malfeasance, and other nefarious intent, IMO, those "opinions" are not just "simply different" from those opinions based on fact, observation, and informed research and knowledge.
Sure, opinions are like assholes - everybody has one and, one might postulate, even "entitled" to one. However, that doesn't make all opinions valid or of equal weight or consideration in an informed discussion / debate.
Returning the the notion of "assholes", everybody does, indeed, have one. However, some of them stink a whole lot more than others.
Reader Comments (4)
All folks have assholes - and quite a few are assholes.
I don't understand why the issue of health coverage for all citizens is even up for debate. It should be a given. If the country can afford to prosecute armed aggression across the planet, it should be able to care for its own folks at home. (Comes cheaper, too.)
Michael Moore had it right when he took his little armada to Guantanamo - that's the only place on US territory where everyone has full medical coverage. As I remember, Moore and his people were denied access to medical aid in Guantanamo and continued on to Havana where they were examined, given free treatment, and inexpensive medication. We could learn a few things from the Cubans.
With all due respect, Mark, you're acting just like the people that you're attacking here.
And even if it's unintentional, the use of a racial slur is beneath you.
Mark,
You seem to be fond of citing definitions in your arguments, when it furthers your argument anyway. Here's a definition of hearsay from Merriam-Webster: "evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath". A's statement, even under oath, that event X happened because B said he saw X happen meets this definition of hearsay, regardless of the truth of B's statement. The issue is not truth, but reliability. Being unsure of the reliability of a statement is not the same as caller the speaker a liar. A subtle distinction surely, but in the post that got you so riled up Paul Lester admitted "Honestly, I do not know what the truth is and am not trying to discover that truth in this post."
You assert that "Paul Lester also stated that, in fact, maybe there isn't a need for such events because..." Actually Mr. Lester never expressed an opinion on whether or not there is a need for large free health care events. Rather he stated he was not trying to discover the truth of that particular matter. So why take the other side of an argument he's not making? Are you addicted to strawmen? Just asking.
Merriam-Webster again, this time on ad hominem: "marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made". Mark doesn't rely solely on attacking his opponent's character--he'll readily use facts to rebut positions he assigns to an opponent--but he sure isn't afraid of approaching that line, and he doesn't so much answer as belittle Mr. Lester's actual contentions. On the 14th we got about one allegation of ignorance per two paragraphs of diatribe. And not just Mark's views of Mr. Lester's lack of knowledge, learning and information, but a couple of assertions that he's chosen a mental state that Mark clearly sees as worthy of scorn, heaps of it. Assigning intentionality is more about character than contention, no? Oh and Mr. Lester is maybe just "too damn lazy". But I'm probably being too harsh. After all there at the end Mark qualifies the last of his allegations of ignorance with "apparent". And just before that he declines to speculate about Mr. Lester's real agenda--while inviting us to do so--but only after making it clear he doubts his sincerity. There's a whole lot more here about Mr. Lester's motivations and state of mind than about the nature of objective reality.
Or perhaps not too harsh. Paul Maxim comes to Paul Lester's defense, reasonably objecting to name-calling (isn't this what those angry mobs are doing?) and Mark doubles down. He goes off on the opposition and their "disinformation, disruption, and disassociation from the truth and reality", decrying opinions "based on ignorance, malfeasance, and other nefarious intent." Conflating Mr. Lester with angry mobs of health care opponents is intellectually dishonest. It is far from clear from his comments that Mr. Lester is an opponent of reform, much less any basis for concluding he would stoop to the tactics or share the malevolence that Mark rightly decries.
This ugly interlude on a blog supposedly devoted to an advanced and subtle form of landscape photography began with a response to Paul Lester's reference to propaganda: "chiefly derogatory information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view". Spade! Asshole! It took you a couple of posts Mark, but I think you've managed to prove the point. You claim to vigorously encourage lively discussions. Perhaps a little less vigor is called for, at least if you are truly interested in a dialogue about non-prettified landscape photography.
I've found the views about photography and art expressed here over the last six months quite stimulating. I've certainly benefitted from reading this blog and have looked forward to contributing to the discussion once I get my website up. Your proposed portfolio site had been an inspiration, an antidote to procrastination. I had been reading posts as they showed up in my reader and clicking through to many of the comment threads. But I haven't visited for almost three weeks. I returned tonight and have to say I can go without this sort of self-indulgent ranting for quite a few more weeks. Of course you might garner all sorts of new readers if you take on climate change deniers and conspicuous consumers.
I visit here because I'm a landscape photographer more interested aesthetics than cameras. I've tolerated your intolerance of photographers who go with the herd because I find the ideas relevant to the stated purposes of this blog to be valuable. But I find all forms of intolerance to be boring when they aren't offensive. HDRers are fair game, but Mr. Lester's blog reveals him to be a thoughtful and sensitive photographer. Perhaps because of, not just in spite of, his views about objective reality. Don't hold your tongue to further bi-partisanship. Do so in service of what you say in the sidebar under About this Website. If you mean it.
This is where I get off the Landscapist train. Paul Lester is my friend. I don’t think he needs defending. But I also fortunately get to choose where I focus my attention and I just will not subject myself anymore to the pointless negativity that I all too often find here. Its one thing when you attack an idea or a nameless group of people like camera club members. I have put up with that in the name of taking the bad with the good. No one is perfect and I just figured you were working through your own personal demons (we all have them) as you railed against the windmills / strawmen of pretty picture takers, etc. (but far too often IMO I might add considering the basic sentiment in those rants is expressed day in and day out on the sidebar of your blog).
Its entirely different when it becomes personal. And different even still when it becomes name calling and slurring against someone for whom I have an enormous amount of respect and who did nothing to you besides express an opinion on your blog. Your characterizations of Paul Lester couldn’t be anymore disconnected from reality if you tried. If you knew Paul I can’t even begin to imagine you would speak to his face the way you have "spoken to him" here on your blog.
To say the least its easy to drop an internet flame bomb (“ignorant”, “stinking asshole”, and on and on) from a far, far distance. Its sad to me to see you say you “won’t back down”.... back down from what?... name calling from hundreds of miles away.... to serve what purpose?
These personal attacks on Paul are especially disturbing to me in light of your very recent blog post (“Stand Up and be Counted”) which appears to be a credo of sorts by which you live......
To quote.... “I live a life with two eyes open.... By that I simply mean that I try to live with my eyes, my mind, and my emotions attuned to the world (both around me and at large) with the knowledge that whatever I do, it matters or, in other words, with the knowledge that actions, both large and small, have consequences..... FYI, this way of living does not represent a change for me, a fact that I would attribute to my Catholic upbringing / education - an education that stressed (on the secular front) personal responsibility, compassion and understanding of/for others, charity, good works, and respect. Now that is not to say that I am a perfect practitioner of those principles but I am acutely aware of them in my everyday life.”
?
I love your photography Mark. I have been inspired by your art and for that I am very grateful. And I love the idea that you encourage people to think about different ways of seeing as an artist and human being. I also have an enormous respect for the amount of time and hard work you put into the blog. I know first hand what a huge commitment a blog like this represents and I am very grateful to you for all you have been so generous to share.
But I will not be around, or be a part of in anyway for any reason what amounts to name calling, slurring, and a personal attack against a friend and another member of the community of photographers who did nothing except voice an opinion on your blog.
I sincerely wish you the best.....Craig