Harry Potter

[Zee.]

Limajean claims the argument is still boring, but instead of leaving, she continues to post about it. She doesn’t understand the arguments people are making. That’s because she doesn’t understand “flow” logic obviously!
Mathor informs us he is going to commit suicide. Paul bows out. And I post this and pray the moderators don’t ban me!

I understand everything perfectly, please don't insult my intelligence by making a comment like that. I'm just saying that this argument is ridiculous. I believe at the core of those who argue against Harry Potter, is the belief that kids don't really like reading it or are somehow.. restricted by reading it, or "dulled" by reading it.

I mean, what really is the POINT of this discussion? What are those who are against Harry Potter trying to prove?

One person will argue that it is crafted for the mind of a child, and if they enjoy it, who cares - in response someone will argue that the books are terrible and that kids should be reading other higher forms of literature. Oh, a few people have thrown in the idea that kids won't go on to reading other books because of reading Harry Potter. .. because, you know, they're mind readers..
But.. hang on,

didn't person A, argue that the books are crafted for children? and if they enjoy the books, how are they bad for them? and where is the proof that they aren't turning them on to other books? Harry Potter did that for me. I'm evidence against your argument.


If you take out all the statistics and all the fluff of this discussion, it comes down to points made by people that are some how, taking it upon themselves, to look down on a series of books made for CHILDREN, because in their minds, all children should be off reading tales of Alice falling down the rabbit hole.


They like the books, and there is nothing you can do about it.
So... lets move on shall we?


Oh and p.s
you missed out a whole lot of my posts earlier on in the thread, meaning you clearly haven't read the whole thing, meaning your summary is a tad wrong.

[Zee.]

I just don't see the point in nitpicking so strenuously.

And I don't see the point in saying that children should not be reading something they enjoy, on the grounds that they're not learning enough from it. Aside from the fact that they may be getting a good deal more from it than you realise, it is still enjoyable, and that is a good thing.

^ Exactly.

And what really irks me is that people have the nerve to assume it doesn't do something for children, or help them in some way.

[Drkshadow03]

Nicely done, I notice that you still see and use only what is suited for you argument. I love how I am guilty from bringing the "It is for kids" for asking about kids when the very first line of this thread already asks this and Mathor is, the third post already saying that it is for kids... Of course, It was before your essay, but sorry, it is not that important, not a gospel for us to reset the calendar.

p.s you missed out a whole lot of my posts earlier on in the thread, meaning you clearly haven't read the whole thing, meaning your summary is a tad wrong.

I love how people don’t read, and then brag about the fact that they didn’t read carefully. I have read the whole thread, Limajean. If you read the summary I wrote up I specifically said:

“Let’s review the entire thread FROM the essay at post # 200:” (emphasis added).

As for you JCamillo, I didn’t address the first line of this thread because I was only reading from post # 200 onward as I clearly stated. The fact that you brought up earlier posts is irrelevant as you clearly turned the conversation back to the topic when nobody was really talking about that topic anymore.

I understand everything perfectly, please don't insult my intelligence by making a comment like that.

This is what you wrote:

You wrote at post # 287: “I don't understand what half of you are trying to prove? are you trying to somehow, make the point that kids don't REALLY like Harry Potter? I just don't get the point you're trying to make?”

I admit the way I worded my summary in this section is ambiguous. I meant it to be read as you didn’t understand the point of people’s arguments, not that you didn’t understand the arguments themselves, not pointing it out. Poorly worded on my part.

So I apologize, and am sorry. I didn’t mean to insult your intelligence.

. . . listing fallacies is really amateurish, a bad writing habit. It does not help you to deal with irony. . . . a text grows stronger when you do not fail pray to listing debating champion tourney rules. It is for kids.

You mean the rules of logic that Aristotle helped invent, that are taught as college courses, and that scholars spend whole careers writing about is the equivalent of reading silly children's literature like Harry Potter, and those scholars are really just wasting their time!

See, because I'm pretty sure the rules of a logical ALWAYS apply in an argument. I think you're confused. Consistently committing fallacious reasoning is the bad writing habit! The fact that you get called out for committing a lot of fallacies speaks mostly to the quality of your arguments.

It does not help you to deal with irony. Hannah Barbara and shakespeare is irony. Not an argument, but saying something obviously oustrageous to apply the theory presented (In this case, that if the kids enjoy it is good and helping in the formation of readers)... It is obviously wrong. It is intended to be wrong.

Fine, I'm willing to take your own interpretation of your own words and what you meant. However, the problem with your irony is the way your post reads:

"So Rambo IV does. Wait, why you can not compare Harry Potter III with Rambo IV, it is sacred? I am calling everyone idiots, after all it is written, isnt? If you can not understand that using a character that is either smart, resourceful and curious to be nothing at all just to avoid plot detours is a flaw of narrative, not of the character. Hehe, I am not even going to move about the quality of the movie. Kids also watch Hannah Barbera Cartoons, they should replace Shakespeare in our schools..."

Nobody was making the argument at that point in the conversation and at least for forty+ posts before it that we should read HP simply because kids enjoy it (and only for that reason) and it makes kids better readers (oh sure, arguments along those lines were made much much earlier in the thread before it was resurrected, but unless you make specific reference to those much much earlier posts nobody is going to know what heck you’re talking about). In context, Mathor was talking about your comparison to Rambo and whether the story itself makes logical sense with the Hermione scene. You were directly comparing HP to Rambo as a comparison of quality. Hell, the line you wrote right before your irony talks about narrative flaws. So the logical interpretation of your ironic statement would be as a slippery slope, ala, “if the opponent wants kids reading HP and thinks it's good, we might as well replace Shakespeare with Hannah Barbera Cartoons because HP is the intellectual equivalent of watching Hannah Barbera Cartoons” Which is also a bit of a Strawman too now that I think of it, even if meant ironically, since no one is actually saying we should replace Shakespeare with Hannah Barbera (even if the statement is meant ironically).

If you had made some sort of direct reference to somebody arguing, “Harry Potter is just children’s literature. It is good for helping kids read.” And then made your ironical comments, then yes, it might not have been fallacious. But I don’t think anyone with the least bit of critical thinking skills would interpret your words in its context that way. Simple way to figure this out of course. Did anyone who is NOT JCamillo read post # 229 the way he apparently meant it? Or did you mostly everyone read it the way I interpreted his words?

[JCamilo]

As you see, the post that I answered mentions about kids enjoying it. It is Paul, not Mathor. Obviously, you missed it.
http://174.133.97.227/forums/showpos...&postcount=226
You know, the problem is not the rules of logic that Aristotles "invented", the problem is how it is applied. In the end, they are just a limited form of textual interpretation, rather limited if used for nitpicks and you see nothing else.

You were directly comparing HP to Rambo as a comparison of quality.

I was not comparing in terms of quality. You quoted me saying otherwise. I pointed Rambo IV because even Rambo IV have logical flow but we analyse it there will be those nitpicking momments of logic flaw. We can do it in romance toos (some famous) because sequence of actions is the imperative of the plot.
I could do it wiht Red Hiding Hood (Why the wolf needs to get a detour? Wolves are already faster than a little girl. Why he, since he is hungry, does not eat the girl and go later after the old crone? Why would an old crone lives apart from the rest of the health addults in a lonely house in the middle of a wood with wolves? Why is a little girl and not an addult who goes to take the food to her) but the story goes (with perfection, it is one of most simple and perfect plots of all time) in a way we believe and not ask about any other option. A little about suspension of disbelief, or how it should be applied. Narratives are a bit like this, dictadorships of providence. Those little flaws can be found for example in Gone with the Wind... Why the hell Scarlet knee down? Gable just closed the door, he is a few steps from there. But after Frankly Darling, I give a damn, that was the option that would suit the closing. Etc. It not about quality (since building a plot is basic) at all. You even mention the use of Rambo IV in your resume, I have no idea why you bring the quality problem again. (See, Rambo IV is a logical flaw. Nobody was arguing Rambo is good at all, it was flawed analogy, but hey, since the irony and absurd was the aim, it works as you got it first. As you can see, Paul did not and used sarcasm to answer me how much Rambo IV is one of his favorites. Much better without debate tourney 101 techniques).

[Zee.]

you all need to free your mind. it must suck having it chained up all the time.

[Emil Miller]

At the risk of starting the whole nonsensical discussion off again, it is now four days since anyone has mentioned Harry Potter.

[Drkshadow03]

At the risk of starting the whole nonsensical discussion off again, it is now four days since anyone has mentioned Harry Potter.

Harry Potter!

[mal4mac]

Harry Potter!

Harold Bloom!

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

Please refrain from personalising your arguments.

Off-topic posts or post containing inflammatory/deregatory remarks will be removed without further notice and such posters will receive infraction points.

[JCamilo]

Harry Potter!

Only works if you do it before a mirror and you must do it 5 times

[prendrelemick]

Shall we do Lord of the Rings Now?

[Emil Miller]

Shall we do Lord of the Rings Now?

Why not 'Noddy in Toytown'?

[Scheherazade]

Only works if you do it before a mirror and you must do it 5 times

Don't forget to jump on your right foot meanwhile either!

[Drkshadow03]

Don't forget to jump on your right foot meanwhile either!

Huh? I don't get it. JCamillo's reference was to Candyman. You're comments reminded me more of this.

[Scheherazade]

Huh? I don't get it. JCamillo's reference was to Candyman. You're comments reminded me more of this.

Not really.

Mine does not involve facial make overs (though having a KitKat Dark before standing in front of the mirror might help speed up the process).