JK Rowling denied top US honour

[GamerPhate]

crowd "She IS a witch! Burn the witches! Look, look! She has got a wart!!!"

JK Rowling "That's not a wart, you put that there!"

crowd "well.. her nose is kind of pointy...and she does weigh the same as a duck...





(and side note ... isn't this an award for AMERICAN citizens?)

 

[McHanhan]

Holy mother of edits

Are you of sound mind and body?. Don't make such a huge wall of text, I lost the will to live halfway through. I think there is too much analysis been done here. Read the book that is in question here and then come back with a logical argument, if you must pursue this further (I actually share the OPs view here). Speculation is just going to necro this thread from the archives and it'll be very annying because no one here will understand the depths you have gone to wring out an argument and we won't be the wiser.

While it is great you are not taking anything in at face value, I think you may have overdone it here a tad bit.

Also this ->

Spoiler: this is insane

*snip*

It's not a contradiction. Saying something is plausible is different to saying something actually happened. One is a logical presumption the other is unequivocal fact. I am saying it is seemingly possible for events mentioned in the source to have occurred (i.e- it's not out of character for the Bush administration) but I am hoping in reality that it hasn't. They are two things that are not in contradiction, it's me saying "I don't want it to be true" but "it may very well be true". I hope I have cleared that up for you.

Semantics. "It is not out of character for the Bush administration" is a vague, subjective statement based on your own biases. The fact that you hold these beliefs doesn't make them inherently logical. I will admit that the assumption that these events are possible is a logical one. The assumption that they are plausible, however, is not.

-I like how you threw "semantics" into this and clearly convoluted everything that was in here. You have clearly chosen to define what's "vague", "subjective" and "plausible" by your own criteria, which is fine, but then you accuse someone else of doing the same thing you did. Only you went one better by saying "The fact that you hold these beliefs doesn't make them inherently logical". So, then surely by that logic what you are believing is also illogical. Is it just me or is that statement just bonkers

"As for the statement that they did not "pull a name out of a hat", really? You don't say? I said there was no publicly available short list. I had never heard her name associated with this award until this story, so the only person who states she was on it is a controversy miner}

I admit I don't know how this award handing procedure runs but I don't think there will be a publicly available short list because it wouldn't be open to the public. Then again if you insist to remain on this point, (which I believe to be "JK could possibly never have even been on the list"), I put it to you to ponder why hasn't someone who was actually involved with the awards respond to these statement by saying, "hey wait a minute, JK Rowling was never even considered for this award..you are talking crap!" or something along those lines.

In case you haven't noticed, unless there are criminal charges involved, most of the Bush Administration has been pretty silent lately. Maybe they don't feel like addressing every crazy person who invokes their name. Besides, there are livelihoods at stake here. Trash novelists have to make a living, too, right?

- So you are saying that, um?. Wait what are you saying?. There are livelyhoods at stake?. yes!. That hasn't stopped the administration before. They have been more than willing to take people down a few pegs in the past, why is this guy so special?. They are not responding to the accusations?. Some might call that guilt.

"trash novelists have to make a living, too, right?" Seriously, what does that mean in context to what you wrote?. Do you even know?.

If you are doubting that JK was even on the list, because this was reported by "a controversy miner" then surely someone (either the people responsible for the awards or JK herself) would have responded with a correction telling us otherwise. The mere fact that no one has said, "hang on..that name was never even selected for the honour" tells me that at least some parts of the source has some weight behind it.

Ah, the old "confirmation by silence" argument. I suppose you believe that the 9/11 truthers, UFO enthusiasts, staged moon landing advocates, ghost hunters, JFK assassination conspiracy theorists, birthers, and bigfoot chasers have been confirmed, as well.

"Confirmation by silence" by definition means that one party does not respond to a given topic; thereby silently giving conformation to the other party. I don't know where you have been but "the 9/11 truthers, UFO enthusiasts, staged moon landing advocates, ghost hunters, JFK assassination conspiracy theorists, birthers, and bigfoot chasers" all have heated debates and discussions about their respective authenticity. It's actually well publicized over the media, so it's not really examples of "confirmation by silence" since you know, no one is really been silent about it. So whatever point you were making is horribly moot.

As for you third point:

Once again I never said that the Latimer's story is true, I said it's possible that it's true.

Actually, you said it's plausible, but whatever

-Plausible = Seemingly or apparently valid = apparently reasonable = possibly true = logically possible.

Until evidence comes either way (proof that he is lying/not lying) facts remain as "plausible" rather than "untrue".

No, they don't. He needs to prove his claim. He brought it up. Until then, plausibility is a function of evidence and personal opinion.

-Personal opinion you say?. Interesting!.

Let's push aside the possibility that the author might in fact have given evidence in his book, you scuttle past this and go on to say that "personal opinion" is a factor in plausibility.

So tell me then Sherlock, when someone writes a book about his time in the White House, especially with a book titled as: Speech-less: Tales of a White House Survivor AND ESPECIALLY since a synopses of the book can be easily found, deduce to me if the book will contain:

a) Japanese Calligraphy

b) A Garfield Comic Strip

c) His personal opinions

d) An essay about the curtains in the oval office

Why, you ask?. Mostly because no one from the accused side has brought up anything to counter that specific point. Sure there is the usual mud-slinging, questioning of character and character defamation been thrown about but has anyone refuted the "witchcraft" point?. No!. No one has denied the claim about JK nor have they proved Latimer wrong about the awards. So very simply, until someone can provide evidence to prove or disprove the source then it stands as it is now; a very plausible event.

I've already addressed why the accused might not step forward to address this. You don't humor the man with tinfoil on his head. But let's look at the converse to your argument. If there was ANY veracity to his claim, don't you think that someone in the media would've picked up on it other than to say, "This guy says it in his book." Look, Jeneane Garofolo was on Bill Maher this weekend. Those two made no mention of it. Don't you think that, as much as those two love ripping on Bush, if there was anything at all to this, one of them would've at least mentioned it? No one's running with this story because there's nowhere to go. This guy's word is all there is.

-I don't know who these people you mentioned are but is a news story only proven credible when these two people mention it on their shows?. Have you considered that maybe they haven't heard the story or care about it very much to air it on. I mean digging into a former administration is hardly topical right?.

You say that until someone presents evidence that this is untrue, it should not be discounted. Why?

Seriously?. Are you suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with wanting evidence before disproving a point that is in doubt?. Is that what you are trying to say?. Or are you cleverly trying to say that we should ignore evidence even if it is proven to be true?.

I let you think about that for a while..

Okay, I thought about it, and I came to some interesting conclusions. I realized that your version of thinking is the exact opposite of what I and the rest of the world call "logic". See, most of us expect someone who makes a sensational claim to offer some proof of it before we accept it whole cloth. You, on the other hand, immediately take their statements at face value, and turn to the subject of their statement, asking for a refute of the claim. I'm sure you really sincerely believe that cold fusion was invented in the 90's, if this is how you view the world.

-Easy there!. Don't categorise the rest of us with your own definitions of logic.

See in the real world people are free to make claims and accusations, it is the 1st amendment I believe in the US constitution. Therefore people tend to abuse this right and more often than not you get tons of weird and sensational claims making its way through history. The funny thing is that those making the claims are free to do so without any evidence.

For instance I could make a post right now in the escapist telling people that I am an alien from Mars. Most of you won't believe me without evidence, some of you quite alarmingly might believe me. However, regardless if I have evidence or not my voice has been heard (or seen in this case) by a substantial number of people and therefore it will get passed along as either credible proof of ET or another joker on the internet. It doesn't change the fact that people will still come to read my post and draw their own interpretations. The only way to silence me is to prove that I am a fraud, meaning that someone up to the task has to do that.

This is why the courts have the whole "innocent until prove guilty" clause. Similarly, the Bush administration can claim innocence until evidence comes along to say otherwise AND so can the author of the book claim validity of his work until proven otherwise. He cannot be ignored like you are trying to do merely by words. If he is to be proven wrong like you say he is, then the Republicans must prove evidence to show that. Likewise for the world to take this author seriously he must prove evidence to back his claims.

The thing I notice that you are failing to grasp here is that this man, the author, he did the accusing and the accusers in general, have the luxury of making claims without evidence. That is a fact of life sadly. Having evidence to back your accusations is the difference between a good accuser and someone who hasn't thought things through properly BUT it doesn't change the fact that anyone can make an accusation regardless of having proof. Unless it's a court trial anyone can start off with a yarn having next to no evidence. Why anyone would chose to do so is beyond me but personally, having faced a landlord that tried to claim my apartment security deposit over scratches that he claimed were made by me is an example of someone making use of the "no-evidence" accusations maneuver.

See, in that scenarios I was been accused of something that I did not do. Did he have evidence to prove what he was claiming? No!. I had to show him the apartment walkthrough sheet and threaten him with taking the issue to the small claims courts before he dropped it. I had to show the evidence here, me, the accused. This scenario applies to the OP.

The world out there doesn't operate by your textbook definition of logic, so don't bring the rest of us into your Utopian world.

A man makes an absolutely outrageous accusation without a shred of evidence and with millions of dollars worth of motive to lie. According to you, though, the burden of proof lies with the accused. That's just about the most ridiculous, least logical thing I've ever heard.

Yes, he has the motive, means and opportunity to lie and be rewarded handsomely for it but is that what he really did?. The only way to find out is with evidence. I haven't read his book and chances are that you haven't either. Who's to say he hasn't provided evidence for his claims in the book?. Who's to say the book itself isn't evidence?.

I am. A book can contain evidence, but on its own cannot be evidence. It can cite documents and sources, but the book itself is, by definition, hearsay.

-So you alone have decided that this book doesn't contain any evidence or that it's completely hearsay without reading page one of the book?. I don't know if I find that more appalling or the next point about your argument that I am going to bring up


I laughed particularly hard when you said "A book can contain evidence, but on its own cannot be evidence." and "It can cite documents and sources, but the book itself is, by definition, hearsay".

-Have you heard of "lab reports", "project reports", "quarterly evaluations" or "CVs" to name a few?. These are documents or sometimes even books, that contain detailed evidence about, say, an experiment, a project, an evaluation, or even character references and they are almost always used by your superiors as evidence for your evaluation. So already your "a book on it's own cannot be evidence" argument has failed because each of these are books that are used as evidence on a day to day basis. Just ask any university student or prospective job-seeker.

-Then you went and said "It can cite documents and sources, but the book itself is, by definition, hearsay".

a) Why?. If it provides tangible evidence (i.e- documents and sources) why is it hearsay?.

b) How is "the book itself" by definition hearsay? What definition have you used here?. The definition dictionary according to you?

c) How can you make such a claim without analyzing the evidence (if there is any)?. Are you the sort that judges a man on the surface and not by what by the evidence dictates?.

Lets take a step back and analyse what you have just said but with a little perspective.

The author in the OP has made a sensational claim in his book. A book that you yourself have not read and have no idea if it contains evidence or not. So far though, it's all good, no harm no foul. However, you decide to upset the whole applecart by bringing in assumptions and presumptions. When you say "It can cite documents and sources, but the book itself is, by definition, hearsay" it is like you saying:

"The book can present the readers with evidence but by definition it is all hearsay"

The only logical answer for this mangled sentence of yours is, that you "think" it's hearsay because it's been written by, what is in your mind, a dubious source. You personally have a biased view of the author so you think that any evidence (if any) in his book will be tampered with or illogical.

If you came to this conclusion from an unbiased viewpoint then there is nothing wrong with this but your previous posts and wording such as "controversy miner" leads me to suggest that you are not really having an objective view here.

Now to put into scale how catastrophically wrong your argument is, I want you to consider all those books written by ancient historians, scientists, philosophers. People who during their time, brought about "sensational claims" to a less than accepting world. Like those that said the world was round, or the earth goes around the sun. I mean they did their homework, they took notes, noticed the curvature of the ocean, studied the constellations, wrote books, made publications, quoted more documentations and made further citations in their.

Just like you, people back then screamed "hearsay" and the more common "heresy" to such claims. They had evidence though, which is the only contesting point in your scenario and mine, but then you went and said "It can cite documents and sources, but the book itself is, by definition, hearsay".

Which neatly bring me to my point: I am not saying that the author is a revolutionary or a Charles Darwin. But like the latter, the author in the OP has made a "sensational claim". If he has evidence or not I don't know but for the sake of argument and for your point about "hearsay" let's assume he has done so. In this "hypothetical" scenarios you have clearly stated that anything presented in the book "by definition" is hearsay.

So then by that logic would have dismissed the Origin of species or the Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis because they were written by people who at the time were considered dubious/ presented "sensational claims" to the public/controversy mining?.

Again, I am not saying this White House worker belong in the ranks as these great men BUT in context, and considering you stated that a book by definition is hearsay (because of a controversial author) I ask you: will you so easily dismiss one of these well known books?

Logically you should say, "No, it's because they have evidence and documented sources..." oh no wait!. Honestly, if your logic existed in the 18th century......

Has he named names,

I thought we were talking about evidence. "Naming names" is not evidence unless you're talking about corroborative statements

- I think that is what the OP meant, considering no one has read the book yet.

pointed fingers,

Seriously? How is that evidence?

- Do you not know how interrogations works?. It's very simple, person A accuses person B of something. Then someone who gives a crap goes to person B and asks him some very tough and tricky questions. This cycle will continue for awhile and sometimes other people get involved but eventually (most of the time anyway) corroborative evidence can be gathered via this method.

drawn graphs,

-Actually I can't make sense of that one either. Hmmm...

taken photographs,

Hooray! Something that actually meets the definition of evidence! Hey, you named a bunch of things, you were bound to get ONE of them right.

-Ok everyone is been stupid here!. Unless the man was an official white house photographer (which he isn't- he's a speech writer) there is no way photographic evidence can even be considered for this case.

questioned authority?.

Awww, too bad. Thought you might be on a roll there for a while. Oh well. You'll get them next time.

-I don't understand the OP here either but you are hardly making sense yourself. Try to keep your points relevant and that is to everyone who is looking to make coherent arguments.

My god man. There is so much of incorrect fallacies in your arguments that if I were to point them all out this post will be unfathomably long. It was funny at first then I noticed how you continued towards not making sense which is why I am intervening now.

I tired to point somethings out at the start but my lord there is so much more that's left to be desired. I couldn't even touch the latter half..so I didn't even bother correcting them. I swear the things you have said like "You dislike the past administration so much that you're willing to give creedence to this man's claims, demanding proof of the accused rather than the accuser" is quite in contrast to what you are actually saying halfway through.

The point is that this has gone way WAY off topic. The OP was about the author of the Harry Potter books been denied her award because of witchcraft. This was reported by several media sites so we know that it happened. Why can't there be two people with two opinions here instead of people arguing over something that has no say in their immediate lives.

So know what, either contribute something new here or let it go

As was asked, why must there be only one answer to this?. This discussion is open to interpretation so there can be many views here, so there is no need to smother it with a single view. Personally I am with the OP on this one but that doesn't mean it's the only correct version of this story.

crowd "She IS a witch! Burn the witches! Look, look! She has got a wart!!!"

JK Rowling "That's not a wart, you put that there!"

crowd "well.. her nose is kind of pointy...and she does weigh the same as a duck...





(and side note ... isn't this an award for AMERICAN citizens?)

If you would have scrolled a few pages up you would have noticed the follwing

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is bestowed on individuals of any nationality who are deemed to have contributed to US interests, world peace, or any cultural or social advancement.

 

[S-Unleashed]

Moreons.

 

[andrat]

She doesn't exactly deserve the medal, but still. That's just fucking dumb.

I'm at a lost for words here to explain how stupid that is.

Side note, I did like the books. All six of them.

Seventh you say?
What seventh book?

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

*snip*

Honestly that's tldr. I read a few lines but nothing you said thus far deemed a response from me because you didn't really dismiss any of my previous points. You didn't even introduce any new points as far as I am aware. All you did was go off on a tangent about semantics and definitions while bringing in irrelevant stuff ("Confirmation by silence"?. Did you re-read what you wrote or did you just post it head on?. I hate to be the one to tell you, but all those groups you named in your example are quite vocal about their opinions. Even if the opposition is scientifically backed, they always have something to say )

I would like to waste more time on this, I honestly do, but I am going to say at this point that maybe we should agree to disagree. I am sure there are those that will take your view but I have mine and we are all free to believe what we wish. The bush administration has a track record of doing stupid things, this is a pretty stupid thing, so this is a plausible scenario. At least till evidence comes along either way to prove or disprove what has been said.

If you disagree with it that's your view but I am no longer going to argue over it.

 

[PhiMed]

*snip*

Honestly that's tldr. I read a few lines but nothing you said thus far deemed a response from me because you didn't really dismiss any of my previous points. You didn't even introduce any new points as far as I am aware. All you did was go off on a tangent about semantics and definitions while bringing in irrelevant stuff ("Confirmation by silence"?. Did you re-read what you wrote or did you just post it head on?. I hate to be the one to tell you, but all those groups you named in your example are quite vocal about their opinions. Even if the opposition is scientifically backed, they always have something to say )

I would like to waste more time on this, I honestly do, but I am going to say at this point that maybe we should agree to disagree. I am sure there are those that will take your view but I have mine and we are all free to believe what we wish. The bush administration has a track record of doing stupid things, this is a pretty stupid thing, so this is a plausible scenario. At least till evidence comes along either way to prove or disprove what has been said.

If you disagree with it that's your view but I am no longer going to argue over it.

That's fine. Sorry for sending a wall of text, but you sent a bit of one my way, too. It's your original post, so that's absolutely your right. I overstepped.

My main issue was that you seemed to be asserting that I had no right to be skeptical, and implied that we should demand proof from the Bush administration rather than from Latimer. I feel very strongly that the opposite is true, and perhaps went overboard in putting forth that viewpoint. An end to the discussion is fine with me.

One thing that many people seemed to misinterpret that I do want to clarify, though...
I wasn't saying the groups I named are silent. To the contrary, I was saying that they often proclaim that others' silence serves as proof of the legitimacy of their viewpoints.

So I'll shut up now.