Jim Naseum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 How does one anecdote become a flaw in my premise? Anecdote implies not authoritative. If you do not find primary source authoritative then you are simply inventing a world that fits your fancy. Enjoy. I went so far as to say up front that for every example there is an equal and opposite example. That's why we don't do religion and politics here. In the case of my specific example, however, we are talking about "the King." So, while he by no means invented rock and roll, the entire world recognizes him as the one who brought it to the forefront of popular music. And he was a boy scout: trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent until that was overcome by being placed on a throne he wasn't prepared for. Hard for a poor kid from Tupelo to function when the only advice he gets is "Yes, your majesty!" Don't give me this "anecdote" crap. If you can support your own premise do so. You haven't done a good job of undermining mine yet. Dave Every indication I have is that Elvis was a total degenerate. Just regarding drugs (his other predilections can't be discussed here), I offer this report: http://www.salon.com/2014/11/16/the_elvis_presley_coverup_what_america_didnt_hear_about_the_death_of_the_king/ But, in no way is Elvis a part of my premise here. Nothing I've said about the paradox of reactionary boomers still hanging on to rock and roll depends on Elvis. Elvis was but one of many thousands of artists in the rock and roll genre. For every Elvis, there are ten Keith Richards, and Jim Morrisons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 If rock and roll is going to be defended on the corpse of Elvis Presley, you guys are in logical no man's land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I haven't wasted my time reading all of this content but I have read enough to know that it is actually that. Content. Keith 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 If rock and roll is going to be defended on the corpse of Elvis Presley, you guys are in logical no man's land. If rock and roll is going to be convicted on pure unsupported opinion, then you are pretty self delusional and pretty lax in understanding of maieutics. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I haven't wasted my time reading all of this content but I have read enough to know that it is actually that. Content. Keith Best answer. Dave 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 You are a fan of what rock and to artists, Mr. Mallette? We didn't actually cover that. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 If rock and roll is going to be defended on the corpse of Elvis Presley, you guys are in logical no man's land. If rock and roll is going to be convicted on pure unsupported opinion, then you are pretty self delusional and pretty lax in understanding of maieutics. Dave You clearly didn't read the beginning post I made about rock and roll. Wow.Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 You clearly didn't read the beginning post I made about rock and roll. Wow. You clearly didn't reference what the hell you are talking about. Your beginning post doesn't reference rock and roll. Red herring. Wow. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 If rock and roll is going to be defended... Wait a minute, I didn't even realize Rock and Roll was on trial here. I thought you were upset at culturally conservative baby boomers apparent hypocrisy at liking the genre of Beelzebub himself. Which is it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) Chapter 7 Old people forget the premise of Rock and Roll. How many times I have heard old geezers in their 60s and beyond yakking about how they love all that old R&R from the 60s and 70s and 80s, and yet they are strict authoritarians and reactionaries full of old time homilies from the 1860s and 1870s? They have seemed to lost the idea that R&R is an artform that represents and extols the virtues of teen sex, illicit drug use, laziness, irresponsibility and rebellion against authority. How can you love an artform and its best artists and not embrace the values from which their art arises? Mystery to me. Are these geezers perfectly fine if their 15 year old grand daughter has a sex party with a band? Starts doing hallucinogens? Cocaine? Because that IS the fuel and values of R&R. I'm kinda reminded of of the guy who says, "I only read Playboy for the articles." It's right here Mallette. Chapter 7. Please notice that rock and roll is not on trial. The question is about old people still loving it well after they have become reactionaries and authoritarians. Is it that hard to understand? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Edited January 20, 2016 by jo56steph74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 If rock and roll is going to be defended... Wait a minute, I didn't even realize Rock and Roll was on trial here. I thought you were upset at culturally conservative baby boomers apparent hypocrisy at liking the genre of Beelzebub himself. Which is it? Hey, at least you paid attention. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) I haven't wasted my time reading all of this content but I have read enough to know that it is actually that. Content. Keith Best answer.Dave Actually, this tells me everything I could possibly need to know on this subject from Mr. Mallete. I absolutely will not waste time explaining the premise over and over and over to those who can't read the thread. Not surprisingly, there are some intelligent comments from the usual suspects. The little peanut gallery folk are all here too. I can always count on fjd and Gary to apply a sincere and intelligent response, just for the sake of discourse!! It's becoming a rare and precious commodity anymore. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Edited January 20, 2016 by jo56steph74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel's wife Posted January 20, 2016 Moderators Share Posted January 20, 2016 I haven't wasted my time reading all of this content but I have read enough to know that it is actually that. Content. Keith Best answer. Dave Same old content!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) Of course. And to keep it in the spirit of the thread, S/D/R&R is nothing new. Some anthropologists say that culture was birthed when some apes ingested psychedelic plants. Next thing you know they're bangin out a rhythm and dancing around. Right. Sex and drugs and perversions of all kind are not new. They are essential roots of the form itself. It is a total rebellion musically, socially, and culturally. The "groupie" is the quintessential fan. What I am asking here is, can you be a 55 year old grandma, with strict "Victorian" moral structures, and be an honest fan of the genre? I don't know any 55 year olds with strict Victorian moral structures. I know a few Rock and Roll fans in their '50s, '60s and '70s who are economically conservative, but none who are culturally conservative. The mothers and fathers of the Beats of the 1950s and the hip folk of the 1960s & 1970s were very concerned about the safety of their offspring, but many remembered their days of speakeasies, hip flasks, and jazz. Nothing human is alien to me. Edited January 20, 2016 by garyrc 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Ok, I get it. Everyone here claims that "Rock and Roll" is nothing but the end-music and has nothing to do with social values, social mores, lifestyle, drug promotion, or degenerate sex. Got it. Your favorite "rock star" was never in drunken or drug fueled orgies with other men and women. Your rock stars are role models for your grandchildren. None of you would mind your grandchildren going out with 20-something rock stars. Got it. What was I thinking? Quit listening to Coven's Witchcraft Destroys Minds and Reaps Souls and the DK's Too Drunk To ****. There's more to rock and roll than that. I would say love songs would top the list WRT subject matter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow#422 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I haven't wasted my time reading all of this content but I have read enough to know that it is actually that. Content. Keith Best answer.Dave Actually, this tells me everything I could possibly need to know on this subject from Mr. Mallete.I absolutely will not waste time explaining the premise over and over and over to those who can't read the thread. Not surprisingly, there are some intelligent comments from the usual suspects. The little peanut gallery folk are all here too. I can always count on fjd and Gary to apply a sincere and intelligent response, just for the sake of discourse!! It's becoming a rare and precious commodity anymore. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk It's much ilke bowling - it's all in the approach AND the delivery. If either is missing, the audience will take offense. OP's premise is noteworthy & could be discussed at length with no apparent consensus ever being reached. The perceived refusal to participate may be linked to a different level of intelligence - one that seeks avoidance of confrontation stirred by completely circular debates. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel's wife Posted January 20, 2016 Moderators Share Posted January 20, 2016 ^^^^^^ding, ding, ding we have a winner!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjd Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I haven't wasted my time reading all of this content but I have read enough to know that it is actually that. Content. Keith Best answer.Dave Actually, this tells me everything I could possibly need to know on this subject from Mr. Mallete.I absolutely will not waste time explaining the premise over and over and over to those who can't read the thread. Not surprisingly, there are some intelligent comments from the usual suspects. The little peanut gallery folk are all here too. I can always count on fjd and Gary to apply a sincere and intelligent response, just for the sake of discourse!! It's becoming a rare and precious commodity anymore. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk It's much ilke bowling - it's all in the approach AND the delivery. If either is missing, the audience will take offense. OP's premise is noteworthy & could be discussed at length with no apparent consensus ever being reached. The perceived refusal to participate may be linked to a different level of intelligence - one that seeks avoidance of confrontation stirred by completely circular debates. Can the answer be found in Chapter 1? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjd Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) Ok, I get it. Everyone here claims that "Rock and Roll" is nothing but the end-music and has nothing to do with social values, social mores, lifestyle, drug promotion, or degenerate sex. Got it. Your favorite "rock star" was never in drunken or drug fueled orgies with other men and women. Your rock stars are role models for your grandchildren. None of you would mind your grandchildren going out with 20-something rock stars. Got it. What was I thinking? Quit listening to Coven's Witchcraft Destroys Minds and Reaps Souls and the DK's Too Drunk To ****. There's more to rock and roll than that. I would say love songs would top the list WRT subject matter. Is WRT that Linux-based firmware for wireless routers or something else? I thought that POP love songs and Country love songs were the most pervasive genres with much less dysfunctional excessive compulsive behavior going on than love songs of other genres. Maybe we can have Dr. wvu80 do some analysis of the lyrics? Edited January 20, 2016 by Fjd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share Posted January 20, 2016 I haven't wasted my time reading all of this content but I have read enough to know that it is actually that. Content. Keith Best answer.Dave Actually, this tells me everything I could possibly need to know on this subject from Mr. Mallete.I absolutely will not waste time explaining the premise over and over and over to those who can't read the thread. Not surprisingly, there are some intelligent comments from the usual suspects. The little peanut gallery folk are all here too. I can always count on fjd and Gary to apply a sincere and intelligent response, just for the sake of discourse!! It's becoming a rare and precious commodity anymore. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk It's much ilke bowling - it's all in the approach AND the delivery. If either is missing, the audience will take offense. OP's premise is noteworthy & could be discussed at length with no apparent consensus ever being reached. The perceived refusal to participate may be linked to a different level of intelligence - one that seeks avoidance of confrontation stirred by completely circular debates. This is worth commenting on. First, there is no goal to reach a consensus. It's just called a conversation. Second, there is no 'circular debate'. There was one person running in circles trying to revise the premise to fit his response. That's not a debate. As to people being offended, please notice that there are two groups of replies. One small group (2 or3 posters) features intelligent comments on the SUBJECT, which generate no bad feelings. That's a discussion. But, the bulk of the replies are aimed at trying to insult the OP, and ignore the subject completely. They even admit to not reading the subject, but feel compelled to insert their hurt feelings and antagonism to me, just on general purpose, Always encouraged and cheered on by the moderators, oddly. It's a universal mystery why these uninterested parties can't move on to threads they like. So, your analysis is quite incomplete. And actually, no one commented about their own reasons to like rock and roll as an 50 or 60 year old. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts