Natalie Portman=Doosh.
The Un-Baleing is complete, y’all.
We think animals are more important to her than 13 year-old girls.
So last night NFL Guy and I were giddily curled up to watch a marathon session of TV, starting with Fanboys (if you like Star Wars at all, you MUST rent this - it’s hilarious and touching) and ending with our beloved Top Chef.
Natalie Portman was the guest judge on last night’s episode, which required the chefs to come up with an ah-mazing vegetarian entree at Tom Colicchio’s Craftsteak, which is well known for its meaty awesomeness.
Okay, fine, I get that. There are plenty of people who don’t eat meat, my best friend included. And I also take the episode’s point - often, vegetarian diners are served a mish-mash of vegetable sides or pasta instead of a well-constructed entree with a veggie or soy protein. So kudos to the producers of Top Chef for exploring this void in fine dining.
But then the irony of this episode dawned on me, as I thought back to something I had read earlier in the day on HuffPo, in which Portman, a Harvard alumna, resorted to every last logical fallacy in the book to defend an extremism position on veganism (I love that it’s now an -ism).
In her essay, Portman explains how Jonathan Safran Foer’s controversial book Eating Animals changed her from a meek vegetarian to a raging vegan activist.
I say that Foer’s ethical charge against animal eating is brave because not only is it unpopular, it has also been characterized as unmanly, inconsiderate, and juvenile. But he reminds us that being a man, and a human, takes more thought than just “This is tasty, and that’s why I do it.” He posits that consideration, as promoted by Michael Pollan in The Omnivore’s Dilemma, which has more to do with being polite to your tablemates than sticking to your own ideals, would be absurd if applied to any other belief (e.g., I don’t believe in rape, but if it’s what it takes to please my dinner hosts, then so be it).
That’s two strikes for Natalie. Strike one was her support for admitted child rapist Roman Polanski, which is interesting, considering that her essay’s presumption is that rape is morally reprehensible, MIRITE?
Now, meateaters, by way of her need to justify her argument through an extreme comparison (logical fallacy FAIL), are rapists?
So here’s how this breaks down:
- Slippery slope - The fallacy here is the assumption that something is wrong because it is right next to something that is wrong. Ergo, the seductive argument at the end about rape at a dinner party. I guess Roman Polanski never got that memo. Heeeeyyyyo!
- Confusing correlation and causation - Again, the dinner party argument has a flawed premise - by effectively (if unintentionally) arguing that we throw free will out in order to please others, she’s confusing circumstances and cause. John Stuart Mill is rolling over in his grave RIGHT NOW.
- Straw man - The basic idea of a straw man premise to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. Like rape.
- Bad analogy - Again. Rape at a dinner party, distasteful but appropriate in the context of societal norms?
Portman needs to go back and read some Locke and Rousseau. Or hell, read fellow Harvard type John Rawls, who argues very clearly in his seminal A Theory of Justice that justice as fairness is thus offered to people who are neither saintly altruists nor greedy egoists. Human beings are, as Rawls thoroughly argues in his work (a forty year career teaching philosophy at Portman’s alma mater), both rational and reasonable. So if we’re fair and reasonable, we can understand that good manners at a dinner party don’t equate to rape.
Do we have societal norms associated with animals? Absofrickinlutely. It’s why eating cats and dogs in western culture is incredibly uncommon - because we look upon them as pets or necessary for the Afternoon Squee!
There’s a difference, though, between respectfully arguing your position and casting a sweeping moral judgment upon omnivores.
I support anyone’s dietary choices (assuming they’re legal, of course) - hell, I even posted a vegetarian recipe last week that could be adapted to a vegan diet. But I draw the line at being preached to from a sanctimonious mount of Ivy League, Hollywood-insulated douchebaggery.
Natalie Portman - the SAME Natalie Portman who is championing admitted rapist Roman Polanski’s freedom despite carving out a childhood career as the sexually precocious ingenue in film - is beautiful. Clearly she’s intelligent as well.
Unfortunately, she’ s not all that logical. And the coupling of a passionate viewpoint that could be construed as extreme with such an inability to communicate said point to a mass audience is dangerous, y’all.
It’s the same reason we make fun of people like Fred Phelps, whose ideology rests at the other end of the spectrum.
So yeah, Natalie, welcome to the Thunderdome. That’s strike two.
views: 1547
Tags: Cait, Eating Animals, Jonathan Safran Foet, Natalie Portman, The Huffington Post, Top Chef, vegan, vegetarian
This entry was posted on Thursday, October 29th, 2009 at 8:32 AM and is filed under Celebrity Shenanigans, Doosh Watch 2009. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:01 AM
SeaKat says:Boy, did SHE topple off of the pedestal quickly, eh? Bummer.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:18 AM
Thornty says:This news makes me want to go home an grill a steak tonight.
Or possibly some pork chops.
Hmmmm
Decisions, decisions………….
October 29th, 2009 at 9:18 AM
Jujubees says:If that’s her logic she should refuse to associate with all meat eaters. She needs to be strong and announce she will no longer make movies with non vegan directors and the crew must also be 100% vegan.
She needs to put on her, Free Polanski t-shirt, and get working on that press release. Follow your vegan dreams and then let me know how it all works out.
I completely respect anyone who can live that lifestyle and working in yoga it’s often a hot topic on the translation of ahimsa. It means different things to different people. Some feel it should include not eating animals or wearing animals. Others choose to eat mean.
But mostly others are respectful of those who choose to eat meat. And some want to give you a punchasana in the faceanasa. Sorry, yoga humor and it totally cracked me up. Inappropriate and I will go flog myself with a burger.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:32 AM
stopthemadness says:Jujubees, you complete me.
What the heck is ahimsa?
::ahemsa::
sorry, i have a frog in my throat.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:56 AM
SeaKat says:“Some choose to eat mean” - Freudian slip?
October 29th, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Sar says:I love the taste of a good rhetorical criticism.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Cait says:Sar, I think good rhetorical criticism tastes a bit like a medium-rare tenderloin.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:19 AM
stopthemadness says:portman needs to stuff a sock in it. and that sock should in turn be stuffed with bacon.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Cait says:Thundersquee: Pro-Bacon since ‘09.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Justin de la Cruz says:To be fair, in this paragraph, Portman is discussing Jonathan Safran Foer’s views. She starts out the paragraph by praising Foer’s views, but by the time she gets to the final sentence (the key sentence), she is simply summarizing Foer’s views in “Eating Animals” against Michael Pollan’s views in “The Omnivore’s Dilemma.” Sure, you can tell that Portman is on Foer’s side (against Pollan), but it’s not entirely explicit.
Secondly, what seems like an offhanded parenthetical “e.g.” by Portman may in fact be an example that either Foer or Pollan used in their books. I can’t tell. I haven’t read any of the books. But from what I can tell on Google Books, Pollan is not afraid to bring up issues like rape in his argument:
http://bit.ly/2vSaHC
http://bit.ly/hRIsN
I agree that the “rape” example is an unnecessary digression from the argument at hand. No matter whose example it was (Portman’s, Foer’s, or Pollan’s), it was intended to draw attention to itself, to the argument. It was extreme. It was the “Hitler” offense.
But I agree with the simple premise here that society sets up norms and that the way people eat is certainly one of these main norms. And so, hey, sometimes it takes an extremist view to shift a society out of its rigid norms. I’m sure those philosophers/writers you mentioned stepped on more than a few people’s toes.
It’s a matter of personal opinion, then, but I tend to condemn actions (like Polanski’s) more than I tend to condemn statements in heated arguments. (But I suppose as a celebrity she has power to sway a number of people… For my defense there, I would say that she’s doing a lot less damage to the people than all the extremist pundits, liberal or conservative, are doing to our society.)
October 29th, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Addicted to Addiction says:I would just like to say that not all Thundersqueers think Portman is a doosh. Natalie, if you’re reading this, let’s be friends. I kind of heart you. K bye!
October 29th, 2009 at 10:55 AM
TheHobo says:“I’ve always been shy about being critical of others’ choices because I hate when people do that to me….I’ve also been afraid to feel as if I know better than someone else — a historically dangerous stance…But this book reminded me that some things are just wrong.”
I’m just amazed that she can take such a strong stance on eating meat (and declare it so to people who eat meat) while taking such an opposite stance on Polanski.
Some things are just wrong. I totally agree with that. I just have a different set of values when it comes to declaring what is wrong and what is acceptable for others and not for me.
I’m going to grill a steak AND read Ms tonight. And be really sweet to my 13 year old female students next time I see them, and remind them that they have the power to say no. Take that Natalie! :-P
October 29th, 2009 at 10:56 AM
TheHobo says:BTW juju, loved the yoga humor! :-D
October 29th, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Jujubees says:Ha, didn’t notice that. I guess if we eat dead animals than we truly are eating mean. Sorry about that cows but stop being so damn tasty. If I could infuse a carrot with bacon then I’d eat the hell out of those fuckers.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:57 AM
TheHobo says:Addicted to Addiction: I totally respect your right to like Natalie Portman. Cuz I’m into this respecting other people’s choices thing (so long as those choices don’t hurt other people, like 13 year old girls :-P).
October 29th, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Jujubees says:Ahimsa meant to do no harm or commit violence agains stuff. I’m kind of paraphrasing as I doubt that stuff part was in the original tranlastion. Just guessing.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:00 AM
stopthemadness says:i could have forgiven her holier than thou stance on vegetarianism or veganism, but when combined with the fact that she’s a polanski-ite?
sorry, nat.po. you’re doosh to me.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Dr. Gunslider says:STM, you have officially blown my mind.
By Locke, did you mean John right, as in influenced Rousseau and Voltaire?
Did you just review some of the basic logical fallacies?
I didn’t know a man could swoon until now.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:29 AM
stopthemadness says:actually, Dr. G, today’s brilliance has been brought to you by our Bayou Queen, Ms. Cait.
but i do appreciate the instant association of a rant with me.
and considering i know exactly jack and squat about philosophy, cait will have to drop some knowledge on you like only she can.
:D
October 29th, 2009 at 11:30 AM
jimmy says:Zooey Deschanel already did vegan on Top Chef Masters. Ms. Portman needs to know her roll.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Jujubees says:Excellent point, Jimmy. And she did it better too.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:37 AM
jimmy says:For sure. Natalie had an air of “douche” in her episode like she was trying to be a supremely knowledgeable foodie to sound smart, but came up short. Zooey was more of a “I don’t know crap about food, but I know what I like and don’t like” and I can respect that.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Jujubees says:And she’s so cute too. She was excited about the food and nice even when she didn’t like it all that much.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Sar says:There was a blind item floating around a while ago about some vegan being a total pain on a chef show - not allowing anyone to address her or look her in the eye, complaining about everything. Natalie or Zooey?? (Jeopardy music plays).
October 29th, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Jujubees says:Mmmmmm, who is Douchalie Portman. Do I get to make out with Trebek now?
October 29th, 2009 at 12:13 PM
TheHobo says:Oh yeah, and Cait, you totally started me in on a Wiki spiral (you know, when you start by looking up one thing and end up losing three hours of your life and wondering how you ended up on a page about reenactments of the Highwayman poem or something equally out there).
LOVE the Philosophy. I own a collection of Thoman Paine’s writing, including The Age of Reason and Common Sense, but now I think I must add Locke to my collection. Kind of goes together anyway.
I also have Thoreau, and Kierkegaard though I haven’t gotten as much into him yet.
And no one seems to share my complete adoration of Noam Chomsky. Few seem to even know how he is, which just kills me. Sure, I have a degree in journalism, but still…
I just found out this exists and MUST own it.
If anyone wants to have a philosophical discussion, or even suggest some people for me to read, I’m all over that… :-P
October 29th, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Nic says:She’s still hot.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Mae says:So eloquently put, Nic.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Zack says:Wow, someone took a political philosophy course in college and seemed to have learned all the terms and none of the content. Portman’s argument ain’t all that complicated: social norms shouldn’t override our moral judgments. Mill, if you’d remember, would call that “tyranny of the majority” (read this section of “On Liberty” here: http://www.wsu.edu/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/mill.html). He argued that social pressures are powerful, but ought to be checked in order to preserve human genius (that is, individual innovation in science, ethics, etc.). Portman’s point was identical, though she used an extreme and ill-chosen example to make it.
There’s nothing illogical in saying the fact that most people don’t serve vegetarian meals doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be vegetarians. Your wildly incorrect definitions of slippery slope and straw man (not to mention inventing a logical fallacy called “bad analogy” and mangling four classic political philosophers) shows that you might be the one with a logic deficit.
Oh, and yes, what Portman said about Polanski was fucked up. That’s irrelevant to her argument about vegetarianism, strictly construed, but it does show she ought not to have used the rape example. I’m just taking issues with your incoherent deployment of logic and philosophy to support your position.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:47 PM
blah says:Nic, she may be hot, but just remember that poster of the gorgeous woman on it and below her pic is says: Somewhere, some guy is sick of her shit.
It’s kind of like that with her.
October 29th, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Addicted to Addiction says:But she’s pretty! And cool! And was in Garden State! AND she made DICK jokes on the show. F.T.W.
October 29th, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Sarah says:SHE IS A RAPIST DEFENDER.
There are times when I can overlook a person whom I admire’s assholiness because I really want to still admire them. This ain’t one of ‘em. I can’t get behind someone who defends rapists, no matter how pretty or cool or clever that person might be.
October 29th, 2009 at 5:40 PM
stopthemadness says:you know who else was pretty and cool and was in garden state?
hitler.
:D
and now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
October 29th, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Jujubees says:You know who else was in garden state? Moussillini. True story.
October 29th, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Mitsy Buttons says:::grabs popcorn::
October 29th, 2009 at 6:09 PM
blah says:What is everyone talking about?! GARDEN STATE WAS STUPID! I kept waiting for it to get good but it just came across as something “too hip for people to get”. That guy from Scrubs was in it, so I automatically was going to hate it, but really, it was dumb!
October 29th, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Mitsy Buttons says:but she wore a HELMET. get it?!
the only good thing about garden state was the soundtrack.
and the shins song, new slang.
October 29th, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Jujubees says:I’m going to concurr with blah, ya hurr me? It just kept going and depressed me. If your going to put someone in a helmet then they should have to fall off lots of stuff. Then I would have liked it more. I get it was for epilepsy but the jokes just write themselves. I also really loved Talladega Nights and I quoted Napoleon Dynamite for a year. so I shouldn’t be listened too.
October 29th, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Mitsy Buttons says:I’m going to come at you like a spider monkey!
October 29th, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Cait says:Zach,
Somebody (ahem) actually read all of those items that you glibly (heh) referenced in your snarky attempt at rebuttal. I’ve read The Second Treatise, The Social Contract, and I’ve read On Liberty.
Clearly the Mill principle I referenced was to the point - I don’t subscribe, as you clearly do, to the one size fits all method of discourse.
But creating a hyperbole to justify an argument IS a bad analogy - and my point was to put it layman’s terms, as I don’t really need to act like a doosh academic to adequately convey my point.
I guess that’s where you and I differ.
By the way? Your entire post hinged on…wait for it…
Ad hominem.
Best,
Cait
October 29th, 2009 at 7:07 PM
Jujubees says:If we wanted us some wussy’s we would have named them, dr. quinn and medicine woman
October 29th, 2009 at 7:08 PM
Jujubees says:Oh, Cait, that was beautimus.I love it when you talk sexy like that.
October 29th, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Bedbugs and Ballyhoo says:I (successfully) avoided Garden State for many years. I just always had a weird vibe about it. I was finally “talked” into watching it by a few close friends. It is the Coldplay of Indie movies. All hype and no substance. Did. not. like.
I think people just listened to the music and ignored the actual plot and storyline. Well, except that Coldplay song. Double whammy bad, that there.
October 29th, 2009 at 7:30 PM
stopthemadness says:and that’s what you call “pinkboxing.”
October 29th, 2009 at 8:55 PM
TheHobo says:“He argued that social pressures are powerful, but ought to be checked in order to preserve human genius (that is, individual innovation in science, ethics, etc.). Portman’s point was identical, though she used an extreme and ill-chosen example to make it.”
How was her point identical? What, in humanity, is she preserving?
Although I can see how she might decide to preserve THIHO the human genius of Polanski against the social pressure to, you know, put away rapists. I can see how she did that very well.
I wonder what in her own behavior she excuses because she considers herself a creative genius…
October 29th, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Mae says:You’re all wrong. Method Man was TEH AWESOME! in Garden State. His scenes were teh best!
Oh, and I own Garden State. Sup?! SupSupSup?!!?Sup?!!?What’s sup, bros?!!? Sup?!?!
October 29th, 2009 at 9:18 PM
Mae says:Panama?
October 29th, 2009 at 9:31 PM
stopthemadness says:i consider myself a fairly intelligent person, but i have read the last two paragraphs of her huffpo article several times now, and they make absolutely no friggin sense to me.
also, she seems to start off arguing against factory farming, but then ends up damning all meat eaters, whether or not those meat eaters take care to eat non-factory farmed meat.
and the notion that there are vegetarians who go to dinner parties and eat meat just because their hosts serve it to them seems pretty absurd to me. i know a ton of vegans and vegetarians and they don’t just up and eat meat as a result of peer pressure. i mean, what the?? they politely say “i’m a vegetarian” and eat salad. and a lot of the people i know who host dinner parties (myself included) make allowances for our non meat eating friends by making vegetarian dishes. sure, i’m probably not going to make more than mac and cheese for my veggie friends (as opposed to some complicated tofu based dish) but i’m certainly not going to force feed them hot dogs or condemn them for being a vegetarian. the overall tone of her article makes meat eaters seem like evil overlords, or noobs who just haven’t “seen the light.”
additionally, she fails to explain adequately how reading a book about the evils of factory farmed meat turned her from a vegetarian to a vegan. i assume it’s that she has a problem with the way dairy products are “farmed” from animals? but does she explain that? no. she already didn’t eat meat. so what the hell is she talking about anyway? why the switch to “vegan activist.” and what the hell is a vegan activist, anyway?
and finally, based on other reviews i’ve read of Eating Animals, it seems that foer’s position is a whole lot less didactic than portman’s post. without having read the book, it seems to me that he advances arguments against eating factory farmed meat and makes a case for vegetarianism based on stories and reports of his conversations from a wide range of people, farmers, PETA activists, meat eaters, vegetarians, and then asks the reader to draw his/her own conclusion. he’s not saying “if you eat meat, you’re evil.” portman says that in so many words “some things are just wrong” and “I’ve also been afraid to feel as if I know better than someone else.”
i just can’t stand preachiness (i know, that’s rich coming from Angry Black Lady) but i try to temper MY preachiness with humor. portman’s article just comes across as holier than thou, and that annoys the crap out of me.
then again, i’m sure my blog posts annoy the crap out of some people, so i guess she and i are sisters in Crap Annoyance.
but, at least my blog posts make sense (i hope.)
also, “being a man, and a human takes more thought”? i guess means us womminz are off the hook.
huzzah.
ugh. she annoys me.
oh, and it is impossible to separate her stance against animal farming from her polanskism. she talks about how racism, misogyny and sexism will shock future generations. um yeah… as to the misogyny and sexism? she signed the free polanski petition. she is in no position to preach to anyone about anything. full stop. i’m not saying she needs to be an activist in every area of injustice. but how about not defending a child rapist? THAT’S A START.
::end rant::
October 29th, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Zack says:Cait,
I do apologize for the tone of the last message. I don’t often post in reply threads (no doubt due to overexposure to YouTube), and when I do I tend to forget I’m talking to real people. It didn’t help that you were writing about two of my pet issues: I’m an academia-bound political philosophy student who’s a vegetarian for moral reasons. So I’ll try to be a bit more measured in my response.
Mill, Locke, Rousseau: You didn’t really explain why you were telling her to read these guys, nor were you explaining what your take on them was. In a post where you’re condescending to someone about their lack of knowledge, you should at least explain why we should think you’re saying something worthwhile.
I’m not sure why you linked to the Harm Principle wiki page, either. If anything, the harm principle would support Portman’s point, as killing animals almost certainly does qualify as harming them, most of the time without just cause. The harm principle would condemn such behavior given that it’s non-self regarding.
Rawls: Put this one to the side, but “reasonable” has a technical meaning here, so mentioning it didn’t really help your point.
Analogies: Yeah, I was pretty fucking obnoxious about this one, but the point remains. Her argument was a poor strategic choice, but it’s general pattern (compare the way we treat animals to the mistreatments of people) has been extremely successful in persuading people (including me) to become a vegetarian. As long as we’re talking philosophy, check out Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation. It’s certainly the most relevant book of the ones we’ve discussed, as it explicitly lays out a theory as to why treating animals as undeserving of moral consideration merely because they’re animals is inconsistent with our beliefs about equality. Portman’s point is a bastardized version of the Singer argument mashed together with one of the better PETA pamphlets and Millian arguments about social pressure, but still: at least she’s thinking the right way.
All of this misses the point. You invoked a bunch of pretty influential people to make a point that a. wasn’t clear, b. if taken as a substantive critique, was probably wrong, and c. castigated someone for *lack of intellectual sophistication* while *refusing to show any yourself*, other than name-checking famous philosophers. I was being overly snarky, and again, I do apologize. But that make what you wrote (in the form that it took) make any more sense. If you would expand it, I’d be interested to see what you actually meant.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:56 AM
Chelsea - PETA Protector says:So was Natalie’s point on Top Chef that sometimes vegans do compromise their ethics at dinner parties? I’ve been a fan of that show since forever–and I’ve watched them plate meat dish after meat dish, patiently waiting for the occasional gazpacho or accidentally vegan meal. And then a few months ago I heard Natalie Portman was going to be on and I thought “VEGAN! VEGAN FOOD ON TOP CHEF!” And then the bitch just says she’s a vegetarian. Excuse me? How does that make you a raging vegan activist?
Still, I want to get in Michael Voltaggio’s pants.
October 30th, 2009 at 8:15 AM
Cait says:Zack,
No worries. I think discourse is important, and Thundersquee! never censors debate of any kind. We’re definitely not the LOLTrollz Squad, and this certainly isn’t TMZ. :-)
First I need to offer the caveat that I never took a political philosophy course in college (I have a History/Anthropology double-major). Instead, I read these books from the non-scholarly vantage point of a college debater. So any comments I make need to be predicated on that. In the interest of full disclosure, I’m also a marketing communications/non-profit type who is a bleeding heart fix-the-worlder in post-Katrina New Orleans. So it’s very obvious that I’m not academia bound. I haven’t even finished my master’s in history yet, so you and I come at this from a very different perspective. You study this - I read this because I’m fascinated by what has shaped modern political thought.
My second note is that I have absolutely no issue with people taking a moral stance on dietary choices - as I mentioned in my post, my own best friend has been a vegetarian for most of her life, and her reasons for doing so are very based in her idea of right and wrong (more on the societal norms issue later). I haven’t read Safran Foer’s book, so my comments on Portman’s essay need to be viewed as not an indictment of veganism, vegetarianism or individual moral principles, but as a pure response to what I take issue with: the logic she employs in her essay to reach her conclusions.
That said, let’s start with the social contract theorists.
Locke and Rousseau (obvs influenced by Locke) both wrote extensively about the natural rights and free will of the individual balanced against society’s need for security. For what I think are pretty self-explanatory reasons, I chose not to reference Hobbes, since Leviathan is pretty influenced by his own experiences in the Glorious Revolution. The reason I referenced the above two, though, is because of the idea of the state of nature vs. post-social contract established norms. I didn’t go into a great deal of detail here for a couple of reasons: I work a full-time job, am married, and frankly, I also know my audience - most of them aren’t political philosophy students with a moral interest in vegetarianism, right? So were I go into expansive detail about the state of nature, most interwebs types’ eyes would glaze over and I’d lose their interest.
And if there’s one thing competitive debate taught me, always cater your language to your audience.
The way that Portman argues about societal norms implies that we have no inherent sense of morals or justice, and that we’re effectively sheeple. I take issue with this because even in the most basic of social contract theory, the struggle of humans to retain individual free will is implied (to me, in my humble opinion). Portman dismisses this and applies an inane hyperbole to justify her position. Hardly very scholarly for someone writing what was meant to be a fairly academic piece for HuffPo. My intent isn’t to condescend to her - but I’m responding to her very preachy tone.
What I love about Rawls’ work is that he explores what the state of nature means for us as individuals, e.g., how would we arrive at what that balance between society and the individual is? Does that imply that individuals are intrinsically rational? Are we capable of independent moral decisions without the context of social parameters (laws and norms)? Once we’re part of a wider society, does that undermine our own ability to see that society can be capable of moral wrongs?
Portman blusters through the very notion of independent free thought by trying to shock her readers (and yeah, the irony of the rape argument is something I even referenced).
As for Mill - well, on one thing you and I can probably agree. This is a great opportunity for the marketplace of ideas, in that you and I can disagree but still debate the topic until we arrive at a better interpretation or understanding of the topic. But specifically, the Harm Principle? I don’t think Mill ever intended to apply it to animals. But in my opinion, he argues that inside social constraints, most of us instinctively know the boundaries of freedom. Again, Portman’s argument is basically that we’re incapable of sussing that out for ourselves, as we’d give rape a pass in order to fit into a social norm (her analogy isn’t just strategically bad, Zack, it’s logically WRONG).
So this issue isn’t about how she’s thinking, or whether or not her point is right, or even whether she intreprets the source material faithfully - it’s about how she tries to sell it to a wider audience - hence my very negative reaction. If her point was to create a paradigm shift, she epically failed - not on the merits of making a moral choice and arguing it, but by logically failing.
Ultimately, though, on your other point about expanding on the argument? I don’t have to do that - Portman actually has the burden of proof, and this isn’t meant to be an academic paper, merely a debater’s rebuttal for a pop culture crowd.
But seriously? I really appreciate that you’re sharing your thoughts and commentary on this. I wish there were more like you!
October 30th, 2009 at 10:35 AM
stopthemadness says:holy shit. my mind just exploded, but it was totally worth it.
i love a good discussion among smart people.
thanks for reading zach, and cait, i need a clean up on aisle brain.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:47 AM
TheHobo says:Totes awesome! I do love it when TS gets all brainy and the hags represent!
October 30th, 2009 at 6:04 PM
lava says:that was impressive. there was mild eye glaze but i tried my best. for some reason i wish i still watched lost….
October 30th, 2009 at 9:58 PM
ramy says:as a philosphy major, i’m inclined to agree with zack’s rather cogent summation of some rather complex theories. kudos to you. i was reading your entry, singing, zack! zack! he’s a lego maniac! except i substituted lego with locke-o… and it made your arguments more valid… is that a logical fallacy?
as a human being, i’m rather more impressed with the civil nature of the discourse between zack and cait.
as a high school debater, i’m even more impressed to have learned something new about cait. she was a college debater! cait where did you go to college? i have a ton of friends who went on to debate in college (i debated in high school, was overly obsessed and saw the road it would have taken me on, and left immediately upon graduation) :)
as a champion of non-pretentiousness (new word, just invented), i do and have always hated natalie portman.
ever since reading her “personal quotes” on her imdb page years ago, i just cringed every part of my body and said, jesus, i would hate to be in the same room as that person… mostly because her giant head would take up all the available space, and valuable oxygen… i picture a giant bobble head natalie bouncing around, talking about utter pretentious nonsenseness (also new word)…
half of her quotes talk about how awesome she is because she is going to college… seriously, get over it. lots of people go to college.
the other half talk about how she’s too good for acting, and she’s totally not going to do it forever… really, that’s seemed to work out well for you, seeing as you have 3 movies coming out this year. and 3 more coming out next year…
some of my favorite quotes:
“When I’m working they pretty much treat me like an adult, but then when there’s a break everyone else goes to their trailers and drinks beer and I like, go to school.”
-fuck off. beer is great! and you don’t “like” go to school. you go to school. why use a similie when you could use a metaphor.
When asked by Seventeen magazine what advice she had for teenagers going off to college she said, “I would say practicing laundry it’s so hard.”
-right, like you’ve ever done laundry. dolce and gabbana send you 4-5 outfits a week for you to wear to premieres that your teachers are going to let you out of class for. and you don’t practice laundry, it’s not a sport, it’s a chore, you practice “doing” laundry. learn fucking english. who let you into harvard?
When asked by German Cosmopolitan (3/00) if she would like having herself as a daughter she replied, “Well of course. I am a good person, nice, smart, witty, trustworthy, know nice people, don’t do drugs and earn a lot of money.”
-great, it’s wonderful to know you have such a high opinion of yourself. meanwhile, i don’t think i’ve heard a single funny or witty thing you’ve ever said in people magazine.
“I don’t think I’d be able to deal with just acting, because I don’t know if you get to use your brain that much.”
-then why are you doing it? that just sounds so pretentious to me… a lot of people would really love to be in her position, and a lot of very intelligent people are involved in the industry. there’s no need to diss all of your peers to make yourself feel better about… yourself…
and of course my absolute favorite hypocritical statements…
On Lolita (1997): “I don’t think there needs to be a movie out where a child has sex with an adult.”
It’s horrible to be a sex object at any age, but at least when you’re an adult you can make the decision if you want to degrade yourself.
November 1st, 2009 at 8:20 AM
kat says:I have to agree with Zach.
Instead of acknowledging the fact that you completely incorrectly interpreted “straw man” and “slippery slope” fallacies and wildly referenced a bunch of philosophers without explaining why:
1) You defensively talked about the fact that you haven’t formally studied the texts you are referencing: “I read these books from the non-scholarly vantage point of a college debater. So any comments I make need to be predicated on that.” If you read a text outside of an academic context you’re still studying it in some form, and if you are going to publicly regurgitate the ideas you’ve read you can do the world a favor and not grossly distort them.
2)You smugly implied that you know your audience (readers), and you didn’t want to waste their time by going into excessive detail. “If there’s one thing competitive debate taught me, always cater your language to your audience.” Thanks for giving me so much credit. As a reader, what I absolutely want is for you dumb other people’s ideas down to a muddled, non-sensical version of themselves. Otherwise, how could I ever formulate an opinion on the subject?
You are not obliged to expand on your ideas to Natalie Portman, obviously, but Zach was asking you to expand on your ideas in order for them to make sense to your readers, which they really, really don’t.
PS — I also think it’s funny that you say you’re clearly not “academia bound” because you haven’t finished your MASTER’S IN HISTORY yet. Your perspective, it’s so gritty and real-world based!
November 1st, 2009 at 11:17 AM
SeaKat says:I would like to say that “kat” ain’t me. Just in case anyone was wondering. That is all.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:24 AM
stopthemadness says:i just want to say that ramy is the awesome.
that is all.
November 1st, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Mae says:i just want to ‘ditto’ what stopthemadness said.
that is all.