The non-argument "Can you do it better?"

[abyssofdreams]

I was just browsing the IMDB boards just to read some random reviews of those moviegoers who already had the pleasure to watch Watchmen and I stumbled upon a thread where people discussed the quality of the movie.

I loved the reaction of one poster, responding to someone who raised the classical and ignorant question "Could you do better?" implying that nobody should be allowed to criticise or judge the results in question unless the knowledge, talent and experience of the person who doubts surpasses the quality of the product in question.

Wow, I really fucked up that sentence but you get the idea

Well, here's his response which I find hilarious and yet so beautifully blatant:

"Could you do better?" Always the argument of the one without an argument. Yesterday I had an omelet. It wasn't the best omelet I ever had, not by a long shot, but I cannot make an omelet.

By your "logic", there is no possible way that I can judge the difference between the best omelet I've had, and the worst omelet I've had, simply because I cannot make one.

 

[James Murphy]

i suppose you are bringing this up because of the context here.... a large group of engineers... that perhaps critique each other's work (rate my mix/tone sub-form?) ... is this the context you mean to contrast and compare with here perhaps?

 

[Metaltastic]

YES, thank you Bernhard, that as well as personal attacks are the two surefire ways to totally stone-wall an intelligent debate, and I HAET when people do it!

 

[abyssofdreams]

oh not really, I didn't had any sophisticated intentions in mind which is why I posted this in "Off-topic"
yeah I suppose you can bring that in context with our work and these boards though I think we are doing fairly well and rarely come across such statements.

I was more refering to an everyday situation, I often encounter people who confront me with the "Could you do better?"-question and I always welcome any funny explanation that might come in handy to reflect. Just wanted to share

 

[Chryst Krispies]

oh not really, I didn't had any sophisticated intentions in mind which is why I posted this in "Off-topic"
yeah I suppose you can bring that in context with our work and these boards though I think we are doing fairly well and rarely come across such statements.

I was more refering to an everyday situation, I often encounter people who confront me with the "Could you do better?"-question and I always welcome any funny explanation that might come in handy to reflect. Just wanted to share

This, to me at least, is just like the "YOU CAN'T PROVE IT DOESN'T EXIST!"

When squashheads pull this shpeel on me I just facepalm.
I can't even think of anything funny/good to say to that cause it's so retarded.

I also hate the people that just shit on everything though, and try and perpetrate like they are a fucking jedi master at whatever the subject is, yet they have no credentials and never show their own shit to be critiqued.

FUCK.

 

[J.DavisNJ]

Welcome to the interwebz!11!!

-Joe

 

[abyssofdreams]

Welcome to the interwebz!11!!

-Joe

You wish! People do that in real life all the time

 

[James Murphy]

well the reason why i ask is that i can actually see some kind of difference, given context. in your analogy, the man judging the eggs is a diner... a consumer, not a chef. is not the situation different when the critic is a chef who can cook omelets? maybe only a little different, because it's still quite subjective... taste of omelet/quality of mix.... but i do see and largely agree with the over all point. and anyway i guess if it's a chef who's critiquing that would not fit your initial premise, so maybe i'm just rambling... eh, it's early here.. need more coffee.

 

[Razzee]

I dig watchmen, awesom movie in my opinion!

 

[Dom Ostarig]

It's a pretty bad argument...but it's nice if wisely used. heheheh there are good reasons to use it, for example, when a work had to be done through a unusual circunstances.

 

[abyssofdreams]

is not the situation different when the critic is a chef who can cook omelets?

of course it is but that doesn't disqualify the judgement of the diner.
say both, diner and cook eat equal parts of the same omelet and the omelet is too salty (not in terms of taste but in terms of that the entire saltshaker went into the cooking process) so the diner might not be able to point out that it is too salty but he will point out that it tastes bad because he feels that something with the ingredients went wrong wheras the cook is able to be more detailed in stating that it is salty, backing up his arguments as he simply knows better.

so the question "can you do it better?" doesn't make the omelet any less salty, it just implies that the diner wouldn't be able to judge its saltiness just because he can't cook himself. with that question he didn't ask for arguments but simply questioned the judgement of the critic, ad hominem so to speak.

 

[slashvanyoung]

Well, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. But every opinion/statement always exists in a context which will be taken in consideration by the person receiving this opinion/statement.

 

[devouredremains]

It feels like I just walked into an episode of Seinfeld.

 

[_Brutalism_]

What I think a better reply would be is:

"Do you know what goes into making it enough to criticise its elements coherently and logically?"

Its as if someone tasted a bad omlette and said it sucks because it's too sweet. Fine, maybe his taste perception identified sweetness in the omlette, but the person would sound pretty silly if he criticised the chef for throwing too much sugar in it.

Happens in music too, someone might hear an album and say it sounds mediocre because the guitars are over-compressed whilst in truth this wouldn't be the case.

One might perceive something inaccurately when solid empirical data is concerned but I believe too many people open their mouths to malign art, food or other people in general without truly having a foundation to base their initial criticisms on.

 

[Chryst Krispies]

What I think a better reply would be is:

"Do you know what goes into making it enough to criticise its elements coherently and logically?"

Its as if someone tasted a bad omlette and said it sucks because it's too sweet. Fine, maybe his taste perception identified sweetness in the omlette, but the person would sound pretty silly if he criticised the chef for throwing too much sugar in it.

Happens in music too, someone might hear an album and say it sounds mediocre because the guitars are over-compressed whilst in truth this wouldn't be the case.

One might perceive something inaccurately when solid empirical data is concerned but I believe too many people open their mouths to malign art, food or other people in general without truly having a foundation to base their initial criticisms on.

I feel this way when people start talking politics.
No one really knows what's going on but they like to think they do.
Either that or I just read Blabbermouth and laugh.
Makes for good LOL material.

 

[_Brutalism_]

Dude you just hammered it home.

Politics is a prime example. What the fuck do we think we're talking about from in front of the drapery? We're just an audience with maybe a slight view of the backstage, but what really goes on we're totally oblivious to. The people within that circle probably aren't aware of all the hush-hush bullshit circulating their very own interior system.

And yet the masses speak, because this is good and this is bad, simply soaking up what we want to that is pumped into the media. All these claimants of knowledge on their imaginary pedestals discussing something so contorted from its apparent nature. Excuse me for being so general but I'm just referring to the general public which is in truth only fed portions of reality.



I can totally understand your dislike for this retort : "Can you do any better?".

When one judges a person for being immoral, unethical, dull, ignorant....one may reprimand with this "Are you any better yourself" remark. I agree that one doesn't need to be superior to recognize or be worthy of recognizing these personal traits, however, it is more so that humans have a habit of speaking with very feeble knowledge of the subject matter which is in itself reprehensible.

 

[GarethSE]

There's no squid in the Watchmen movie.

FANBOY RAGE FANBOY RAGE FANBOY RAGE FANBOY RAGE
AND RORSCHACH HAS CHRISTIAN BALE BATMAN VOICE SYNDROME
HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE

That's all I have to add.
*walks off*

 

[Gustavo_Loureiro]

It feels like I just walked into an episode of Seinfeld.

lol

 

[James Murphy]

There's no squid in the Watchmen movie.

gee, thanks so much for the spoiler.

 

[ahjteam]

"Could you do better?"

But that is a fucking good question really, but it really doesn't work with movies because they are played with big money budgets, but it works in music. Eventho I like heavy music and funk a lot, I still respect a lot of musicians because of their talent, but I always bring that question up when someone badmouths electronic music, especially being as easy as a push of a button. And trust me, they are in great numbers, even from actual musicicians.

Because the nature of rockmusic, I think that it's really a helluva lot easier to do a good radio-ready rocksong. It really doesn't require more than good sounding chorus with four chord progression played with drums, bass, few lines of guitars, maybe keyboards and vocals. Eventho I am just a shitty drummer, even I can do one in a few hours (minus the vocals), and we usually make one song per rehearsals as a band when composing.

Everything else can be pretty shitty stuff, but the chorus has to work, and it really doesn't even require you to be musically extremely talented, you can make a hitsong even if you know how to play only powerchords. Take Nirvana's "Smells like teen spirit" for example. Chorus goes F5 A#5 G#5 C#5 and verse is just repeated plucks of C and F. That song became one of the most played songs of the 1990s.

But electronic music in nature is building and progressive, so in my opinion it's really fucking lot harder to do fucking good electronic music, and I was even more convinced by this especially when I have one fucking good DJ who makes his own music living as my roommate. If you get lucky with a rock song, you might end up with ~90 tracks, but usually somewhere near 30-50, but if you do drums with midi, about 10-30 tracks. My roommate usually has literally like 120 tracks in just one of his songs and he does most of his samples and beats by hand and in some cases that doesn't mean MIDI. He did most of his breakbeat stuff (which isn't easy to program, nor to play IRL) by placing samples in the timeline.