"Does this mean we are becoming better citizens? Ninety-seven percent of American teenagers play video games.[4] Does this mean they will become more politically active? Before you dismiss these questions, keep in mind that in October 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama became the first U. S. Presidential candidate to advertise in video games"
I stopped reading at this lapse in logic.
Besides, how can one cite Caillois without citing Huizinga. Caillois admits his project is little more than a commentary on Homo Ludens.
I see this phrase regularly, but I don't really understand it. Does it mean you read no further into the article, or did you actually read more, if not all, but use this phrase to signify that you disagree.
I find the idea of only reading until you find something you disagree with curious. It seems to indicate a belief that one flaw in a person's work invalidates the remainder of that work. Surely you don't consume opinion in a binary fashion, either accepting or rejecting it in its entirety, but rather you have the ability to consider each point and reject some and accept others based on their merit?
[pulls rant up short]
Not meaning to single you out, you just happened to use that phrase at the same time that I had time to reply
I don't stop reading when I disagree with something, but I have stopped reading when there's something so ridiculously off-base that it throws everything else the author may think about the topic into question. If there's a fundamental misunderstanding of some aspect of a given topic, it makes it likely the rest is not worth reading.
I'm not obligated to read anything, and if the author is wrong on basic topics, I'll not be giving them more of my time.
If my estimate of the value of the rest of the text is significantly less than my estimate of the value of the time and effort it would take me to read it, I'll skim to see if there's more value ahead, and if I don't find much I'll stop reading entirely.
- readability (layout, font, color scheme, distracting ads mid-page, etc.)
- directness/relevance (getting to the point, not getting sidetracked.)
- insightful or thought-provoking ideas (even if I disagree)
- correctness (in terms of facts as well as reasoning; non-sequiturs and factual inaccuracies, especially egregious ones, reduce my confidence in the author)
I found this particular article very close to my cutoff several times, though I did eventually finish it. Negative factors included opening with 2 paragraphs on Howard Zinn, several strange non-sequiturs like the one pointed out in the grandparent comment, excessive verbosity, irrelevant details (like the number of coins it costs per pumpkin), and stretches in reasoning (Farmville is "productive" and "not governed by rules" but "cause and effect"?) Occasional insights, and even occasional wrong-but-thought-provoking ideas, provided just enough value to keep me reading. But I'm a stay-at-home dad with a lot of free time; my valuation of my free time would go up if I had less of it, and I probably wouldn't have gotten past the first 3 or 4 paragraphs.
I read until the point I found a lapse in reasoning, in this case that the fact that Obama advertised in video games was related in some fashion to whether or not video game playing teenagers would make better citizens.
I then scanned briefly for references to Huizinga.
You might be right that not all of the essay is fallacious simply because some component part is, but this seemed esp. egregious.
I stopped reading at this lapse in logic.
Besides, how can one cite Caillois without citing Huizinga. Caillois admits his project is little more than a commentary on Homo Ludens.