A Woman Asked How Mike Rowe Could Associate With Glenn Beck. This is How He Responded

[TemplarKormac]

Pogo? That was directed at you. You spent page after page trying to justify a fallacy that didn't exist. Which clearly demonstrated you didn't A. Care about my OP, or B. Didn't understand my OP.

I think you should read it yourself, TK.

Think about it -- how are 1 and 2 not the same thing?

How?

Answer that.

Be cause 1 (Beck) is not a terrorist and 2 (Ayers) is. Simple. This clearly demonstrates that they are clearly NOT the same. False equivalency.

 

[Pogo]

I don't know why you guys persist here--- I've demonstrated, with your help, how you're selectively applying a Guilt by Association fallacy according to what you want your predetermined answer to be. Newby even admitted it outright.

TK posts the same scenario stated two different ways and wants to claim they're opposites. When asked to explain -- he can't. Neither can Pothead.

Yet some of y'all still sit here trying to tell the world that black is white. Doesn't make sense.

At least Newby's honest enough to admit the selective application. You other guys are a freaking head scratcher.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo? That was directed at you. You spent page after page trying to justify a fallacy that didn't exist. Which clearly demonstrated you didn't A. Care about my OP, or B. Didn't understand my OP.

I think you should read it yourself, TK.

Think about it -- how are 1 and 2 not the same thing?

How?

Answer that.

Be cause 1 (Beck) is not a terrorist and 2 (Ayers) is. Simple. This clearly demonstrates that they are clearly NOT the same. False equivalency.

No no no.

The question was not "who these people are". The question was NEVER "who these people are". The question was, is, remains and ever shall be, world without end, amen, "can you or I (the third party observer) make a determination on Person A, based on his association with Person B?" And the answer is no, we cannot.

What you're trying to do is selectively choose "well, if it's a guy I don't like, then I can make the association, and if it's a guy I like, then it's a fallacy".

And that is ...

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think you should read it yourself, TK.

Think about it -- how are 1 and 2 not the same thing?

How?

Answer that.

Be cause 1 (Beck) is not a terrorist and 2 (Ayers) is. Simple. This clearly demonstrates that they are clearly NOT the same. False equivalency.

No no no.

The question was not "who these people are". The question was NEVER "who these people are". The question was, is, remains and ever shall be, world without end, amen, "can you or I (the third party observer) make a determination on Person A, based on his association with Person B?" And the answer is no, we cannot.

What you're trying to do is selectively choose "well, if it's a guy I don't like, then I can make the association, and if it's a guy I like, then it's a fallacy".

And that is ...

Of course I don't like terrorists, Pogo. Anyone with his or her head firmly attached to their shoulders, and not firmly wedged between their glutes wouldn't. Everyone knows our president shouldn't associate with a man who spent time in his youth bombing people and conspiring to commit murder. Your idea that somehow Ayers is a somehow equivalent to Beck is ... complete and utter bullshit.

Your argument is now dead. That little picture of yours proves it.

 

[L.K.Eder]

I don't know why you guys persist here--- I've demonstrated, with your help, how you're selectively applying a Guilt by Association fallacy according to what you want your predetermined answer to be. Newby even admitted it outright.

TK posts the same scenario stated two different ways and wants to claim they're opposites. When asked to explain -- he can't. Neither can Pothead.

Yet some of y'all still sit here trying to tell the world that black is white. Doesn't make sense.

At least Newby's honest enough to admit the selective application. You other guys are a freaking head scratcher.

they persist because they think they can declare victory by simply continuing to be obtuse, ignorant, stubborn *****.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh I grasped it, Pothead. I then twisted it around to reflect reality, because you left me the opening

You didn't so much "twist" as "fumble."

But we'll give you an "e" for effort.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't know why you guys persist here--- I've demonstrated, with your help, how you're selectively applying a Guilt by Association fallacy according to what you want your predetermined answer to be. Newby even admitted it outright.

TK posts the same scenario stated two different ways and wants to claim they're opposites. When asked to explain -- he can't. Neither can Pothead.

Yet some of y'all still sit here trying to tell the world that black is white. Doesn't make sense.

At least Newby's honest enough to admit the selective application. You other guys are a freaking head scratcher.

We explained the "false equivalency" fallacy, but alas, you lack the wits to grasp even the most rudimentary of concepts.

Fumble on through the dark, oh benighted one..

 

[TemplarKormac]

Pogo

Your assertion is this, if its a terrorist who agrees with the president, hes simply a guy with the same political opinion. Really? Think about that for a minute. If your president has the same political ideals as a terrorist, what the hell is he doing in the White House?!

Are you daft?

P.S. The relationships between Obama and Ayers and Rowe and Beck are completely dissimilar. Don't even try to say they are.

 

[Pogo]

Oh I grasped it, Pothead. I then twisted it around to reflect reality, because you left me the opening

You didn't so much "twist" as "fumble."

But we'll give you an "e" for effort.

"E" equals Un-C, squared.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo

Your assertion is this, if its a terrorist who agrees with the president, hes simply a guy with the same political opinion. Really? Think about that for a minute. If your president has the same political ideals as a terrorist, what the hell is he doing in the White House?!

No, it is not.
I gave you my assertion three hundred times, yet you insist on trying to morph it into something entirely unrelated. Why don't you tell me what my real assertion is?

Are you daft?

I ain't the one putting words in somebody else's mouth so... apparently not.

P.S. The relationships between Obama and Ayers and Rowe and Beck are completely dissimilar. Don't even try to say they are.

You're talking to your own strawman, because I said nothing about the nature of those relationships. You did.

What about Manson, TK?

Helloooooooooooooo? Anybody home?

 

[L.K.Eder]

To be clear, I’m not here to tell you what to think or whom to hate. Like everyone else, you’re free to pick your devils, choose your angels, and attach the horns and halos accordingly.

But the guts of your question – even without all the name-calling and acrimony – reveal the essence of what’s broken in our country. You want to know “how I can associate” with someone you don’t like? The short answer is, how can I not? How are we ever going to accomplish anything in this incredibly divisive time if we associate only with people that we don’t disagree with?

-Mike

 

[TemplarKormac]

Pogo

Your assertion is this, if its a terrorist who agrees with the president, hes simply a guy with the same political opinion. Really? Think about that for a minute. If your president has the same political ideals as a terrorist, what the hell is he doing in the White House?!

No, it is not.
I gave you my assertion three hundred times, yet you insist on trying to morph it into something entirely unrelated. Why don't you tell me what my real assertion is?

Are you daft?

I ain't the one putting words in somebody else's mouth so... apparently not.

P.S. The relationships between Obama and Ayers and Rowe and Beck are completely dissimilar. Don't even try to say they are.

You're talking to your own strawman, because I said nothing about the nature of those relationships. You did.

What about Manson, TK?

Helloooooooooooooo? Anybody home?

Keep flailing in the wind Pogo. You did mention the nature of those relationships AS BEING THE SAME. Don't lie. I told you what your real assertion was, but you're the one backtracking from it.

DO NOT insult my intelligence, Pogo.

 

[Pogo]

I don't know why you guys persist here--- I've demonstrated, with your help, how you're selectively applying a Guilt by Association fallacy according to what you want your predetermined answer to be. Newby even admitted it outright.

TK posts the same scenario stated two different ways and wants to claim they're opposites. When asked to explain -- he can't. Neither can Pothead.

Yet some of y'all still sit here trying to tell the world that black is white. Doesn't make sense.

At least Newby's honest enough to admit the selective application. You other guys are a freaking head scratcher.

they persist because they think they can declare victory by simply continuing to be obtuse, ignorant, stubborn *****.

That's the part that flummoxes me -- how they can go on beating this horse when their own words keep killing the horse anew. It requires not only superhuman powers of self-delusion but ones of failing to hear the other side as well.

If you or I found ourselves this far in a hole, we'd get out of it with a quickness. They just keep digging, regardless how it makes them look. I can't fathom what anyone would gain from that.

This board needs a psychologist. It really does.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo

Your assertion is this, if its a terrorist who agrees with the president, hes simply a guy with the same political opinion. Really? Think about that for a minute. If your president has the same political ideals as a terrorist, what the hell is he doing in the White House?!

No, it is not.
I gave you my assertion three hundred times, yet you insist on trying to morph it into something entirely unrelated. Why don't you tell me what my real assertion is?



I ain't the one putting words in somebody else's mouth so... apparently not.

P.S. The relationships between Obama and Ayers and Rowe and Beck are completely dissimilar. Don't even try to say they are.

You're talking to your own strawman, because I said nothing about the nature of those relationships. You did.

What about Manson, TK?

Helloooooooooooooo? Anybody home?

Keep flailing in the wind Pogo. You did mention the nature of those relationships AS BEING THE SAME. Don't lie. I told you what your real assertion was, but you're the one backtracking from it.

DO NOT insult my intelligence, Pogo.

So .... you can't answer?

 

[Ernie S.]

The 'guilty by association' idea must have come out as a 'logical fallacy' at the time Obama was having to explain Wright and Ayers. Just google it and you see what Pogo is spouting all the way thru this thread. The idea that the people you choose to associate with has no bearing on who you are as a person, or says nothing about you one way or the other is ridiculous. And how you apply it directly depends on the character or lack thereof of the person being associated with.

Guilt by association is valid whenAyers is the person being associated with since Ayers is known as a disreputable person who lacks morals accepted in society as the norm.

Guilt by association in not valid when Beck is the person being associated with since Beck is known as a person of integrity based on moral norms accepted in society.

It has everything to do with the subjects that are being associated with.

Actually it "came out" aeons ago. It's here way before us, even before Al Gore invented the internets.

I've been trying to point out, mostly to TK, that he's carrying a double standard (itself a fallacy) that Guilt by Association can be switched on and off like a light switch depending on which light you want on.

Here, you've taken the step of a full admission and spelled it out.

Thanks for that.

The flaw, of course, is that one's judgment of whether Bill Ayers or Glenn Beck meets this mythical standard where logic springs out of nowhere and kicks in, is entirely subjective.

Well, Possum, I suppose it is a bit of a double standard, but in the case of Beck, your argument is all about your political beliefs. Half of us here are on Beck's side and half are on Ayres' side as far as politics go, but then we have this whole bombs and murder problem of Ayres'
If you still are thinking your double standard argument is valid, I feel very sorry for you and anyone you have the ability to influence.
I like you, Pogo. You're a smart, educated man with an exemplary command of the language, but Geeeze! To equate Beck with Ayres is just so way off base for you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, it is not.
I gave you my assertion three hundred times, yet you insist on trying to morph it into something entirely unrelated. Why don't you tell me what my real assertion is?



I ain't the one putting words in somebody else's mouth so... apparently not.



You're talking to your own strawman, because I said nothing about the nature of those relationships. You did.

What about Manson, TK?

Helloooooooooooooo? Anybody home?

Keep flailing in the wind Pogo. You did mention the nature of those relationships AS BEING THE SAME. Don't lie. I told you what your real assertion was, but you're the one backtracking from it.

DO NOT insult my intelligence, Pogo.

So .... you can't answer?

I did, just about a thousand or so times. You kept saying "fallacy" this, "fallacy" that. But then here's the kicker: You then proceeded to equate a terrorist with a TV personality. That was strike three. False equivalency does not an argument make. I believe thou doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[Pogo]

The 'guilty by association' idea must have come out as a 'logical fallacy' at the time Obama was having to explain Wright and Ayers. Just google it and you see what Pogo is spouting all the way thru this thread. The idea that the people you choose to associate with has no bearing on who you are as a person, or says nothing about you one way or the other is ridiculous. And how you apply it directly depends on the character or lack thereof of the person being associated with.

Guilt by association is valid whenAyers is the person being associated with since Ayers is known as a disreputable person who lacks morals accepted in society as the norm.

Guilt by association in not valid when Beck is the person being associated with since Beck is known as a person of integrity based on moral norms accepted in society.

It has everything to do with the subjects that are being associated with.

Actually it "came out" aeons ago. It's here way before us, even before Al Gore invented the internets.

I've been trying to point out, mostly to TK, that he's carrying a double standard (itself a fallacy) that Guilt by Association can be switched on and off like a light switch depending on which light you want on.

Here, you've taken the step of a full admission and spelled it out.

Thanks for that.

The flaw, of course, is that one's judgment of whether Bill Ayers or Glenn Beck meets this mythical standard where logic springs out of nowhere and kicks in, is entirely subjective.

Well, Possum, I suppose it is a bit of a double standard, but in the case of Beck, your argument is all about your political beliefs. Half of us here are on Beck's side and half are on Ayres' side as far as politics go, but then we have this whole bombs and murder problem of Ayres'
If you still are thinking your double standard argument is valid, I feel very sorry for you and anyone you have the ability to influence.
I like you, Pogo. You're a smart, educated man with an exemplary command of the language, but Geeeze! To equate Beck with Ayres is just so way off base for you.

Thanks Ernie.
Just to clarify, I never equated Beck with Ayers. I haven't commented on either one. I'm working strictly with "Person A" and "Person B". The idea that I equated anyone is entirely TK's strawman.

The naysayers don't seem to get that part. I'm telling them how the stage works, and they keep trying to tell me who the actors are.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Pogo

Your assertion is this, if its a terrorist who agrees with the president, hes simply a guy with the same political opinion. Really? Think about that for a minute. If your president has the same political ideals as a terrorist, what the hell is he doing in the White House?!

No, it is not.
I gave you my assertion three hundred times, yet you insist on trying to morph it into something entirely unrelated. Why don't you tell me what my real assertion is?



I ain't the one putting words in somebody else's mouth so... apparently not.

P.S. The relationships between Obama and Ayers and Rowe and Beck are completely dissimilar. Don't even try to say they are.

You're talking to your own strawman, because I said nothing about the nature of those relationships. You did.

What about Manson, TK?

Helloooooooooooooo? Anybody home?

Keep flailing in the wind Pogo. You did mention the nature of those relationships AS BEING THE SAME. Don't lie. I told you what your real assertion was, but you're the one backtracking from it.

DO NOT insult my intelligence, Pogo.

that is not even possible.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Looks like the Guilt by Association Fallacy just sailed over your head too

Not a fallacy here. Which is your problem.

It's politics that caused William Ayer to engage in terrorism. It seems pretty appropriate to ask questions about political associations one has with a terrorist. No fallacy involved. It's something to cause concern. It may be nothing. It may not be. We will never know since apparently asking is forbidden.

Somehow that is unimportant. But it is vitally important to question Mike Rowe's association with someone who has a long history of promoting virtues in society.

I will never understand the logic of this.

You're trying to dance around the issue and have it both ways. Don't think it's not obvious.

Once again slowly: either it's a fallacy or it isn't -- you don't get to invoke fallacy in case A, no fallacy in case B on account of "he's a criminal" or "he's a rodeo clown". Doesn't matter who Bill Ayers or Glenn Beck are-- it's either a valid argument or invalid, every time. And it's invalid. Period.

What was that? You didn't make a false equivalency argument? Try again my friend.

 

[Pogo]

Not a fallacy here. Which is your problem.

It's politics that caused William Ayer to engage in terrorism. It seems pretty appropriate to ask questions about political associations one has with a terrorist. No fallacy involved. It's something to cause concern. It may be nothing. It may not be. We will never know since apparently asking is forbidden.

Somehow that is unimportant. But it is vitally important to question Mike Rowe's association with someone who has a long history of promoting virtues in society.

I will never understand the logic of this.

You're trying to dance around the issue and have it both ways. Don't think it's not obvious.

Once again slowly: either it's a fallacy or it isn't -- you don't get to invoke fallacy in case A, no fallacy in case B on account of "he's a criminal" or "he's a rodeo clown". Doesn't matter who Bill Ayers or Glenn Beck are-- it's either a valid argument or invalid, every time. And it's invalid. Period.

What was that? You didn't make a false equivalency argument? Try again my friend.

There is no "false equivalence" there because there is no equivalence stated there.
The statement doesn't say that A and B are "equivalent". The statement says that A and B are irrelevant. Do you not understand the difference?
That's what the words "Doesn't matter" mean. Sheeeesh.

Once again, I'm not sure what these words are doing between the screen and your eyes, but an apple doesn't change to a banana just because you misidentify it.