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

[TemplarKormac]

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" means. 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.

 

[L.K.Eder]

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" means. 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.

in 50 years, he will be a great lawyer. like orly taitz.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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" means. 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.

in 50 years, he will be a great lawyer. like orly taitz.

And you'll still be some stupid basement dwelling liberal opining on a message board.

 

[whitehall]

How could the left maintain such profound hatred for a minor T.V. personality like Glenn Beck? Is it about abortion? The left's capacity for hatred is creepy and scary. God help us if they ever take over the government.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Of course you are talking about Ayres and Beck. The thread is ABOUT Beck and Ayres entered the discussion very early on. You can call them Mr. A and Mr. B, but if you insist are not talking about them, you are either off topic or dishonest.

Regardless: Are you so anti Beck that you find it more horrific for Mike Rowe to associate with a political bloviator than for barack obama to associate with a terrorist and a murderer.

Please. Not ducking out with fallacies and hypotheticals. I asked a direct question and expect a direct answer.

 

[L.K.Eder]

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" means. 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.

in 50 years, he will be a great lawyer. like orly taitz.

And you'll still be some stupid basement dwelling liberal opining on a message board.

for the record, i don't think you will ever pass the bar anywhere. even if the bar is as low as it apparently is in some states of the US of A.

btw, mike rowe (whoever that is) would probably be sad to know how his message is processed.

thanks for starting this thread. it was very entertaining.

 

[Uncensored2008]

for the record, i don't think you will ever pass the bar anywhere.

For the record, I don't think you've ever passed a bar, anywhere...

Or a back alley with a paper bag clad bottle of ripple...

I'm just sayin...

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Of course you are talking about Ayres and Beck. The thread is ABOUT Beck and Ayres entered the discussion very early on. You can call them Mr. A and Mr. B, but if you insist are not talking about them, you are either off topic or dishonest.

Regardless: Are you so anti Beck that you find it more horrific for Mike Rowe to associate with a political bloviator than for barack obama to associate with a terrorist and a murderer.

Please. Not ducking out with fallacies and hypotheticals. I asked a direct question and expect a direct answer.

Insert Pogo's lack of rebuttal here.

 

[koshergrl]

in 50 years, he will be a great lawyer. like orly taitz.

And you'll still be some stupid basement dwelling liberal opining on a message board.

for the record, i don't think you will ever pass the bar anywhere. even if the bar is as low as it apparently is in some states of the US of A.

btw, mike rowe (whoever that is) would probably be sad to know how his message is processed.

thanks for starting this thread. it was very entertaining.

Pretentious douche alert.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And you'll still be some stupid basement dwelling liberal opining on a message board.

for the record, i don't think you will ever pass the bar anywhere. even if the bar is as low as it apparently is in some states of the US of A.

btw, mike rowe (whoever that is) would probably be sad to know how his message is processed.

thanks for starting this thread. it was very entertaining.

Pretentious douche alert.

Ignore it.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Of course you are talking about Ayres and Beck. The thread is ABOUT Beck and Ayres entered the discussion very early on. You can call them Mr. A and Mr. B, but if you insist are not talking about them, you are either off topic or dishonest.

Regardless: Are you so anti Beck that you find it more horrific for Mike Rowe to associate with a political bloviator than for barack obama to associate with a terrorist and a murderer.

Please. Not ducking out with fallacies and hypotheticals. I asked a direct question and expect a direct answer.

And you'll get one, thanks for asking.

Again, I'm not now, nor have I ever been, talking about Beck, Ayres, Wright, Obama, Rowe or anyone else specifically. I've been breaking down the logical fallacy of Guilt by Association, and how a few here, notably the OP along with Newby, want to apply that fallacy or not apply it -- selectively-- depending on what they want their predetermined outcome to be. Newby even admitted it here:

Guilt by association is valid when Ayers 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.

-- now that's what I call trying to have your logic both ways.

As you already noted, it is a double standard.

Rehashing this too, but TK was correct in his OP when he says:
if we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?

Mike Rowe is also correct in the same post:
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?

I agree with both of those. Now I'm asking for TK to apply it with consistency.

 

[whitehall]

The fact that a post about someone's opinion about Glenn Beck could end up on the political forum is an indication that the radical left has lost touch with reality. Thanks to Huffington and all the left wing tax exempt propaganda sites like Media Matters and Newshound, the low information left is convinced that free speech is the enemy while the real political issues concerning the Hussein administration are virtually ignored.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Of course you are talking about Ayres and Beck. The thread is ABOUT Beck and Ayres entered the discussion very early on. You can call them Mr. A and Mr. B, but if you insist are not talking about them, you are either off topic or dishonest.

Regardless: Are you so anti Beck that you find it more horrific for Mike Rowe to associate with a political bloviator than for barack obama to associate with a terrorist and a murderer.

Please. Not ducking out with fallacies and hypotheticals. I asked a direct question and expect a direct answer.

And you'll get one, thanks for asking.

Again, I'm not now, nor have I ever been, talking about Beck, Ayres, Wright, Obama, Rowe or anyone else specifically. I've been breaking down the logical fallacy of Guilt by Association, and how a few here, notably the OP along with Newby, want to apply that fallacy or not apply it -- selectively-- depending on what they want their predetermined outcome to be. Newby even admitted it here:

Guilt by association is valid when Ayers 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.

-- now that's what I call trying to have your logic both ways.

As you already noted, it is a double standard.

Rehashing this too, but TK was correct in his OP when he says:
if we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?

Mike Rowe is also correct in the same post:
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?

I agree with both of those. Now I'm asking for TK to apply it with consistency.

I'm not the one you should be responding to. And here you talk of "consistency."

 

[Pogo]

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" means. 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.

See what you're doing with your head there? That's gotta hurt. I'm trying to get this thought in a ....kinder, gentler way. All you have to do is see the error of your misreads. Starting with what's sitting right above that banging head.

While you're ignoring that one, why not continue to ignore the last couple of questions... here they are again:


Question the First:

Here's TK's statement, oh-so-conveniently "left out" of Pothead's post:

You agree that Mike Rowe should be allowed to associate with Glenn Beck, but you get upset or launch into attack mode when people infer guilt on Barack Obama for associating with Bill Ayers.

Why is that?

(Why is that? Because they're the same thing, that's why. The word "but" has no logical function.)

Break it down:
Rowe can associate with Beck (- yes, because to say he can't is guilt by association)
but attack others for inferring guilt on Obama for associating with (Ayers) (- yes, because that is guilt by association).

(2) is the same thing as (1), stated backwards.

Your task: explain how those two are not expressions of the same idea. Because you called the coexistence of these two statements "hypocrisy". Explain.

Question the Second:

You sit down in a room with Charles Manson.
You talk about fried chicken recipes. You give him a cooking tip, he gives you a cooking tip. That's it.
You get up, you leave.
I watch from a distance. I don't know what you talked about.

----- Shall I conclude you are now a mass murderer?

That one's been sitting since yesterday and remains unmolested.

 

[L.K.Eder]

the derp posse is in full effect haha.

surely, they will win this round.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Of course you are talking about Ayres and Beck. The thread is ABOUT Beck and Ayres entered the discussion very early on. You can call them Mr. A and Mr. B, but if you insist are not talking about them, you are either off topic or dishonest.

Regardless: Are you so anti Beck that you find it more horrific for Mike Rowe to associate with a political bloviator than for barack obama to associate with a terrorist and a murderer.

Please. Not ducking out with fallacies and hypotheticals. I asked a direct question and expect a direct answer.

And you'll get one, thanks for asking.

Again, I'm not now, nor have I ever been, talking about Beck, Ayres, Wright, Obama, Rowe or anyone else specifically. I've been breaking down the logical fallacy of Guilt by Association, and how a few here, notably the OP along with Newby, want to apply that fallacy or not apply it -- selectively-- depending on what they want their predetermined outcome to be. Newby even admitted it here:

Guilt by association is valid when Ayers 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.

-- now that's what I call trying to have your logic both ways.

As you already noted, it is a double standard.

Rehashing this too, but TK was correct in his OP when he says:
if we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?

Mike Rowe is also correct in the same post:
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?

I agree with both of those. Now I'm asking for TK to apply it with consistency.

I'd appreciate an answer.

 

[Pogo]

Of course you are talking about Ayres and Beck. The thread is ABOUT Beck and Ayres entered the discussion very early on. You can call them Mr. A and Mr. B, but if you insist are not talking about them, you are either off topic or dishonest.

Regardless: Are you so anti Beck that you find it more horrific for Mike Rowe to associate with a political bloviator than for barack obama to associate with a terrorist and a murderer.

Please. Not ducking out with fallacies and hypotheticals. I asked a direct question and expect a direct answer.

And you'll get one, thanks for asking.

Again, I'm not now, nor have I ever been, talking about Beck, Ayres, Wright, Obama, Rowe or anyone else specifically. I've been breaking down the logical fallacy of Guilt by Association, and how a few here, notably the OP along with Newby, want to apply that fallacy or not apply it -- selectively-- depending on what they want their predetermined outcome to be. Newby even admitted it here:

Guilt by association is valid when Ayers 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.

-- now that's what I call trying to have your logic both ways.

As you already noted, it is a double standard.

Rehashing this too, but TK was correct in his OP when he says:
if we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?

Mike Rowe is also correct in the same post:
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?

I agree with both of those. Now I'm asking for TK to apply it with consistency.

I'd appreciate an answer.

I thought I just did that.
The bolded red doesn't make sense as a question because I've said throughout that Mike Rowe (just because he's the example) is perfectly free to associate with Beck and that there is no rational basis to excoriate him for it. There is nothing to compare, because again, I'm talking about how the stage works and they're talking about who the actors are. Again, doesn't matter if the actors are Adolf Hitler, Genghis Khan and Osama bin Laden with a side of Jesus sauce; the logic is the same.

NONE of these associations are inherently "horrific". I never implied any such thing.

 

[Pogo]

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" means. 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.

See what you're doing with your head there? That's gotta hurt. I'm trying to get this thought in a ....kinder, gentler way. All you have to do is see the error of your misreads. Starting with what's sitting right above that banging head.

While you're ignoring that one, why not continue to ignore the last couple of questions... here they are again:


Question the First:

Here's TK's statement, oh-so-conveniently "left out" of Pothead's post:

You agree that Mike Rowe should be allowed to associate with Glenn Beck, but you get upset or launch into attack mode when people infer guilt on Barack Obama for associating with Bill Ayers.

Why is that?

(Why is that? Because they're the same thing, that's why. The word "but" has no logical function.)

Break it down:
Rowe can associate with Beck (- yes, because to say he can't is guilt by association)
but attack others for inferring guilt on Obama for associating with (Ayers) (- yes, because that is guilt by association).

(2) is the same thing as (1), stated backwards.

Your task: explain how those two are not expressions of the same idea. Because you called the coexistence of these two statements "hypocrisy". Explain.

Question the Second:

You sit down in a room with Charles Manson.
You talk about fried chicken recipes. You give him a cooking tip, he gives you a cooking tip. That's it.
You get up, you leave.
I watch from a distance. I don't know what you talked about.

----- Shall I conclude you are now a mass murderer?

That one's been sitting since yesterday and remains unmolested.

I'd appreciate two answers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Um, I hate to burst your bubble but as far as I know you just got here and I've been talking almost exclusively with the OP, so fantasize on fantisizer...

If there's a point above, it's lost in a sea of "douchewads" and "idiots", so ... thanks for stopping by. We'll call you if we need you. Herr Bag.

Your memory is so fucked you can't remember what happened yesterday?

By the way, if using bad words negates anything I say, how do you explain this?

Here we go. Sorry Pothead...

This is why you are a douchebag. If you don't like being a douchbag, stop being one.

You are correct (stopped clock syndrome?) -- looking back I see you were here yesterday. Obviously it left a deep impression

"Pothead" was already explained, but it's interesting I can't call him Pothead while he's free to call me Pol Pot. Speaking of dem double standards.

I see you missed the point.

I don't care what you call him, calling him names does not make you a douchebag. What makes you a douchebag is calling other people names, and then complaining when someone calls you a name.

 

[Ernie S.]

And you'll get one, thanks for asking.

Again, I'm not now, nor have I ever been, talking about Beck, Ayres, Wright, Obama, Rowe or anyone else specifically. I've been breaking down the logical fallacy of Guilt by Association, and how a few here, notably the OP along with Newby, want to apply that fallacy or not apply it -- selectively-- depending on what they want their predetermined outcome to be. Newby even admitted it here:



-- now that's what I call trying to have your logic both ways.

As you already noted, it is a double standard.

Rehashing this too, but TK was correct in his OP when he says:
if we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?

Mike Rowe is also correct in the same post:
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?

I agree with both of those. Now I'm asking for TK to apply it with consistency.

I'd appreciate an answer.

I thought I just did that.
The bolded red doesn't make sense as a question because I've said throughout that Mike Rowe (just because he's the example) is perfectly free to associate with Beck and that there is no rational basis to excoriate him for it. There is nothing to compare, because again, I'm talking about how the stage works and they're talking about who the actors are. Again, doesn't matter if the actors are Adolf Hitler, Genghis Khan and Osama bin Laden with a side of Jesus sauce; the logic is the same.

NONE of these associations are inherently "horrific". I never implied any such thing.

I asked a simple enough question which you either can't or won't answer. OK So be it.