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

[Quantum Windbag]

It was a tangent, riffing on the opening of Darkwind's wording, not that important.

But the full transcript of the show is here.

Who's the liar now, beeeeyatch?

That would be the guy that said Beck planted the bomb.

Wait, that was you.

Wait, you don't understand metaphor.

Actual event: no bomb
Beck report: bomb

How'd it get there?

Again, our full point of departure was:
"...Glenn Beck has never set bombs to make political points."

Note the adverbial phrase.

(/offtopic)

Is that your way of excusing a blatant lie?

 

[Pogo]

That would be the guy that said Beck planted the bomb.

Wait, that was you.

Wait, you don't understand metaphor.

Actual event: no bomb
Beck report: bomb

How'd it get there?

Again, our full point of departure was:
"...Glenn Beck has never set bombs to make political points."

Note the adverbial phrase.

(/offtopic)

Is that your way of excusing a blatant lie?

I didn't "excuse" a blatant lie; I reported it.
Event: no bomb. Beck show: bomb. Blatant lie.

You're welcome.

 

[Pogo]

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:



(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.

Question 1: You're okay with Mike Rowe associating with Glenn Beck, but on the other hand are getting upset that people infer guilt on Obama for associating with a terrorist.

There is no "on the other hand". They are two different cases of the exact same thing.
The Rowe-Beck association is not problematic because to be so would require a fallacy.
The Obama-Ayers association is not problematic for the exact same reason.

All you did here was shift the names and then insert a double negative into the second case. The same principle drives both, ergo there is no contradiction.

Everything else you've typed after this point about Question 1 is irrelevant, because Guilt by Association does not depend on who the participants are.

The reason they have nothing to do with one another, is for one, Beck is not a convicted criminal, he has not participated in any acts of terrorism, nor has he done anything horribly reprehensible to his fellow Americans, he and Mike Rowe do not always see eye to eye and have come together despite those differences for a common cause.

Two, Ayers is a terrorist. He has made it known he was a terrorist and he has participated in acts of terrorism. He was the leader of the Weather Underground. He personally held a fundraiser for Obama to help him get his political career off the ground. They knew each other and had previously interacted with each other as I mentioned previously. Ayers personally endorsed Obama in 2008. Therefore, there has been ample chance for any of Ayers' ideas to rub off on Obama. This isn't inference of guilt by association, this is inference of guilt through Obama's actions of taking money and endorsements from a convicted terrorist!

Three, nobody is accusing Obama of being a terrorist himself, which I gather you think people are doing by supposedly making fallacious "guilt by association" arguments.

Question 2: Charles Manson didn't have a fundraiser with me in my own home that launched my political career. Answer your question?

Nope. Because that wasn't the question.

The question is -- do I (not you the associator but I, the observer) have a rational basis to judge you to be a mass murderer, simply because you sat down with Charles Manson?

I have repeatedly contrasted the differences here, Uncensored called you on your false equivalency argument as well. You have become overtly childish as this thread has gone on. You didn't like it when I got in your face about it either, you call people "beeeyotch" and "pothead," you have managed to hurl multiple insults in my direction, without ever addressing my original post. I can only take it you only came here to attack the messenger, not the message. You conjure up the false fantasy and expect me to answer it? It was nothing but a strawman, a red herring, a non sequitur, ad hominem, false equivalency and false dilemma arguments all rolled up into one.

Uncense crowed a lot about "false equivalence" but never showed any. Neither did you.
That story is not a strawman-herring-sequitur-hominem-dilemma. It's a hypothetical.

I didn't insult you. Beeeyotch and Pothead are playful terms. Nothing for you to worry about. Especially since you never answered this post. Which reminds us of the one fallacy you completely left out of your laundry list up there, the one you used in that other thread (by omission) and the same one you're still using here: the double standard.

 

[auditor0007]

Given the politically derisive nature of our country right now, suddenly we have enough gumption to question who associates with who, or whether we agree with them. I mean come on folks, seriously? According to the First Amendment, Mr. Rowe here has the right to freely associate with whom he pleases without fear of reprisal from angry liberal Facebook posters. But anyhow, If we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?

William Ayers

What? Care to expound on this? Just don't throw out random names of underground terrorists without explaining their relevance! Thank you!

The point is that while liberals would have a problem with Mike Rowe's association with Glenn Beck, the argument he makes is valid. On the opposing side though, the same holds true. We see this on USMB all the time. It has to work both ways and both sides need to learn to actually talk to each other and listen again so that we can move forward. Nobody is every going to get everything they want.

 

[Gracie]

Mike Rowe rocks! And he is handsome to boot, lol.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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:


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.

Question 1: You're okay with Mike Rowe associating with Glenn Beck, but on the other hand are getting upset that people infer guilt on Obama for associating with a terrorist.

There is no "on the other hand". They are two different cases of the exact same thing.
The Rowe-Beck association is not problematic because to be so would require a fallacy.
The Obama-Ayers association is not problematic for the exact same reason.

All you did here was shift the names and then insert a double negative into the second case. The same principle drives both, ergo there is no contradiction.

Everything else you've typed after this point about Question 1 is irrelevant, because Guilt by Association does not depend on who the participants are.

The reason they have nothing to do with one another, is for one, Beck is not a convicted criminal, he has not participated in any acts of terrorism, nor has he done anything horribly reprehensible to his fellow Americans, he and Mike Rowe do not always see eye to eye and have come together despite those differences for a common cause.

Two, Ayers is a terrorist. He has made it known he was a terrorist and he has participated in acts of terrorism. He was the leader of the Weather Underground. He personally held a fundraiser for Obama to help him get his political career off the ground. They knew each other and had previously interacted with each other as I mentioned previously. Ayers personally endorsed Obama in 2008. Therefore, there has been ample chance for any of Ayers' ideas to rub off on Obama. This isn't inference of guilt by association, this is inference of guilt through Obama's actions of taking money and endorsements from a convicted terrorist!

Three, nobody is accusing Obama of being a terrorist himself, which I gather you think people are doing by supposedly making fallacious "guilt by association" arguments.

Question 2: Charles Manson didn't have a fundraiser with me in my own home that launched my political career. Answer your question?

Nope. Because that wasn't the question.

The question is -- do I (not you the associator but I, the observer) have a rational basis to judge you to be a mass murderer, simply because you sat down with Charles Manson?

I have repeatedly contrasted the differences here, Uncensored called you on your false equivalency argument as well. You have become overtly childish as this thread has gone on. You didn't like it when I got in your face about it either, you call people "beeeyotch" and "pothead," you have managed to hurl multiple insults in my direction, without ever addressing my original post. I can only take it you only came here to attack the messenger, not the message. You conjure up the false fantasy and expect me to answer it? It was nothing but a strawman, a red herring, a non sequitur, ad hominem, false equivalency and false dilemma arguments all rolled up into one.

Uncense crowed a lot about "false equivalence" but never showed any. Neither did you.
That story is not a strawman-herring-sequitur-hominem-dilemma. It's a hypothetical.

I didn't insult you. Beeeyotch and Pothead are playful terms. Nothing for you to worry about. Especially since you never answered this post. Which reminds us of the one fallacy you completely left out of your laundry list up there, the one you used in that other thread (by omission) and the same one you're still using here: the double standard.

Notwithstanding the first half of your post, the terms you used to insult me and others were in fact derogatory, not playful. And to be truthful, you're the one employing the double standard. You insist that one, it's okay for Rowe to associate with Beck, and be exposed to any of the consequences that entails. And that two, it should be okay for Obama to associate with a terrorist, so long as he is not exposed to the consequences of his affiliation with Bill Ayers.

Your argument among "the laundry list" I mentioned earlier, is known as an appeal to common practice argument. You are also applying a fallacy referred to as special pleading, to Obama. Which is a fallacy where a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking himself or herself (or those he or she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.

No sir. You may believe I am some snot nosed 26 year old, but I am far from stupid. Do not take me for a fool.

 

[TemplarKormac]

William Ayers

What? Care to expound on this? Just don't throw out random names of underground terrorists without explaining their relevance! Thank you!

The point is that while liberals would have a problem with Mike Rowe's association with Glenn Beck, the argument he makes is valid. On the opposing side though, the same holds true. We see this on USMB all the time. It has to work both ways and both sides need to learn to actually talk to each other and listen again so that we can move forward. Nobody is every going to get everything they want.

Fair enough. Easier to understand than what Pogo took page after page to explain.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wait, you don't understand metaphor.

Actual event: no bomb
Beck report: bomb

How'd it get there?

Again, our full point of departure was:
"...Glenn Beck has never set bombs to make political points."

Note the adverbial phrase.

(/offtopic)

Your attempted simile is a real bomb... If you go to this much trouble to smear Beck with such absurdity, you clearly fear him. Obviously your shameful party also fears him.

Perhaps I should pay more attention to Beck......

 

[Pogo]

Question 1: You're okay with Mike Rowe associating with Glenn Beck, but on the other hand are getting upset that people infer guilt on Obama for associating with a terrorist.

There is no "on the other hand". They are two different cases of the exact same thing.
The Rowe-Beck association is not problematic because to be so would require a fallacy.
The Obama-Ayers association is not problematic for the exact same reason.

All you did here was shift the names and then insert a double negative into the second case. The same principle drives both, ergo there is no contradiction.

Everything else you've typed after this point about Question 1 is irrelevant, because Guilt by Association does not depend on who the participants are.



Nope. Because that wasn't the question.

The question is -- do I (not you the associator but I, the observer) have a rational basis to judge you to be a mass murderer, simply because you sat down with Charles Manson?

I have repeatedly contrasted the differences here, Uncensored called you on your false equivalency argument as well. You have become overtly childish as this thread has gone on. You didn't like it when I got in your face about it either, you call people "beeeyotch" and "pothead," you have managed to hurl multiple insults in my direction, without ever addressing my original post. I can only take it you only came here to attack the messenger, not the message. You conjure up the false fantasy and expect me to answer it? It was nothing but a strawman, a red herring, a non sequitur, ad hominem, false equivalency and false dilemma arguments all rolled up into one.

Uncense crowed a lot about "false equivalence" but never showed any. Neither did you.
That story is not a strawman-herring-sequitur-hominem-dilemma. It's a hypothetical.

I didn't insult you. Beeeyotch and Pothead are playful terms. Nothing for you to worry about. Especially since you never answered this post. Which reminds us of the one fallacy you completely left out of your laundry list up there, the one you used in that other thread (by omission) and the same one you're still using here: the double standard.

Notwithstanding the first half of your post, the terms you used to insult me and others were in fact derogatory, not playful. And to be truthful, you're the one employing the double standard. You insist that one, it's okay for Rowe to associate with Beck, and be exposed to any of the consequences that entails. And that two, it should be okay for Obama to associate with a terrorist, so long as he is not exposed to the consequences of his affiliation with Bill Ayers.

Your argument among "the laundry list" I mentioned earlier, is known as an appeal to common practice argument. You are also applying a fallacy referred to as special pleading, to Obama. Which is a fallacy where a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking himself or herself (or those he or she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.

No sir. You may believe I am some snot nosed 26 year old, but I am far from stupid. Do not take me for a fool.

Morning TK. It seems you have finally accepted the idea when Auditor posted it so we need not re-beat the horse. But trust me, if I took you for a fool I wouldn't have expended that much energy on you.

The ribbing terms, again since I made them up I think I know what they mean, as do those posters targeted, most recently Uncensored (Pothead). I just believe in tossing in an occasional joke to let the steam out.

This isn't really a tangent; it's another form of one person trying to control what another is saying to a third party, whether it's you trying to control me, Shannon Whatzername trying to control Mike Rowe, or the right wing blogosphere trying to control O'bama. At some point you've just gotta let it be; regardless of whether you think Rowe should be hanging with Bill Maher or I should be ribbing Pothead.

It's a message board; we lose a lot of nuance in a text-only format where nuances of speech and facial expressions are absent (matter of fact that's the basic reason the Amish don't use telephones-- it denies the visual cues of face-to-face communication). Sure there's a ton of personal attack in this medium but that doesn't mean everything is.

You're a fair-minded guy, and I take what you post seriously. But you need a little thicker skin around these parts. Take a breath once in a while; Erliechda -- lighten up.

It's been a very worthy topic, thanks for creating it. Have a great day.

 

[Pogo]

Wait, you don't understand metaphor.

Actual event: no bomb
Beck report: bomb

How'd it get there?

Again, our full point of departure was:
"...Glenn Beck has never set bombs to make political points."

Note the adverbial phrase.

(/offtopic)

Your attempted simile is a real bomb... If you go to this much trouble to smear Beck with such absurdity, you clearly fear him. Obviously your shameful party also fears him.

Perhaps I should pay more attention to Beck......

Hey, maybe you should. I know you're a fan of the Pol Pot hour so you prolly miss a lot. Lucky you have me to fill you in.

Don't worry, it wasn't any trouble. I've posted that story before so I already knew it. It's all true too.

Yeah I've noticed we often say metaphor when we mean simile. Kind of using metaphor as a metaphor. So your effort to keep the word simile alive is well taken, but this one really is a metaphor, on the verb "set (bombs)". As I noted, the opening Darkwind left me was just too tempting to stay silent.

 

[Ernie S.]

The question is -- do I (not you the associator but I, the observer) have a rational basis to judge you to be a mass murderer, simply because you sat down with Charles Manson?

The short answer is no, but a rational person may suspect a connection if Manson's visitor is a violent criminal.

In the case of Ayres/obama. we have a would be politician and future President of the United States engaging in way more than a casual 10 minute conversation with a known political terrorist and murderer.
He launched his political career in the home of a political activist who supports, or supported the violent overthrow of our government.

obama wasn't a criminal profiler, a novelist, biographer or journalist hanging out with Ayres to try to grasp how his head works. It was political activist meeting political activist; more collaboration than research.

Is their association proof of nefarious motive? No, but seeing there has been far more than a casual meeting between the 2 men, it is logical to assume Ayres has had some influence on obama's thought process.

 

[Papageorgio]

William Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground ... when they started to think bombing was the answer, he left ... this has been well documented by the Police department when they arrested him back in the 60's ... they discovered he had left their following ... it has been people like you who said just because Obama work with him, trying to help low income people, that Obama was is know associate of terrorist supporter just becasue he and Ayers were working together to help these people ...

NO No No - Op was arguing that people should NOT be vilified because of their associations .......

wasn't she/he?

so Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, et al ........ No Problem.

Right?

go read his second post he vilifies it alright Ayers is a murdering bomber ... he kill a statue by blowing it up ... they had funeral arrangements for that statue the following day flowers and everything .... give me a break

He bombed a statue, then the New York City Police Dept., then the Capitol Building, the Pentagon and his girlfriend died in an accidental bomb explosion.

 

[JoeNormal]

William Ayers

you couldn't have said it better ... here a guy works with someone and now he's a terrorist in the minds of the opposition... perfect response

Bill Ayers is a terrorist. He has openly said his biggest regret is that he didn't do more.

We should have no problem with the President starting his political career in A terrorists home, and yet Mike Rowe should be given a hard time because he had the audacity to work with Glenn Beck to better the community and encourage hard work.

Clearly these things are absolutely identical.

Hard work is only half of the equation. Wall Street employs the hardest working sociopaths in the world. There also needs to be a positive goal that's worth working hard for. Speading disinformation and revisionist history as Glenn Beck does is not a worthy goal.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wait, you don't understand metaphor.

Actual event: no bomb
Beck report: bomb

How'd it get there?

Again, our full point of departure was:
"...Glenn Beck has never set bombs to make political points."

Note the adverbial phrase.

(/offtopic)

Your attempted simile is a real bomb... If you go to this much trouble to smear Beck with such absurdity, you clearly fear him. Obviously your shameful party also fears him.

Perhaps I should pay more attention to Beck......

Hey, maybe you should. I know you're a fan of the Pol Pot hour so you prolly miss a lot. Lucky you have me to fill you in.

Don't worry, it wasn't any trouble. I've posted that story before so I already knew it. It's all true too.

Yeah I've noticed we often say metaphor when we mean simile. Kind of using metaphor as a metaphor. So your effort to keep the word simile alive is well taken, but this one really is a metaphor, on the verb "set (bombs)". As I noted, the opening Darkwind left me was just too tempting to stay silent.

I don't think so...

{sim·i·le
ˈsiməlē/
noun
noun: simile; plural noun: similes

1.
a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid (e.g., as brave as a lion, crazy like a fox ).}

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hard work is only half of the equation. Wall Street employs the hardest working sociopaths in the world. There also needs to be a positive goal that's worth working hard for. Speading disinformation and revisionist history as Glenn Beck does is not a worthy goal.

You're saying 10,000 leftist college professors are wrong?

 

[JoeNormal]

Hard work is only half of the equation. Wall Street employs the hardest working sociopaths in the world. There also needs to be a positive goal that's worth working hard for. Speading disinformation and revisionist history as Glenn Beck does is not a worthy goal.

You're saying 10,000 leftist college professors are wrong?

You think Glenn Beck quotes 10,000 leftist college professors?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You think Glenn Beck quotes 10,000 leftist college professors?

You think leftist revision of history and disinformation is a good thing, but a rightward slant is a crime against humanity?

No bias with you, eh sparky?

 

[JoeNormal]

You think Glenn Beck quotes 10,000 leftist college professors?

You think leftist revision of history and disinformation is a good thing, but a rightward slant is a crime against humanity?

No bias with you, eh sparky?

A rightward slant? Try pure fabrication. I've tried to blot most of what I heard from Glenn Beck out of my memory as the cognitive dissonance tends to fester. However, one thing still sticks in my mind. In his attempt to demonize socialism, he said that the Nazis (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) were socialistic because socialism was right there in their name. How's that for in-depth analysis? <sarcasm>

 

[Pogo]

Your attempted simile is a real bomb... If you go to this much trouble to smear Beck with such absurdity, you clearly fear him. Obviously your shameful party also fears him.

Perhaps I should pay more attention to Beck......

Hey, maybe you should. I know you're a fan of the Pol Pot hour so you prolly miss a lot. Lucky you have me to fill you in.

Don't worry, it wasn't any trouble. I've posted that story before so I already knew it. It's all true too.

Yeah I've noticed we often say metaphor when we mean simile. Kind of using metaphor as a metaphor. So your effort to keep the word simile alive is well taken, but this one really is a metaphor, on the verb "set (bombs)". As I noted, the opening Darkwind left me was just too tempting to stay silent.

I don't think so...

{sim·i·le
&#712;sim&#601;l&#275;/
noun
noun: simile;&#8195;plural noun: similes

1.
a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid (e.g., as brave as a lion, crazy like a fox ).}

A simile has to use a comparative word like like or as (< there's one right there). But I didn't use one of those; I used set in a different sense than the literal.

 

[Pogo]

You think Glenn Beck quotes 10,000 leftist college professors?

You think leftist revision of history and disinformation is a good thing, but a rightward slant is a crime against humanity?

No bias with you, eh sparky?

A rightward slant? Try pure fabrication. I've tried to blot most of what I heard from Glenn Beck out of my memory as the cognitive dissonance tends to fester. However, one thing still sticks in my mind. In his attempt to demonize socialism, he said that the Nazis (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) were socialistic because socialism was right there in their name. How's that for in-depth analysis? <sarcasm>

Yeah that is pretty specious. When the Beckdittoes try to trot that turkey out I like to point out that the Pennsylvania Dutch are not Dutch, that there are fewer than ten thousand people in the band 10,000 Maniacs, and that there exist neither grapes nor nuts in Grape Nuts.

(/offtopic)