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

[Uncensored2008]

The article doesn't say what the title says. If anything, the article asks the question, does America want European Socialism? Anyone who's been there would probably answer yes. The most common reaction for people who return to the US from a trip to Europe is depression. It's so comparatively nice.

Top 20 Happiest Countries in The World : Discovery News

The World's Happiest (And Saddest) Countries, 2013 - Forbes

That says that Mexicans are happier than Americans.

Must explain why so many American illegally immigrate to Mexico....

 

[BlindBoo]

Hahahaha the old Nazi's were socialist not fascist meme again?

That revisionism flag flies high with the rabid righties.

Yeah. Totally revisionist to call the National Socialists socialists.

So you must believe that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is both Democratic and a Republic, right?

"But does it matter? Yes, it does, actually. Hitler wasn’t a socialist, nor was he a conservative. He was a political mutation. And to try to place him anywhere on the conventional political spectrum is not just to abuse history but to play a dangerous game with the future."

Don?t ever call Hitler a socialist

 

[Pogo]

Hahahaha the old Nazi's were socialist not fascist meme again?

That revisionism flag flies high with the rabid righties.

Yeah. Totally revisionist to call the National Socialists socialists.

So you must believe that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is both Democratic and a Republic, right?

"But does it matter? Yes, it does, actually. Hitler wasn’t a socialist, nor was he a conservative. He was a political mutation. And to try to place him anywhere on the conventional political spectrum is not just to abuse history but to play a dangerous game with the future."

Don?t ever call Hitler a socialist

"liberal" and "conservative" don't necessarily mean "left wing" and "right wing". There are more than just two dimensions.

Hitler wasn't what we could call a conservative or a liberal, but he was WAY right wing.

(/offtopic)

 

[koshergrl]

No, he wasn't.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I took a day off and won't attempt to catch up but just a coupla things.

I still have no explanation for how a consistent position is hypocrisy. Once again my point all along is that it is a fallacy to infer an idea from an association alone. Ernie seems to have stated that point a few posts after this, although it looks to me like he's trying to play both sides.

But here's an analogy: to be a Republican doesn't mean you have to be a racist, right? Indeed they have nothing to do with each other, and we both know plenty of Republicans who don't have a racist bone in their body and never did. Yet just because David Duke and Strom Thurmond and a few others were/are Republicans, we'll see some wags declare that "to be Republican means to be racist". And that doesn't follow. Because it's a fallacy. Does George Bush palling around with Strom Thurmond make Bush a racist?

THAT is what Guilt by Association is.

You're skirting the issue. I know what guilt by association is, but I have no need for it to be explained to me in verbatim. On top of everything else, that analogy is a red herring. Such an analogy would be a fallacy of division and is furthermore based on false equivalence. Since for the sake of this analogy and this debate, it's okay for Bush to associate with Thurmond even though he's a racist, Obama to associate with Bill Ayers although he's a terrorist, and Mike Rowe with Glenn Beck who is a controversial at best TV personality. What is good for Bush and Rowe should be also true for Obama in your argument. The hypocrisy here is that you try to level Obama's association with Ayers to that of a relationship with a TV personality, but you attack others for slamming Obama's association while also 'defending' Rowe's association with Beck. I smell something fishy.

However that is wrong. Other than being a staunch racist, Thurmond didn't commit acts of terrorism, nor did he break the law as he knew it; and as I recall, he died in 2003. All Bush did was wish him a happy 100th birthday and throw a celebration, which was rather innocuous. That being said, Thurmond never endorsed Bush for President, and endorsed Dole over HW in 1988. I would condemn the inference of racism in that case because there is no evidence to suggest such. The thing same goes for Glenn Beck and Mike Rowe. On the other hand, Bill Ayers is a terrorist. Who on his own helped Obama's career off the ground. The fact he was accepting donations from this man shows he lacked the ability to temper his associations with unwieldy figures. You should never equate a terrorist with a racist nor a TV personality. Because all three share completely different ideas and worldviews. None of these are the same. The circumstances surrounding each are drastically different.

I know you really really really wanna mention every logical fallacy ever known along with several invented ones plus every Latin phrase you've ever heard of but it's really not that complex. We're talking about ONE logical fallacy -- Guilt by Association. That's it. And it works the same way regardless whether the players are Glenn Beck or Bill Ayers or Hulk Hogan or Wilma Flintstone. And it doesn't matter if the issue is a radio demagogue, a terrorist, a mass murderer or Mother Freaking Theresa. It's the same logic. There is no "on the other hand Person B is a dick". As soon as you do that, you've committed the fallacy. Because if you've adjudged Person B as a dick, then you've also adjudged Person A as not-a-dick, or a relative undick. You can do that independent of the relationship with the third party, but you cannot draw a conclusion from the association alone. That is, and always was, the point here.

Veni, vidi vici; legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus.

I know you don't want to admit it, but you're trying to justify and somehow dismiss the fact that Obama associated with and accepted donations and blessings from a convicted terrorist. You're equating a terrorist with a TV personality. You want to lessen the negativity of Obama's association with Ayers by equating it with Rowe's association with Glenn Beck. Your logic is flawed. You keep insisting that's the only way logic works and are growing increasingly infuriated when people pick apart said argument. Here's an example: Al Capone could have consorted with Mohandas Ghandi on world peace, it wouldn't make Capone suddenly innocent of ordering the Valentine's Day Massacre, now would it?

In Ayers' case, associating with Obama doesn't make him any less of a terrorist, or Obama any less of an idiot for associating with a terrorist. Logically speaking, it's logical to assume that if you see a guy who takes donations and endorsements from a terrorist that he somehow agrees with or sympathizes with this terrorist. Take note that not once have I made the assumption that Obama is a terrorist for associating with one. I am inferring guilt on him for sympathizing with one.

That Pogo, is the end of that.

 

[BlindBoo]

You're skirting the issue. I know what guilt by association is, but I have no need for it to be explained to me in verbatim. On top of everything else, that analogy is a red herring. Such an analogy would be a fallacy of division and is furthermore based on false equivalence. Since for the sake of this analogy and this debate, it's okay for Bush to associate with Thurmond even though he's a racist, Obama to associate with Bill Ayers although he's a terrorist, and Mike Rowe with Glenn Beck who is a controversial at best TV personality. What is good for Bush and Rowe should be also true for Obama in your argument. The hypocrisy here is that you try to level Obama's association with Ayers to that of a relationship with a TV personality, but you attack others for slamming Obama's association while also 'defending' Rowe's association with Beck. I smell something fishy.

However that is wrong. Other than being a staunch racist, Thurmond didn't commit acts of terrorism, nor did he break the law as he knew it; and as I recall, he died in 2003. All Bush did was wish him a happy 100th birthday and throw a celebration, which was rather innocuous. That being said, Thurmond never endorsed Bush for President, and endorsed Dole over HW in 1988. I would condemn the inference of racism in that case because there is no evidence to suggest such. The thing same goes for Glenn Beck and Mike Rowe. On the other hand, Bill Ayers is a terrorist. Who on his own helped Obama's career off the ground. The fact he was accepting donations from this man shows he lacked the ability to temper his associations with unwieldy figures. You should never equate a terrorist with a racist nor a TV personality. Because all three share completely different ideas and worldviews. None of these are the same. The circumstances surrounding each are drastically different.

I know you really really really wanna mention every logical fallacy ever known along with several invented ones plus every Latin phrase you've ever heard of but it's really not that complex. We're talking about ONE logical fallacy -- Guilt by Association. That's it. And it works the same way regardless whether the players are Glenn Beck or Bill Ayers or Hulk Hogan or Wilma Flintstone. And it doesn't matter if the issue is a radio demagogue, a terrorist, a mass murderer or Mother Freaking Theresa. It's the same logic. There is no "on the other hand Person B is a dick". As soon as you do that, you've committed the fallacy. Because if you've adjudged Person B as a dick, then you've also adjudged Person A as not-a-dick, or a relative undick. You can do that independent of the relationship with the third party, but you cannot draw a conclusion from the association alone. That is, and always was, the point here.

Veni, vidi vici; legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus.

I know you don't want to admit it, but you're trying to justify and somehow dismiss the fact that Obama associated with and accepted donations and blessings from a convicted terrorist. You're equating a terrorist with a TV personality. You want to lessen the negativity of Obama's association with Ayers by equating it with Rowe's association with Glenn Beck. Your logic is flawed. You keep insisting that's the only way logic works and are growing increasingly infuriated when people pick apart said argument. Here's an example: Al Capone could have consorted with Mohandas Ghandi on world peace, it wouldn't make Capone suddenly innocent of ordering the Valentine's Day Massacre, now would it?

In Ayers' case, associating with Obama doesn't make him any less of a terrorist, or Obama any less of an idiot for associating with a terrorist. Logically speaking, it's logical to assume that if you see a guy who takes donations and endorsements from a terrorist that he somehow agrees with or sympathizes with this terrorist. Take note that not once have I made the assumption that Obama is a terrorist for associating with one. I am inferring guilt on him for sympathizing with one.

That Pogo, is the end of that.

Sure, except for the fact that Ayers was not tried or convicted for terrorism.

 

[koshergrl]

I know you really really really wanna mention every logical fallacy ever known along with several invented ones plus every Latin phrase you've ever heard of but it's really not that complex. We're talking about ONE logical fallacy -- Guilt by Association. That's it. And it works the same way regardless whether the players are Glenn Beck or Bill Ayers or Hulk Hogan or Wilma Flintstone. And it doesn't matter if the issue is a radio demagogue, a terrorist, a mass murderer or Mother Freaking Theresa. It's the same logic. There is no "on the other hand Person B is a dick". As soon as you do that, you've committed the fallacy. Because if you've adjudged Person B as a dick, then you've also adjudged Person A as not-a-dick, or a relative undick. You can do that independent of the relationship with the third party, but you cannot draw a conclusion from the association alone. That is, and always was, the point here.

Veni, vidi vici; legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus.

I know you don't want to admit it, but you're trying to justify and somehow dismiss the fact that Obama associated with and accepted donations and blessings from a convicted terrorist. You're equating a terrorist with a TV personality. You want to lessen the negativity of Obama's association with Ayers by equating it with Rowe's association with Glenn Beck. Your logic is flawed. You keep insisting that's the only way logic works and are growing increasingly infuriated when people pick apart said argument. Here's an example: Al Capone could have consorted with Mohandas Ghandi on world peace, it wouldn't make Capone suddenly innocent of ordering the Valentine's Day Massacre, now would it?

In Ayers' case, associating with Obama doesn't make him any less of a terrorist, or Obama any less of an idiot for associating with a terrorist. Logically speaking, it's logical to assume that if you see a guy who takes donations and endorsements from a terrorist that he somehow agrees with or sympathizes with this terrorist. Take note that not once have I made the assumption that Obama is a terrorist for associating with one. I am inferring guilt on him for sympathizing with one.

That Pogo, is the end of that.

Sure, except for the fact that Ayers was not tried or convicted for terrorism.

He doesn't have to be tried or convicted for terrorism to be a terrorist. You pro-terrorist types like to pretend that if a law makes human rights violations okay, then it's okay to commit them...and if a criminal never gets caught, then he has committed no crime.

Wrong. Ayers' defense team claimed that their offices were broken into and all their paperwork stolen, and ultimately charges were dropped against Ayers. Who has always said he wished he had blown more things up.

Re Obama and Ayers:

"In 1995, Ayers plucked Obama from obscurity to chair this mega-slush fund. In 2008, the Obama camp felt the need to lie about this relationship.

"Ayers had nothing to do with Obama's recruitment to the Board," said an Obama spokesman at the time. But National Review's Stanley Kurtz shredded that lie, and even the Obama-friendly biographer David Remnick conceded, "Ayers helped bring Obama onto the Annenberg board."


Read more: Articles: Deconstructing Bill Ayers

 

[TemplarKormac]

I know you really really really wanna mention every logical fallacy ever known along with several invented ones plus every Latin phrase you've ever heard of but it's really not that complex. We're talking about ONE logical fallacy -- Guilt by Association. That's it. And it works the same way regardless whether the players are Glenn Beck or Bill Ayers or Hulk Hogan or Wilma Flintstone. And it doesn't matter if the issue is a radio demagogue, a terrorist, a mass murderer or Mother Freaking Theresa. It's the same logic. There is no "on the other hand Person B is a dick". As soon as you do that, you've committed the fallacy. Because if you've adjudged Person B as a dick, then you've also adjudged Person A as not-a-dick, or a relative undick. You can do that independent of the relationship with the third party, but you cannot draw a conclusion from the association alone. That is, and always was, the point here.

Veni, vidi vici; legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus.

I know you don't want to admit it, but you're trying to justify and somehow dismiss the fact that Obama associated with and accepted donations and blessings from a convicted terrorist. You're equating a terrorist with a TV personality. You want to lessen the negativity of Obama's association with Ayers by equating it with Rowe's association with Glenn Beck. Your logic is flawed. You keep insisting that's the only way logic works and are growing increasingly infuriated when people pick apart said argument. Here's an example: Al Capone could have consorted with Mohandas Ghandi on world peace, it wouldn't make Capone suddenly innocent of ordering the Valentine's Day Massacre, now would it?

In Ayers' case, associating with Obama doesn't make him any less of a terrorist, or Obama any less of an idiot for associating with a terrorist. Logically speaking, it's logical to assume that if you see a guy who takes donations and endorsements from a terrorist that he somehow agrees with or sympathizes with this terrorist. Take note that not once have I made the assumption that Obama is a terrorist for associating with one. I am inferring guilt on him for sympathizing with one.

That Pogo, is the end of that.

Sure, except for the fact that Ayers was not tried or convicted for terrorism.

Um, no.

 

[BlindBoo]

I know you don't want to admit it, but you're trying to justify and somehow dismiss the fact that Obama associated with and accepted donations and blessings from a convicted terrorist. You're equating a terrorist with a TV personality. You want to lessen the negativity of Obama's association with Ayers by equating it with Rowe's association with Glenn Beck. Your logic is flawed. You keep insisting that's the only way logic works and are growing increasingly infuriated when people pick apart said argument. Here's an example: Al Capone could have consorted with Mohandas Ghandi on world peace, it wouldn't make Capone suddenly innocent of ordering the Valentine's Day Massacre, now would it?

In Ayers' case, associating with Obama doesn't make him any less of a terrorist, or Obama any less of an idiot for associating with a terrorist. Logically speaking, it's logical to assume that if you see a guy who takes donations and endorsements from a terrorist that he somehow agrees with or sympathizes with this terrorist. Take note that not once have I made the assumption that Obama is a terrorist for associating with one. I am inferring guilt on him for sympathizing with one.

That Pogo, is the end of that.

Sure, except for the fact that Ayers was not tried or convicted for terrorism.

He doesn't have to be tried or convicted for terrorism to be a terrorist. You pro-terrorist types like to pretend that if a law makes human rights violations okay, then it's okay to commit them...and if a criminal never gets caught, then he has committed no crime.

Wrong. Ayers' defense team claimed that their offices were broken into and all their paperwork stolen, and ultimately charges were dropped against Ayers. Who has always said he wished he had blown more things up.

Re Obama and Ayers:

"In 1995, Ayers plucked Obama from obscurity to chair this mega-slush fund. In 2008, the Obama camp felt the need to lie about this relationship.

"Ayers had nothing to do with Obama's recruitment to the Board," said an Obama spokesman at the time. But National Review's Stanley Kurtz shredded that lie, and even the Obama-friendly biographer David Remnick conceded, "Ayers helped bring Obama onto the Annenberg board."


Read more: Articles: Deconstructing Bill Ayers

Um to be convicted of terrorism I'm pretty sure he does.

And I like how you worked in that pro-terrorist line of unmitigated bullshit against me.

How many soft targets and civilians did they target?

Violent militants, yeah they were. Terrorist by todays standard, nope.

 

[BlindBoo]

I know you don't want to admit it, but you're trying to justify and somehow dismiss the fact that Obama associated with and accepted donations and blessings from a convicted terrorist. You're equating a terrorist with a TV personality. You want to lessen the negativity of Obama's association with Ayers by equating it with Rowe's association with Glenn Beck. Your logic is flawed. You keep insisting that's the only way logic works and are growing increasingly infuriated when people pick apart said argument. Here's an example: Al Capone could have consorted with Mohandas Ghandi on world peace, it wouldn't make Capone suddenly innocent of ordering the Valentine's Day Massacre, now would it?

In Ayers' case, associating with Obama doesn't make him any less of a terrorist, or Obama any less of an idiot for associating with a terrorist. Logically speaking, it's logical to assume that if you see a guy who takes donations and endorsements from a terrorist that he somehow agrees with or sympathizes with this terrorist. Take note that not once have I made the assumption that Obama is a terrorist for associating with one. I am inferring guilt on him for sympathizing with one.

That Pogo, is the end of that.

Sure, except for the fact that Ayers was not tried or convicted for terrorism.

Um, no.

Do you not understand the difference between being arrested and being convicted?

I can explain it to you if you want.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, so you maintain that a person can't be a criminal unless he gets caught.

Got it.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh wait..he did get caught.

And he admitted to what he did.

So you maintain that a person who admits a crime still isn't a criminal unless there's ALSO a conviction.

What a loon.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sure, except for the fact that Ayers was not tried or convicted for terrorism.

Um, no.

Do you not understand the difference between being arrested and being convicted?

I can explain it to you if you want.

"Guilty as hell, free as a bird" he said. No he wasn't tried and convicted, no thanks to FBI misconduct. Had the case been conducted properly he would have been. However, him ADMITTING it makes him a convicted terrorist--in my book. Such an admission would have doomed him in the court of law.

 

[Ernie S.]

I know you really really really wanna mention every logical fallacy ever known along with several invented ones plus every Latin phrase you've ever heard of but it's really not that complex. We're talking about ONE logical fallacy -- Guilt by Association. That's it. And it works the same way regardless whether the players are Glenn Beck or Bill Ayers or Hulk Hogan or Wilma Flintstone. And it doesn't matter if the issue is a radio demagogue, a terrorist, a mass murderer or Mother Freaking Theresa. It's the same logic. There is no "on the other hand Person B is a dick". As soon as you do that, you've committed the fallacy. Because if you've adjudged Person B as a dick, then you've also adjudged Person A as not-a-dick, or a relative undick. You can do that independent of the relationship with the third party, but you cannot draw a conclusion from the association alone. That is, and always was, the point here.

Veni, vidi vici; legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus.

I know you don't want to admit it, but you're trying to justify and somehow dismiss the fact that Obama associated with and accepted donations and blessings from a convicted terrorist. You're equating a terrorist with a TV personality. You want to lessen the negativity of Obama's association with Ayers by equating it with Rowe's association with Glenn Beck. Your logic is flawed. You keep insisting that's the only way logic works and are growing increasingly infuriated when people pick apart said argument. Here's an example: Al Capone could have consorted with Mohandas Ghandi on world peace, it wouldn't make Capone suddenly innocent of ordering the Valentine's Day Massacre, now would it?

In Ayers' case, associating with Obama doesn't make him any less of a terrorist, or Obama any less of an idiot for associating with a terrorist. Logically speaking, it's logical to assume that if you see a guy who takes donations and endorsements from a terrorist that he somehow agrees with or sympathizes with this terrorist. Take note that not once have I made the assumption that Obama is a terrorist for associating with one. I am inferring guilt on him for sympathizing with one.

That Pogo, is the end of that.

Sure, except for the fact that Ayers was not tried or convicted for terrorism.

Got off because the FBI used tactics that would be just fine today. He admits involvement in at least 3 bombings and bomb building acts that killed several people.

But you love his politics so he's innocent.

 

[koshergrl]

He doesn't just love his politics, he applauds his methods.

Lefties are criminals to the core.

 

[Pogo]

You're skirting the issue. I know what guilt by association is, but I have no need for it to be explained to me in verbatim. On top of everything else, that analogy is a red herring. Such an analogy would be a fallacy of division and is furthermore based on false equivalence. Since for the sake of this analogy and this debate, it's okay for Bush to associate with Thurmond even though he's a racist, Obama to associate with Bill Ayers although he's a terrorist, and Mike Rowe with Glenn Beck who is a controversial at best TV personality. What is good for Bush and Rowe should be also true for Obama in your argument. The hypocrisy here is that you try to level Obama's association with Ayers to that of a relationship with a TV personality, but you attack others for slamming Obama's association while also 'defending' Rowe's association with Beck. I smell something fishy.

However that is wrong. Other than being a staunch racist, Thurmond didn't commit acts of terrorism, nor did he break the law as he knew it; and as I recall, he died in 2003. All Bush did was wish him a happy 100th birthday and throw a celebration, which was rather innocuous. That being said, Thurmond never endorsed Bush for President, and endorsed Dole over HW in 1988. I would condemn the inference of racism in that case because there is no evidence to suggest such. The thing same goes for Glenn Beck and Mike Rowe. On the other hand, Bill Ayers is a terrorist. Who on his own helped Obama's career off the ground. The fact he was accepting donations from this man shows he lacked the ability to temper his associations with unwieldy figures. You should never equate a terrorist with a racist nor a TV personality. Because all three share completely different ideas and worldviews. None of these are the same. The circumstances surrounding each are drastically different.

I know you really really really wanna mention every logical fallacy ever known along with several invented ones plus every Latin phrase you've ever heard of but it's really not that complex. We're talking about ONE logical fallacy -- Guilt by Association. That's it. And it works the same way regardless whether the players are Glenn Beck or Bill Ayers or Hulk Hogan or Wilma Flintstone. And it doesn't matter if the issue is a radio demagogue, a terrorist, a mass murderer or Mother Freaking Theresa. It's the same logic. There is no "on the other hand Person B is a dick". As soon as you do that, you've committed the fallacy. Because if you've adjudged Person B as a dick, then you've also adjudged Person A as not-a-dick, or a relative undick. You can do that independent of the relationship with the third party, but you cannot draw a conclusion from the association alone. That is, and always was, the point here.

Veni, vidi vici; legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus.

I know you don't want to admit it, but you're trying to justify and somehow dismiss the fact that Obama associated with and accepted donations and blessings from a convicted terrorist. You're equating a terrorist with a TV personality. You want to lessen the negativity of Obama's association with Ayers by equating it with Rowe's association with Glenn Beck. Your logic is flawed. You keep insisting that's the only way logic works and are growing increasingly infuriated when people pick apart said argument. Here's an example: Al Capone could have consorted with Mohandas Ghandi on world peace, it wouldn't make Capone suddenly innocent of ordering the Valentine's Day Massacre, now would it?

In Ayers' case, associating with Obama doesn't make him any less of a terrorist, or Obama any less of an idiot for associating with a terrorist. Logically speaking, it's logical to assume that if you see a guy who takes donations and endorsements from a terrorist that he somehow agrees with or sympathizes with this terrorist. Take note that not once have I made the assumption that Obama is a terrorist for associating with one. I am inferring guilt on him for sympathizing with one.

That Pogo, is the end of that.

I'm not even addressing the character of Ayers or Beck or Maher or Wright. I haven't done that throughout this thread -- YOU have. I also wasn't the one who brought up the analogy, but I do defend it. And the analogy is about the Guilt by Association fallacy, and that's ALL it's about. Your attempt to bring in "but but this guy did this and that" was born without legs. What we're watching in the fallacy is not the bad-influence guy (Beck, Ayers, Wright) -- what we're watching is the guy we think is influenced (Rowe/Obama) and whether the influence is real or imaginary..

>> Al Capone could have consorted with Mohandas Ghandi on world peace, it wouldn't make Capone suddenly innocent of ordering the Valentine's Day Massacre, now would it? <<

Exactly, it would not. You just PROVED MY POINT.

Think about it.

 

[Toro]

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.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

To me, Glenn Beck is an opinionated jerk, but why wouldn't anyone work with him? I would if I needed something done. I'd work with whomever I could if it were for the good of the country, and I would not care in the least who didn't like it.

Bill Ayers has no discernible connection to Obama aside from the fact that they both served on a committy together ... and also the fact that some folks are forever trying to convince the entire world that they are BFF's.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I know you really really really wanna mention every logical fallacy ever known along with several invented ones plus every Latin phrase you've ever heard of but it's really not that complex. We're talking about ONE logical fallacy -- Guilt by Association. That's it. And it works the same way regardless whether the players are Glenn Beck or Bill Ayers or Hulk Hogan or Wilma Flintstone. And it doesn't matter if the issue is a radio demagogue, a terrorist, a mass murderer or Mother Freaking Theresa. It's the same logic. There is no "on the other hand Person B is a dick". As soon as you do that, you've committed the fallacy. Because if you've adjudged Person B as a dick, then you've also adjudged Person A as not-a-dick, or a relative undick. You can do that independent of the relationship with the third party, but you cannot draw a conclusion from the association alone. That is, and always was, the point here.

Veni, vidi vici; legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus.

I know you don't want to admit it, but you're trying to justify and somehow dismiss the fact that Obama associated with and accepted donations and blessings from a convicted terrorist. You're equating a terrorist with a TV personality. You want to lessen the negativity of Obama's association with Ayers by equating it with Rowe's association with Glenn Beck. Your logic is flawed. You keep insisting that's the only way logic works and are growing increasingly infuriated when people pick apart said argument. Here's an example: Al Capone could have consorted with Mohandas Ghandi on world peace, it wouldn't make Capone suddenly innocent of ordering the Valentine's Day Massacre, now would it?

In Ayers' case, associating with Obama doesn't make him any less of a terrorist, or Obama any less of an idiot for associating with a terrorist. Logically speaking, it's logical to assume that if you see a guy who takes donations and endorsements from a terrorist that he somehow agrees with or sympathizes with this terrorist. Take note that not once have I made the assumption that Obama is a terrorist for associating with one. I am inferring guilt on him for sympathizing with one.

That Pogo, is the end of that.

I'm not even addressing the character of Ayers or Beck or Maher or Wright. I haven't done that throughout this thread -- YOU have. I also wasn't the one who brought up the analogy, but I do defend it. And the analogy is about the Guilt by Association fallacy, and that's ALL it's about. Your attempt to bring in "but but this guy did this and that" was born without legs. What we're watching in the fallacy is not the bad-influence guy (Beck, Ayers, Wright) -- what we're watching is the guy we think is influenced (Rowe/Obama) and whether the influence is real or imaginary..

>> Al Capone could have consorted with Mohandas Ghandi on world peace, it wouldn't make Capone suddenly innocent of ordering the Valentine's Day Massacre, now would it? <<

Exactly, it would not. You just PROVED MY POINT.

Think about it.

So desperate to have your point proven, you've disproven it. For about 12 or so pages we've had your argument pegged as false equivalency. For someone to equate a terrorist with a TV personality is stretching it.

 

[Pogo]

I know you don't want to admit it, but you're trying to justify and somehow dismiss the fact that Obama associated with and accepted donations and blessings from a convicted terrorist. You're equating a terrorist with a TV personality. You want to lessen the negativity of Obama's association with Ayers by equating it with Rowe's association with Glenn Beck. Your logic is flawed. You keep insisting that's the only way logic works and are growing increasingly infuriated when people pick apart said argument. Here's an example: Al Capone could have consorted with Mohandas Ghandi on world peace, it wouldn't make Capone suddenly innocent of ordering the Valentine's Day Massacre, now would it?

In Ayers' case, associating with Obama doesn't make him any less of a terrorist, or Obama any less of an idiot for associating with a terrorist. Logically speaking, it's logical to assume that if you see a guy who takes donations and endorsements from a terrorist that he somehow agrees with or sympathizes with this terrorist. Take note that not once have I made the assumption that Obama is a terrorist for associating with one. I am inferring guilt on him for sympathizing with one.

That Pogo, is the end of that.

I'm not even addressing the character of Ayers or Beck or Maher or Wright. I haven't done that throughout this thread -- YOU have. I also wasn't the one who brought up the analogy, but I do defend it. And the analogy is about the Guilt by Association fallacy, and that's ALL it's about. Your attempt to bring in "but but this guy did this and that" was born without legs. What we're watching in the fallacy is not the bad-influence guy (Beck, Ayers, Wright) -- what we're watching is the guy we think is influenced (Rowe/Obama) and whether the influence is real or imaginary..

>> Al Capone could have consorted with Mohandas Ghandi on world peace, it wouldn't make Capone suddenly innocent of ordering the Valentine's Day Massacre, now would it? <<

Exactly, it would not. You just PROVED MY POINT.

Think about it.

So desperate to have your point proven, you've disproven it. For about 12 or so pages we've had your argument pegged as false equivalency. For someone to equate a terrorist with a TV personality is stretching it.

That would indeed be a stretch if someone did it. It's kinda pathetic that you have to invent that scenario.

But go ahead, prove me wrong -- quote where I "equated" these guys. Dig deep.

​