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

[Newby]

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 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.

 

[Pogo]

There is a significant difference between Beck and Ayers.

Not that you care.

True, I don't because it's profoundly irrelevant here. I've maintained this truth throughout: the fallacy is about the analysis method used to form the guilt by association conclusion; it has diddly to do with who the participants are. Again, the associators could be Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler and Rasputin wrapped into a fresh flour tortilla and sprinkled with Jesus Christ sauce. It doesn't matter. It's about the analyzer, not the subjects they're analyzing.

Yours,
Captain Obvious

Okay, let's put your theory to a real world test... altho, that's what we've been doing this entire thread, so I have no hope that you'll actually come to understand what is being said.

You have a daughter. You love your daughter, and you want 'the best' for her. In any normal, sane mind, 'the best' would have universal meaning. She's happy, well adjusted, gets good grades, good morals, doesn't do drugs, etc... Would you rather your daughter associate with other girls such as herself (i.e. good grades, good morals, etc..) or would you rather her associate with girls that hang out in gangs that run around being involved in illegal activity, doing drugs, drinking, having meaningless sex with every boy in their school?

So, let's take these two different groups of potential friends for your daughter, and apply them to your theory. Your position is implying that the groups themselves would not make any difference or factor in at all in analyzing and deciding which group your daughter should hang out with? That it is you, as the father, i.e. analyzer of these two groups that ???? What? If you're an advocate of hanging out with sluts and girls that get into trouble, then you'll prefer group B to group A, but if you're an advocate of 'good girls' then you'll prefer group A? If you try to complete that sentence, it doesn't even make any sense. How is it about 'the analyzer'? Unless you're saying that 'good' and 'bad' are completely subjective to the analyzer and not accepted fact or truth? That's the only way your argument even comes close to making any sense whatsoever.

Or is it your supposition that if your daughter chooses to hang around with Group B, that it says nothing about her or who she is, which would mean it wouldn't make any difference to you as a parent which group she chooses to hang with? You would be fine with either group, because the characteristics of the groups are irrelevant to the analysis?

That's a good, thoughtful post.
Even though I'm disappointed in its lack of "douchebags" and whatnot...

Breaking it down...

Would you rather your daughter associate with other girls such as herself (i.e. good grades, good morals, etc..) or would you rather her associate with girls that hang out in gangs that run around being involved in illegal activity, doing drugs, drinking, having meaningless sex with every boy in their school?

First you've moved the goalposts-- now we're talking not only "who I'd rather" she hang out with (which was not the question), but you've morphed the subject into a parent-child relationship. Neither applies; we're talking about independent adults here and the question of whether we can draw conclusions based on association alone. Not about what we'd 'rather' see.

In the OP, this Shannon person "would rather see" Mike Rowe not associate with Glenn Beck (and her counterpart the Bob person "would rather see" him not hang out with Bill Maher. Their concerns are without logical basis, and that's the point.

End part:

Or is it your supposition that if your daughter chooses to hang around with Group B, that it says nothing about her or who she is, which would mean it wouldn't make any difference to you as a parent which group she chooses to hang with?

To the first part, yes it says nothing about who she is; to the second part, no that doesn't follow. Again we have a conflation between independent adults and dependent offspring.

By the way, yes I am an advocate of hanging out with sluts. definitely.

OK that's a joke, but not entirely. As I said before I'm not shy to associate with the underbelly; those considered "criminals", "sluts" or what have you. Guess what -- they're people. They have faults and merits and aspirations and good ideas and bad ideas like anybody else. One saved my ass when I was bleeding to death. I'll freely admit I don't buy this whole dichotomy of classifying people into a "good" vs "bad" caste system, because life just ain't that simple. And to return to topic, I don't believe that hanging out with a slut makes me a slut, nor that TK's infamous meeting with Charles Manson makes him a mass murderer.

Just as Mike Rowe's hanging out with Glenn Beck doesn't make him Glenn Beck, even though the week before he was Bill Maher. Just as O'bama isn't Jeremiah Wright, etc etc etc. Because that's a fallacy. Doesn't matter who's in it.

 

[BDBoop]

By the way, yes I am an advocate of hanging out with sluts. definitely.

I just got off the phone with a slut. She said to tell you she said 'hey.'

 

[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 judgement of whether Bill Ayers or Glenn Beck meets this mythical standard where logic springs out of nowhere and kicks in, is entirely subjective.

 

[Pogo]

By the way, yes I am an advocate of hanging out with sluts. definitely.

I just got off the phone with a slut. She said to tell you she said 'hey.'

Are you sure that wasn't Aristotle? They sound a lot alike.

Lighten up, Kormac.

 

[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.

 

[Newby]

True, I don't because it's profoundly irrelevant here. I've maintained this truth throughout: the fallacy is about the analysis method used to form the guilt by association conclusion; it has diddly to do with who the participants are. Again, the associators could be Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler and Rasputin wrapped into a fresh flour tortilla and sprinkled with Jesus Christ sauce. It doesn't matter. It's about the analyzer, not the subjects they're analyzing.

Yours,
Captain Obvious

Okay, let's put your theory to a real world test... altho, that's what we've been doing this entire thread, so I have no hope that you'll actually come to understand what is being said.

You have a daughter. You love your daughter, and you want 'the best' for her. In any normal, sane mind, 'the best' would have universal meaning. She's happy, well adjusted, gets good grades, good morals, doesn't do drugs, etc... Would you rather your daughter associate with other girls such as herself (i.e. good grades, good morals, etc..) or would you rather her associate with girls that hang out in gangs that run around being involved in illegal activity, doing drugs, drinking, having meaningless sex with every boy in their school?

So, let's take these two different groups of potential friends for your daughter, and apply them to your theory. Your position is implying that the groups themselves would not make any difference or factor in at all in analyzing and deciding which group your daughter should hang out with? That it is you, as the father, i.e. analyzer of these two groups that ???? What? If you're an advocate of hanging out with sluts and girls that get into trouble, then you'll prefer group B to group A, but if you're an advocate of 'good girls' then you'll prefer group A? If you try to complete that sentence, it doesn't even make any sense. How is it about 'the analyzer'? Unless you're saying that 'good' and 'bad' are completely subjective to the analyzer and not accepted fact or truth? That's the only way your argument even comes close to making any sense whatsoever.

Or is it your supposition that if your daughter chooses to hang around with Group B, that it says nothing about her or who she is, which would mean it wouldn't make any difference to you as a parent which group she chooses to hang with? You would be fine with either group, because the characteristics of the groups are irrelevant to the analysis?

That's a good, thoughtful post.
Even though I'm disappointed in its lack of "douchebags" and whatnot...

Breaking it down...

Would you rather your daughter associate with other girls such as herself (i.e. good grades, good morals, etc..) or would you rather her associate with girls that hang out in gangs that run around being involved in illegal activity, doing drugs, drinking, having meaningless sex with every boy in their school?

First you've moved the goalposts-- now we're talking not only "who I'd rather" she hang out with (which was not the question), but you've morphed the subject into a parent-child relationship. Neither applies; we're talking about independent adults here and the question of whether we can draw conclusions based on association alone. Not about what we'd 'rather' see.

In the OP, this Shannon person "would rather see" Mike Rowe not associate with Glenn Beck (and her counterpart the Bob person "would rather see" him not hang out with Bill Maher. Their concerns are without logical basis, and that's the point.

End part:

Or is it your supposition that if your daughter chooses to hang around with Group B, that it says nothing about her or who she is, which would mean it wouldn't make any difference to you as a parent which group she chooses to hang with?

To the first part, yes it says nothing about who she is; to the second part, no that doesn't follow. Again we have a conflation between independent adults and dependent offspring.

By the way, yes I am an advocate of hanging out with sluts. definitely.

OK that's a joke, but not entirely. As I said before I'm not shy to associate with the underbelly; those considered "criminals", "sluts" or what have you. Guess what -- they're people. They have faults and merits and aspirations and good ideas and bad ideas like anybody else. One saved my ass when I was bleeding to death. I'll freely admit I don't buy this whole dichotomy of classifying people into a "good" vs "bad" caste system, because life just ain't that simple. And to return to topic, I don't believe that hanging out with a slut makes me a slut, nor that TK's infamous meeting with Charles Manson makes him a mass murderer.

Just as Mike Rowe's hanging out with Glenn Beck doesn't make him Glenn Beck, even though the week before he was Bill Maher. Just as O'bama isn't Jeremiah Wright, etc etc etc. Because that's a fallacy. Doesn't matter who's in it.

Total cop out and you didn't answer the question, but that's exactly what I expected, because you can't.

And what I bolded is not true at all, it absolutely says something about who she is, no logical fallacy there at all.

You refuse to distinguish between good and evil as settled truth or fact, you see them as subjective, at least in what you post (They have faults and merits and aspirations and good ideas and bad ideas like anybody else). I bet in real life, that's about impossible to do, which is why you can't apply it to the example that I gave you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

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 judgement of whether Bill Ayers or Glenn Beck meets this mythical standard where logic springs out of nowhere and kicks in, is entirely subjective.

No, now you're avoiding the original point, and now me in particular. You've never made a real effort to talk about it. Employing this "guilt by association" argument is just a convenient way for you to avoid discussing this thread seriously.

I will put this point to you again:

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?

 

[Pogo]

I think I see the issue;

You view terrorism as a legitimate political position. You see a person who plants bombs and tries to murder people on behalf of a communist revolution as no different than a person advocating school choice.

Here we go. Sorry Pothead, I didn't see this post until TK brought it forward but no matter, this has already been addressed just above in 272; who the participants are and the background thereof is all irrelevant. I haven't been discussing terrorism, or Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright or Glenn Beck, at all here, because they're not the issue. I know some of you Chubby Checkers love to do the twist so you can get to your agenda but sorry, doesn't work.

And before you posted it was already addressed in 221. And before that in 119. We're lucky to have your keen powers of observation.

And whats with the namecalling? If your argument was on solid ground, you wouldn't have needed to resort to argumentum ad hominem throughout our debate, along with calling Uncensored a "pothead" just now. How puerile.

Maybe you should worry about your own posts and stop trying to control who I talk to and how I address them, IOW follow the advice in your own OP -- YA THINK?

FYI "pothead" is a friendly term I've been using for Uncensored for a long time. It's a reference to his calling everybody he disagrees with "Pol Pot". So now you know, again, share the chuckle and GTFO my face. Sheesh.

 

[Newby]

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 judgement of whether Bill Ayers or Glenn Beck meets this mythical standard where logic springs out of nowhere and kicks in, is entirely subjective.

Thank you!!! You finally said it, good and evil are subjective to you, not determined. Yet most of society disagrees with you.

How is guilt a 'mythical standard'? They decide it in courtrooms all across the country every day? People make judgments of guilt about other people every day regarding millions of different things. It's hardly a 'mythical standard'.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's part of the background static about the characters. Irrelevant. I spent all day yesterday explaining why it's irrelevant.
Since I wasn't exchanging anything with Uncensored, I didn't even notice this post until now. I thought he was talking to someone else. But it's already been covered anyway. Pretending it wasn't won't make it go away.

By the way TK, you have yet to answer the questions I put to you, and those were directly to you. You can start with explaining why you're not a mass murderer on the basis of having sat down with Charles Manson.

What's interesting is that law enforcement doesn't view it as "background static" nor do the courts. IF I talk to PMZ - a socialist who is dedicated to the destruction of the USA and the Constitution - I am protected by freedom of association. BUT if I have a known cocaine dealer to my house and discuss his business, I can go to prison.

Because, it isn't "background static" and it isn't the same thing. Association with criminals and terrorists is a VASTLY different proposition than association with those who hold political views that some don't like.

This is true both ethically AND legally.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Here we go. Sorry Pothead, I didn't see this post until TK brought it forward but no matter, this has already been addressed just above in 272; who the participants are and the background thereof is all irrelevant. I haven't been discussing terrorism, or Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright or Glenn Beck, at all here, because they're not the issue. I know some of you Chubby Checkers love to do the twist so you can get to your agenda but sorry, doesn't work.

And before you posted it was already addressed in 221. And before that in 119. We're lucky to have your keen powers of observation.

And whats with the namecalling? If your argument was on solid ground, you wouldn't have needed to resort to argumentum ad hominem throughout our debate, along with calling Uncensored a "pothead" just now. How puerile.

Maybe you should worry about your own posts and stop trying to control who I talk to and how I address them, IOW follow the advice in your own OP -- YA THINK?

FYI "pothead" is a friendly term I've been using for Uncensored for a long time. It's a reference to his calling everybody he disagrees with "Pol Pot". So now you know, again, share the chuckle and GTFO my face. Sheesh.

Tissue?

You spent all that time in my face last night, but now you're the one whining when I turn the tables on you. Don't try to justify your name calling. That's no substitute for your lack of an argument at this point.

Answer my argument.

You agree that Rowe can associate with Beck, but attack others for inferring guilt on Obama for associating with a terrorist.

Why the double standard?

 

[BDBoop]

By the way, yes I am an advocate of hanging out with sluts. definitely.

I just got off the phone with a slut. She said to tell you she said 'hey.'

Are you sure that wasn't Aristotle? They sound a lot alike.

Lighten up, Kormac.

Did you just confuse me with TK?

 

[TemplarKormac]

By the way, yes I am an advocate of hanging out with sluts. definitely.

I just got off the phone with a slut. She said to tell you she said 'hey.'

Are you sure that wasn't Aristotle? They sound a lot alike.

Lighten up, Kormac.

No. You started this argument, now you are the one running away from it. Put up or shut up.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I just got off the phone with a slut. She said to tell you she said 'hey.'

Are you sure that wasn't Aristotle? They sound a lot alike.

Lighten up, Kormac.

Did you just confuse me with TK?

Oh boy. Now he's confused me with someone who is unable to offer anything substantive to my OP. How cute.

 

[Pogo]

Try answering this then, [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]

That's part of the background static about the characters. Irrelevant. I spent all day yesterday explaining why it's irrelevant.
Since I wasn't exchanging anything with Uncensored, I didn't even notice this post until now. I thought he was talking to someone else. But it's already been covered anyway. Pretending it wasn't won't make it go away.

By the way TK, you have yet to answer the questions I put to you, and those were directly to you. You can start with explaining why you're not a mass murderer on the basis of having sat down with Charles Manson.

All you had to do was look up. One of your posts directly superseded Uncensored's. Your lack of observational skills is astounding. That or you didn't read any of the posts in my thread and went straight to the end to continue mincing words with me.

Again, I was engaged with you, not him. Damn, I gave you the attention and you still complain. Ya can't win.

I was also aware he was in that whole morass with other posters about the "Glenn Beck did this, Bill Ayers did that" bullshit, and I've been tuning that out because it's irrelevant. For the 475th time.

What questions? You just sat there and dismissed it as "irrelevant." That's checkmate Pogo.

?? (huh?)

You can dispense with your false dilemma argument, too. How come you see terrorism as a legitimate political choice?

Strawman. I haven't been in on that discussion at all. I just said that.

I know you tried to derail my thread when it first began, but it failed.

Not at all. I've been steering you to be consistent. You resist.

You agree that Rowe can associate with Beck, but get upset when people infer guilt on Obama for associating with a terrorist. That makes you a hypocrite.

No, that makes me the opposite. Read your own words. If Rowe can associate with Beck, then O'bama can associate with Ayers. And btw it's "Ayers" not "a terrorist" because you said "Glenn Beck", not "a rodeo clown". Apples to apples.

You guys are at the point where you're posting my case for me. I wish I knew how I did that

 

[Pogo]

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.

 

[Pogo]

I just got off the phone with a slut. She said to tell you she said 'hey.'

Are you sure that wasn't Aristotle? They sound a lot alike.

Lighten up, Kormac.

Did you just confuse me with TK?

Multitasking

I don't get you mixed up. You're prettier, but he's got that scaly armor. Tough choice.

 

[Pogo]

And whats with the namecalling? If your argument was on solid ground, you wouldn't have needed to resort to argumentum ad hominem throughout our debate, along with calling Uncensored a "pothead" just now. How puerile.

Maybe you should worry about your own posts and stop trying to control who I talk to and how I address them, IOW follow the advice in your own OP -- YA THINK?

FYI "pothead" is a friendly term I've been using for Uncensored for a long time. It's a reference to his calling everybody he disagrees with "Pol Pot". So now you know, again, share the chuckle and GTFO my face. Sheesh.

Tissue?

You spent all that time in my face last night, but now you're the one whining when I turn the tables on you. Don't try to justify your name calling. That's no substitute for your lack of an argument at this point.

Answer my argument.

You agree that Rowe can associate with Beck, but attack others for inferring guilt on Obama for associating with a terrorist.

Why the double standard?

DUDE -- THAT IS NOT A DOUBLE STANDARD ... IT'S THE SAME THING.
You just stated the same thing twice, once in the positive, then in the negative. THAT DOESN'T MAKE THEM OPPOSITES.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Maybe you should worry about your own posts and stop trying to control who I talk to and how I address them, IOW follow the advice in your own OP -- YA THINK?

FYI "pothead" is a friendly term I've been using for Uncensored for a long time. It's a reference to his calling everybody he disagrees with "Pol Pot". So now you know, again, share the chuckle and GTFO my face. Sheesh.

Tissue?

You spent all that time in my face last night, but now you're the one whining when I turn the tables on you. Don't try to justify your name calling. That's no substitute for your lack of an argument at this point.

Answer my argument.

You agree that Rowe can associate with Beck, but attack others for inferring guilt on Obama for associating with a terrorist.

Why the double standard?

DUDE -- THAT IS NOT A DOUBLE STANDARD ... IT'S THE SAME THING.
You just stated the same thing twice, once in the positive, then in the negative. THAT DOESN'T MAKE THEM OPPOSITES.

i admire your patience, but it is not really worth the effort.