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

[BDBoop]

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.

Next time he accuses me of being humorless, I hope he'll remember how the two of us responded to your mistake.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Thanks. I can get like the archaeologist, just hoping the next little punch of the hammer will finally hit pay dirt. I guess sometimes the obvious is the hardest to focus on.

 

[BDBoop]

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.

Thanks. I can get like the archaeologist, just hoping the next little punch of the hammer will finally hit pay dirt. I guess sometimes the obvious is the hardest to focus on.

At least three of them should be ashamed it takes so many of them to counter your arguments.

I'm not including TK. He's just background noise.

 

[Newby]

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.

Guess Pogo 'forgot' that we were posting in the thread... he didn't respond to either one of us.. wonder why??

 

[Newby]

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

Thanks. I can get like the archaeologist, just hoping the next little punch of the hammer will finally hit pay dirt. I guess sometimes the obvious is the hardest to focus on.

At least three of them should be ashamed it takes so many of them to counter your arguments.

I'm not including TK. He's just background noise.

Good God, get a room!

 

[Uncensored2008]

DUDE -- THAT IS NOT A DOUBLE STANDARD ... IT'S THE SAME THING.

Chuckle..

Your idiotic contention is that associating with known terrorists is the same thing as associating with those who hold views contrary to the goals of the party; but no one rational agrees with such a foolish claim.

You just stated the same thing twice, once in the positive, then in the negative. THAT DOESN'T MAKE THEM OPPOSITES.

Without fallacy, you would never approach logic....

{'False equivalence' is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. It would be the antonym of the mathematical concept of material equivalence. It is achieved by "shifting, imprecise, or tactical (re)definition of a linking term.[1]

A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal. It should be noted though that d existing in both sets is not required, only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be able to be used.}

False equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pogo]

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.

Guess Pogo 'forgot' that we were posting in the thread... he didn't respond to either one of us.. wonder why??

I caught Pothead's post this time, but I ignored it since it's irrelevant. That's why.

Not rocket surgery.

 

[Rebelitarian]

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?

[The following is an excerpt from Mike Rowe's Facebook page (Rowe is the host of Discovery Channel's Dirty Jobs)]

Shannon K. Walsh wrote, “Mike – How could you associate with such a horrible and psychotic person that is Glen[n] Beck? I wouldn’t accept a dime off that hateful, nasty racist. Very disappointed to see this post.”

Well, hi there, Shannon – and a pleasant good morning to you too!

If you want a detailed answer to your question, please take a moment to read my earlier reply to Bob Reidel, another crestfallen soul who couldn’t reconcile my association with a TV host that he personally despised. As you read it (out loud, if possible, and in a public place), kindly replace the words “Bob Reidel” with “Shannon K. Walsh,” and “Bill Maher” with “Glenn Beck.” But prepare yourself – you might be forced to conclude that my true objective here has little to do with winning or losing your approval.

As for your personal characterization of Glenn Beck, I can only assume you have information not available to me. In my time with him, I saw nothing “horrible, psychotic, hateful, or nasty.” I smelled no burning sulphur, no smoldering brimstone, and saw no sign of cloven hooves.

To the contrary, I found a very passionate guy who employs about 300 people, works his butt off, and puts his money where his mouth is. Do we agree on everything? Of course not. Am I “disappointed” by that fact? Not at all. The real question, Shannon, is … why are you?

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

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

-Mike

Read more at A Woman Asked How Mike Rowe Could Associate With Glenn Beck. This is How He Responded... | Independent Journal Review

Maybe Glenn Beck needed advice on how to maintain his tires !!!!

 

[Uncensored2008]

At least three of them should be ashamed it takes so many of them to counter your arguments.

I'm not including TK. He's just background noise.

His "arguments" are a mixture of logical fallacy and partisan stupidity; they counter themselves. We're just here for the entertainment value of mocking and goading....

 

[Uncensored2008]

I caught Pothead's post this time, but I ignored it since it's irrelevant. That's why.

Not rocket surgery.

You ran from it, because you have no capacity to counter it.

You got caught with your dick in the dog. You are exposed.

 

[Pogo]

DUDE -- THAT IS NOT A DOUBLE STANDARD ... IT'S THE SAME THING.

Chuckle..

Your idiotic contention is that associating with known terrorists is the same thing as associating with those who hold views contrary to the goals of the party; but no one rational agrees with such a foolish claim.

You just stated the same thing twice, once in the positive, then in the negative. THAT DOESN'T MAKE THEM OPPOSITES.

Without fallacy, you would never approach logic....

{'False equivalence' is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. It would be the antonym of the mathematical concept of material equivalence. It is achieved by "shifting, imprecise, or tactical (re)definition of a linking term.[1]

A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal. It should be noted though that d existing in both sets is not required, only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be able to be used.}

False equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What am I, an English teacher now?

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

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

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.

DUH.

Let me guess.... yesterday we repealed the laws of logic; today we repeal the laws of language.

::: scrape:::scrape:::scrape:::

 

[Pogo]

At least three of them should be ashamed it takes so many of them to counter your arguments.

I'm not including TK. He's just background noise.

His "arguments" are a mixture of logical fallacy and partisan stupidity; they counter themselves. We're just here for the entertainment value of mocking and goading....

I'm not "mocking" him; I'm trying to show him his error of logic. He wants to be a lawyer. If he makes it, someday he'll thank me.

Besides, mocking is your gig, Pothead.

 

[Pogo]

I caught Pothead's post this time, but I ignored it since it's irrelevant. That's why.

Not rocket surgery.

You ran from it, because you have no capacity to counter it.

You got caught with your dick in the dog. You are exposed.

That's not a dog, Danth -- that's a red herring.
Kinda flopping around gasping for air too.

 

[TemplarKormac]

DUDE -- THAT IS NOT A DOUBLE STANDARD ... IT'S THE SAME THING.

Chuckle..

Your idiotic contention is that associating with known terrorists is the same thing as associating with those who hold views contrary to the goals of the party; but no one rational agrees with such a foolish claim.




Without fallacy, you would never approach logic....

{'False equivalence' is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. It would be the antonym of the mathematical concept of material equivalence. It is achieved by "shifting, imprecise, or tactical (re)definition of a linking term.[1]

A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal. It should be noted though that d existing in both sets is not required, only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be able to be used.}

False equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What am I, an English teacher now?

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

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

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.

DUH.

Let me guess.... yesterday we repealed the laws of logic; today we repeal the laws of language.

::: scrape:::scrape:::scrape:::

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

 

[Uncensored2008]

What am I, an English teacher now?

Nah, you're a partisan hack, just as you've always been.

Break it down:
Rowe can associate with Beck - because to say he can't is guilt by association

Again brite boi, you lack any semblance of basic reasoning skills; Beck is not guilty of any crimes, so to assume guilt by association would be stupid.

but attack others for inferring guilt on Obama for associating with (Ayers) - because that is guilt by association.

Ayers however, is a known and admitted terrorist.

This is pretty simple stuff, study it for awhile and perhaps even you will learn to grasp it.

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

DUH.

Let me guess.... yesterday we repealed the laws of logic; today we repeal the laws of language.

::: scrape:::scrape:::scrape:::

Son, the only thing even approaching logic with you is your use of fallacy.

 

[Newby]

At least three of them should be ashamed it takes so many of them to counter your arguments.

I'm not including TK. He's just background noise.

His "arguments" are a mixture of logical fallacy and partisan stupidity; they counter themselves. We're just here for the entertainment value of mocking and goading....

I'm not "mocking" him; I'm trying to show him his error of logic. He wants to be a lawyer. If he makes it, someday he'll thank me.

Besides, mocking is your gig, Pothead.

Yeah, he'll thank you all right, but it won't be for teaching him what logic is...

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm not "mocking" him;

But I'm mocking you...

You're just not sharp enough to grasp it.

I'm trying to show him his error of logic. He wants to be a lawyer. If he makes it, someday he'll thank me.

Besides, mocking is your gig, Pothead.

Ah, so founding your arguments on fallacy is your way of demonstrating what NOT to do?

 

[Pogo]

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

I think you should read it yourself, TK.

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

How?

Answer that.

 

[Pogo]

I'm not "mocking" him;

But I'm mocking you...

You're just not sharp enough to grasp it.

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