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

[nodoginnafight]

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?

The basic premise you're missing is that associating with a known terrorist who had murder as a plot, i.e. a criminal is going to have more of an impact on your character than associating with someone who is not a known criminal, regardless of how much you might dislike him. Any normal person would see the difference between the two. One should have shown a lack of character to everyone who knew about it or heard about it (i.e. it should have been something we all agreed on), the other would only show a lack of character to those who dislike Glen Beck for their own partisan reasons. In other words, everyone should hold disdain for Bill Ayers and question anyone that would knowingly associate with him because of his criminal past.

No, this doesn't follow. Who will have an impact on one is determined by factors far deeper than whether the figure is a "criminal" or not. To suggest that the label "criminal" somehow invokes special powers is absurd. Everybody is flawed, regardless what label we hang on them, and likewise everybody makes his/her own decision about what influences they absorb. In essence what's suggested here is, once again, that Guilt by Association is OK as long as "I" approve of the associator.

This really isn't that complex; it's about consistency of logic. If Guilt by Association is valid, then Obama must suffer from Ayers and Wright, AND Rowe must suffer from Beck. If it is not, then everybody gets judged on their own actual merits and not on extrapolations of who they hang out with.

Btw I've hung out with "criminals" too. Good thing too, because one of them saved my life.

And it certainly doesn't explain Rev. Wright and the fallout from that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's far kinder than anything I would have written. My response would have been more along the lines of:

Then I highly recommend you work at being kind. Because it's a virtue we desperately need if we are going to rebuild civility in this nation

so you're saying we should shower republicans with everything they want ???? good luck with that ...

It seems as though the Democratic side of the American electorate is getting that right now. You know, shower them with free stuff and all.

 

[nodoginnafight]

OP writes a fairly reasonable piece denoucing vilification by association.

Then reveals it be just another hyper-partisan rant by saying:

"William Ayers ..... Rev Wright ...... um wait .... that's DIFFERENT."

Actually not. Did you even read my posts saying Obama can associate with whom he pleases? If he's prepared for the consequences? Put your reading glasses on.

So what's so bad and this guy reaping the consequences for associating with Beck?

Can't gin up any big difference between Beck and Wright other than political leanings.

 

[billyerock1991]

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

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

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Looks like the Guilt by Association Fallacy just sailed over your head too

Not a fallacy here. Which is your problem.

It's politics that caused William Ayer to engage in terrorism. It seems pretty appropriate to ask questions about political associations one has with a terrorist. No fallacy involved. It's something to cause concern. It may be nothing. It may not be. We will never know since apparently asking is forbidden.

Somehow that is unimportant. But it is vitally important to question Mike Rowe's association with someone who has a long history of promoting virtues in society.

I will never understand the logic of this.

 

[Katzndogz]

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 wingnuts were all over Obama in 2008 because he once attended a tea at the home of Bill Ayers. (Who used to be a member of the Weather Underground and who is now a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago.)

We had 24-7 coverage and analysis. And every wingnut on these boards was vilifying Obama. I'm glad to hear you denounce such behavior.

(I apologize for assuming you had been paying attention to the 2008 campaign)

obama once attended a TEA! Is that what you think? Really? Your ignorance is astounding. obama launched his presidential run from Bill Ayers' living room. That's somewhat more than a "tea" at some point.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

Looks like the Guilt by Association Fallacy just sailed over your head too

Not a fallacy here. Which is your problem.

It's politics that caused William Ayer to engage in terrorism. It seems pretty appropriate to ask questions about political associations one has with a terrorist. No fallacy involved. It's something to cause concern. It may be nothing. It may not be. We will never know since apparently asking is forbidden.

Somehow that is unimportant. But it is vitally important to question Mike Rowe's association with someone who has a long history of promoting virtues in society.

I will never understand the logic of this.

Rev. Wright

 

[nodoginnafight]

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

The wingnuts were all over Obama in 2008 because he once attended a tea at the home of Bill Ayers. (Who used to be a member of the Weather Underground and who is now a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago.)

We had 24-7 coverage and analysis. And every wingnut on these boards was vilifying Obama. I'm glad to hear you denounce such behavior.

(I apologize for assuming you had been paying attention to the 2008 campaign)

obama once attended a TEA! Is that what you think? Really? Your ignorance is astounding. obama launched his presidential run from Bill Ayers' living room. That's somewhat more than a "tea" at some point.

No he didn't.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I love it when the OP owns himself. Classic!

 

[Avatar4321]

[who give a fuck about rep power ... I sure the hell don't ...isn't it what you whack jobs always say ... if you want to sleep with the scum, then you're scum too ... in my opinion Glenn Beck is a two bit lying piece of lying shit that should be taken off the air and every lying dollar he made should be taken away from him ... and any one who associates with him deserves what they get ...

So we should silence & rob someone who does quite alot of good because you think he is scum?

Ill pass. I couldn't bring myself to do something so scummy.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Looks like the Guilt by Association Fallacy just sailed over your head too

Not a fallacy here. Which is your problem.

It's politics that caused William Ayer to engage in terrorism. It seems pretty appropriate to ask questions about political associations one has with a terrorist. No fallacy involved. It's something to cause concern. It may be nothing. It may not be. We will never know since apparently asking is forbidden.

Somehow that is unimportant. But it is vitally important to question Mike Rowe's association with someone who has a long history of promoting virtues in society.

I will never understand the logic of this.

You're trying to dance around the issue and have it both ways. Don't think it's not obvious.

Once again slowly: either it's a fallacy or it isn't -- you don't get to invoke fallacy in case A, no fallacy in case B on account of "he's a criminal" or "he's a rodeo clown". Doesn't matter who Bill Ayers or Glenn Beck are-- it's either a valid argument or invalid, every time. And it's invalid. Period.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The wingnuts were all over Obama in 2008 because he once attended a tea at the home of Bill Ayers. (Who used to be a member of the Weather Underground and who is now a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago.)

We had 24-7 coverage and analysis. And every wingnut on these boards was vilifying Obama. I'm glad to hear you denounce such behavior.

(I apologize for assuming you had been paying attention to the 2008 campaign)

Mr. Soros appreciates your dishonesty. But it does little to further the conversation.

First off, Ayers is a terrorist. Now I realize that to democrats, opposition to your GLORIOUS party is far worse than planting bombs on polices cars, but to rational folk - we see a big difference between criticizing the policies of our rulers and trying to cause death and dismemberment.

But hey, you have a party to promote - you can't get caught up in rationality. Spew that hate - Lord Soros is depending on you!

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Bill Ayers was a member of radical group that violently oppose the American involvement in SE Asia where hundreds of thousand of young American conscripts were being sent to war. Thousands of conscripts lost their lives in that war. Millions of Asian lost theirs. His regret was not doing enough to stop the war. Not more bombings.

They certainly were not terrorist in todays meaning of the word. Like the Jewish resistance in Palestine, they always warned their targets. They were a pain the ass for the Administration but they didn't indiscriminately kill civilians.

Nobodies rights were violate when this women ask Rowe a question. He has the right to say what he wants and associate with whom he wants, but the woman also has a right to speak her mind as well. Ain't free speech great!

 

[Avatar4321]

How can you not see the relevance? A guy who bloviates on air is exactly the same thing as a guy who builds bombs and kills cops. If Mike Rowe can hang out with some blowhard who says stuff, surely Obama can hang out with a guy who plots to kill other people. It's the same thing!

Wait what? I saw that as comparing Beck to a terrorist. Not about who associates with who. I fail to see how Glenn Beck's opinions equate with someone who (supposedly) commits murder.

see what did I tell you its ok for beck to tell people to murder dems buts its not ok for some one else ...

to correct you ayers never ploted to murder anyone ... they plan to blow up statues from the government ... that's not planning to murder people ...its ass holes like you that listen to the likes of glenn beck deserves what they get

Wouldn't he have to actually tell people to murder dems before he is villified for doing so?

Can you please tell me how encouraging people to adopt Gandhi and MLK Jr's approach to politics is encouraging anyone to murder people?

And that's the problem here. You clearly don't know what Glenn Beck stands for and you are villifying him and Mike Rowe for working together to encourage people to work hard.

Tell me, should they be encouraging people to be lazy idle people instead?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The basic premise you're missing is that associating with a known terrorist who had murder as a plot, i.e. a criminal is going to have more of an impact on your character than associating with someone who is not a known criminal, regardless of how much you might dislike him. Any normal person would see the difference between the two. One should have shown a lack of character to everyone who knew about it or heard about it (i.e. it should have been something we all agreed on), the other would only show a lack of character to those who dislike Glen Beck for their own partisan reasons. In other words, everyone should hold disdain for Bill Ayers and question anyone that would knowingly associate with him because of his criminal past.

No, this doesn't follow. Who will have an impact on one is determined by factors far deeper than whether the figure is a "criminal" or not. To suggest that the label "criminal" somehow invokes special powers is absurd. Everybody is flawed, regardless what label we hang on them, and likewise everybody makes his/her own decision about what influences they absorb. In essence what's suggested here is, once again, that Guilt by Association is OK as long as "I" approve of the associator.

This really isn't that complex; it's about consistency of logic. If Guilt by Association is valid, then Obama must suffer from Ayers and Wright, AND Rowe must suffer from Beck. If it is not, then everybody gets judged on their own actual merits and not on extrapolations of who they hang out with.

Btw I've hung out with "criminals" too. Good thing too, because one of them saved my life.

And it certainly doesn't explain Rev. Wright and the fallout from that.

What fallout?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

The basic premise you're missing is that associating with a known terrorist who had murder as a plot, i.e. a criminal is going to have more of an impact on your character than associating with someone who is not a known criminal, regardless of how much you might dislike him. Any normal person would see the difference between the two. One should have shown a lack of character to everyone who knew about it or heard about it (i.e. it should have been something we all agreed on), the other would only show a lack of character to those who dislike Glen Beck for their own partisan reasons. In other words, everyone should hold disdain for Bill Ayers and question anyone that would knowingly associate with him because of his criminal past.

1. No, this doesn't follow. Who will have an impact on one is determined by factors far deeper than whether the figure is a "criminal" or not. To suggest that the label "criminal" somehow invokes special powers is absurd. Everybody is flawed, regardless what label we hang on them, and likewise everybody makes his/her own decision about what influences they absorb. In essence what's suggested here is, once again, that Guilt by Association is OK as long as "I" approve of the associator.

2. This really isn't that complex; it's about consistency of logic. If Guilt by Association is valid, then Obama must suffer from Ayers and Wright, AND Rowe must suffer from Beck. If it is not, then everybody gets judged on their own actual merits and not on extrapolations of who they hang out with.

Btw I've hung out with "criminals" too. Good thing too, because one of them saved my life.

1. Yes it does follow. You liberals invoke guilt by association on black members of the Republican party (Herman Cain, Allen West, etc), yet they are free to associate themselves with the Democrats only. The same goes for women and Hispanics. Listen to yourselves. This is a totally hypocritical mindset.

2. Apparently it's more complex than you realize. If you want to speak of consistent logic, yours is inconsistent. If you and another guy go rob a bank, but you weren't the one who took the money or held the place up, you're still guilty as an accomplice. Our system of laws apply guilt by association all the time.

3. Well if these criminals are of the type who turned over a new leaf, no need to worry now, right? Bill Ayers still holds the same beliefs he had as an underground terrorist. So he is still a criminal, regardless. Obama is guilty of associating with someone who was willing to deal harm to those who didn't agree with his way life.

 

[billyerock1991]

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?

The basic premise you're missing is that associating with a known terrorist who had murder as a plot, i.e. a criminal is going to have more of an impact on your character than associating with someone who is not a known criminal, regardless of how much you might dislike him. Any normal person would see the difference between the two. One should have shown a lack of character to everyone who knew about it or heard about it (i.e. it should have been something we all agreed on), the other would only show a lack of character to those who dislike Glen Beck for their own partisan reasons. In other words, everyone should hold disdain for Bill Ayers and question anyone that would knowingly associate with him because of his criminal past.

do a little research would ya??? i'll give ya a hint glen beck is a terrible source for information ... unless you like being lied to

 

[Avatar4321]

Your first comment didn't appear to equivocate so much:



So what you're really saying is that people have no business questioning associations as long as YOU approve of them????

How very open minded of you.

No. If Obama wants to associate with an underground terrorist or a lunatic church pastor, that not my problem. But I hope he's prepared for the consequences that entails.

Now, disengage attack mode. Sit boy.

The point is -- why should there BE consequences? That's the whole point of your OP, and then you want to turn it in reverse for O'bama.

Can't have it both ways... either Guilt by Association is a valid reasoning, or it is not. Doesn't go on and off like a light switch. (For the record, it isn't).

The irony here:
Glenn Beck is, AFAIK, the assclown who drummed up this obscure figure Sol Jablonski as a guilt-by-association trip on O'bama.

Maybe this Mike Rowe could 'splain how that works to The Beck too.

This is the part you don't seem to be getting. There is no guilt involved. Beck isn't an evil man. He doesn't encourage violence. There is no guilt by association because there is no guilt.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Looks like the Guilt by Association Fallacy just sailed over your head too

Not a fallacy here. Which is your problem.

It's politics that caused William Ayer to engage in terrorism. It seems pretty appropriate to ask questions about political associations one has with a terrorist. No fallacy involved. It's something to cause concern. It may be nothing. It may not be. We will never know since apparently asking is forbidden.

Somehow that is unimportant. But it is vitally important to question Mike Rowe's association with someone who has a long history of promoting virtues in society.

I will never understand the logic of this.

You're trying to dance around the issue and have it both ways. Don't think it's not obvious.

Once again slowly: either it's a fallacy or it isn't -- you don't get to invoke fallacy in case A, no fallacy in case B on account of "he's a criminal" or "he's a rodeo clown". Doesn't matter who Bill Ayers or Glenn Beck are-- it's either a valid argument or invalid, every time. And it's invalid. Period.

Calling something a fallacy without proving it to be one is intellectually dishonest. Making the assertion that an argument is invalid without proving why is also intellectually dishonest.

 

[Uncensored2008]

do a little research would ya??? i'll give ya a hint glen beck is a terrible source for information ... unless you like being lied to

Is that what ThinkProgress told you?