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

[Pogo]

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.

Guilt by association is valid, I never said that it wasn't. My point, AGAIN, is that Bill Ayers is a known and admitted terrorist. Any NORMAL person would question the character of anyone that would knowingly associate with him given his past. Glen Beck, not so much, unless you're a partisan hack.

I love your 'everyone is flawed' comment, just classic of the liberal mindset. There's no 'good', there's no 'evil', everyone is 'the same'... Whether you associate with Jesus Christ or Adolf Hitler, it makes no difference..

Feel free to explain why it should.

After that please go on to why all men are not created equal.

This is the same lame argument where some wag melts down because there's a date in some school textbook that they think isn't quite accurate. As if the students' minds are simple sponges incapable of critical thought that can't possibly question what they're being taught (even though we all did). It's trying to control dialogue, same as any PC bullshit, by trying to pressure somebody into "you can't associate with him" or "you can't say that". It requires the presumption that the associator (the person whose behaviour you're trying to control) cannot possibly react in any way other than the one you (the controller) predict. And that's complete bullshit.

You guys who want to slavishly classify everything you see into a dichotomy of a good box or an evil box only build a box around your own vision.

Guilt by Association IS a fallacy, period. This is simple logic, it's got absolutely jack SQUAT do to with left or right or liberal or conservative, so don't even bother with that game. It's a fallacy every time, no exceptions, and you don't get to apply it selectively. Because it's not about the person who's associated with; it's about the person making the argument.

 

[Plasmaball]

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?




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

so what you're saying its ok for you to be best buds with obama right ??? and you shouldn't be attacked for it right??? well I disagree... if you want to sleep with the scum of the earth, like glenn beck,then you get what you deserve a loss in your on air rating ...

Yeah. How dare he work with Glenn Beck who wants to restore our liberty and actively provides service for the community. What kind of nut job would want to be associated with someone doing good?

nobody gives a shit he wants to work with Glenn beck. This is a made up outrage story.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think Rowe's reply was great.
The woman does however have every right to voice her concerns, and in fact she's welcome to take it further and refuse to purchase any goods or services that Rowe may be involved in.
Punish them in the pocketbook is what I always say. I for one make it a point whenever I can to stay away from businesses owned or operated by liberals.

The woman can voice any concerns she wants. The problem isn't the fact that she is voicing concerns. The problem is people have lied to her and given her concerns which are non-existent.

There is nothing wrong two people associating to promote things they agree with.

The question is what is it they agree with? Something that has been completely ignored in the Obama-Ayers relationship.

 

[billyerock1991]

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.

you see that's where you are wrong ... that's more lies of glenn beck, his distortions of the facts ... Ayers like many in his state had a fund raisers for many people who supported obama ... ayers was one of many places that obama attended when he first started his campaign ... he never started his campaign at Ayers house ... source factcheck.org ... do some damn research and stop listening to glenn beck ... unless you like being lied to

 

[Avatar4321]

so what you're saying its ok for you to be best buds with obama right ??? and you shouldn't be attacked for it right??? well I disagree... if you want to sleep with the scum of the earth, like glenn beck,then you get what you deserve a loss in your on air rating ...

Yeah. How dare he work with Glenn Beck who wants to restore our liberty and actively provides service for the community. What kind of nut job would want to be associated with someone doing good?

nobody gives a shit he wants to work with Glenn beck. This is a made up outrage story.

Clearly the woman who asked him cared. She wouldn't have asked it otherwise.

Made up outraged story? Who exactly is outraged? Are you suggesting Mike Rowe made up this woman's question or complaint?

 

[Plasmaball]

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?




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

suddenly? just how retarded are you Temp? Who is Bill Ayers and Wright? Suddenly this is an issue. Who is George Soros then...

You are mentally retarded.

unless its dogging dems its fine ... but dog a republican or one of his heros glen or mike ... he sees red...

who cares

 

[billyerock1991]

[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.

good !!! keep on moving ... don't need your opinion

 

[Avatar4321]

suddenly? just how retarded are you Temp? Who is Bill Ayers and Wright? Suddenly this is an issue. Who is George Soros then...

You are mentally retarded.

unless its dogging dems its fine ... but dog a republican or one of his heros glen or mike ... he sees red...

who cares

Well clearly you do. Otherwise you wouldn't still be posting.

 

[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.

good !!! keep on moving ... don't need your opinion

Meanwhile you still think you should silence and rob someone because you dont like their politics and dont seem to think that is problematic in the least.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Guilt by association is valid, I never said that it wasn't. My point, AGAIN, is that Bill Ayers is a known and admitted terrorist. Any NORMAL person would question the character of anyone that would knowingly associate with him given his past. Glen Beck, not so much, unless you're a partisan hack.

I love your 'everyone is flawed' comment, just classic of the liberal mindset. There's no 'good', there's no 'evil', everyone is 'the same'... Whether you associate with Jesus Christ or Adolf Hitler, it makes no difference..

Feel free to explain why it should.

After that please go on to why all men are not created equal.

This is the same lame argument where some wag melts down because there's a date in some school textbook that they think isn't quite accurate. As if the students' minds are simple sponges incapable of critical thought that can't possibly question what they're being taught (even though we all did). It's trying to control dialogue, same as any PC bullshit, by trying to pressure somebody into "you can't associate with him" or "you can't say that".

Guilt by Association IS a fallacy, period. This is simple logic, it's got absolutely jack SQUAT do to with left or right or liberal or conservative, so don't even bother with that game. It's a fallacy every time, no exceptions, and you don't get to apply it selectively. Because it's not about the person who's associated with; it's about the person making the argument.

It isn't a fallacy when our very law and justice system works on a similar concept, Pogo.

As the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia explained in Friedman v. Sebelius, 686 F.3d 813, 816-17 (2012): "Criminal liability under the RCO (Responsible Corporate Officer) doctrine extends not only to those corporate agents who themselves committed the criminal act, but also to those who by virtue of their managerial positions or other similar relation to the actor could be deemed responsible for its commission. A corporate officer may therefore be guilty of misdemeanor misbranding without knowledge of, or personal participation in, the underlying fraudulent conduct."

Furthermore, precedent was set for Federal allowance of guilt by association. In U.S. v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (1943); U.S. v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975), and U.S. v. Iverson, 162 F. 3d 1015 (1998)

 

[billyerock1991]

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.

talk about the pot calling the tea kettle black... right back at you

 

[Newby]

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.

Exactly... but that seems to sail right over their pointy little heads...

Rev. Wright didn't endorse violence either

"but .... but .... but ...."

Pure hypocrisy

No, he's just race baiting pimp that preaches 'hate America for their racism' to his minions while he lives in his white gated community in his million dollar house... Suckers...

If you want to admire Obama for associating with Ayers and Wright, be my guest, says a lot about your character tho, whether you like it or not, it's not good.

 

[billyerock1991]

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.

 

[Pogo]

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.

No, it does not.
The poster wants to delineate which classes of people are eligible for a Guilt by Association fallacy, and which classes are not. You just cannot do that. Ever.
Because logic does not depend on who you're talking about.


Speaking of which, I see we're going for the fallacy double-shot: what did I ever post about Herman Cain or Allen West? I think you've got both a Hasty Gen and a Strawman.

Do you understand what logical fallacies are??



Now you want to compare rhetorical logic with robbing a bank??
This ship is sinking fast...

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.

So wait..... now you're saying "criminal" is defined by what's in a person's mind? And you can see in there?

Shheeeeeeeesh.
So many fallacies... so little time...

So many accusations, so little argument. Apparently guilt is determined by the political mindset of the person someone associates with. Namely Mike Rowe and Glenn Beck. Calling me crazy will not help your argument, so this namecalling of yours is killing your own cause. Yours is argumentum ad hominem. The argument this lady uses against Mike Rowe is argumentum ad rea (to guilt) or argumentum ad culpam consociationis (guilt by association). No Pogo, I know plenty about logical fallacy, all you're doing is jumping to wild conclusions, which is argumentum ad modicum.

Apparenty not, if you don't even know what ad hominem is. Where's any of mine here? I'm not seeing it.

Wouldn't it be kind of stupid to commit a fallacy while calling out other fallacies? Or is that just my thinking?

While you're hunting that one down... explain how selective enforcement of Guilt by Association is NOT a fallacy (that's #1). Explain how rhetorical dialogue is like robbing a bank (#2). And then explain how you get to pick out who's a "criminal" and who isn't, based on reading their minds (#3). You didn't answer any of those. Not that #3 would give you a pass for #1 anyway...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Additionally, Pogo, my robbery analogy isn't a fallacy. An example of this is the "felony murder rule". For example, if you were committing a robbery with someone and that other person caused a death, you would also be guilty of murder. It doesn't matter if you didn't kill the person, you would still be guilty by association.

 

[Plasmaball]

unless its dogging dems its fine ... but dog a republican or one of his heros glen or mike ... he sees red...

who cares

Well clearly you do. Otherwise you wouldn't still be posting.

well no, im just killing time, and i like making you people look like fools. which isnt that hard.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Doesn't change the fact that he isn't evil in the slightest.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Glenn Beck's outrageous and anti-American rants are far worse thamn anything Rev. Wright ever said.

 

[Newby]

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.

Guilt by association is valid, I never said that it wasn't. My point, AGAIN, is that Bill Ayers is a known and admitted terrorist. Any NORMAL person would question the character of anyone that would knowingly associate with him given his past. Glen Beck, not so much, unless you're a partisan hack.

I love your 'everyone is flawed' comment, just classic of the liberal mindset. There's no 'good', there's no 'evil', everyone is 'the same'... Whether you associate with Jesus Christ or Adolf Hitler, it makes no difference..

Feel free to explain why it should.

After that please go on to why all men are not created equal.

This is the same lame argument where some wag melts down because there's a date in some school textbook that they think isn't quite accurate. As if the students' minds are simple sponges incapable of critical thought that can't possibly question what they're being taught (even though we all did). It's trying to control dialogue, same as any PC bullshit, by trying to pressure somebody into "you can't associate with him" or "you can't say that". It requires the presumption that the associator (the person whose behaviour you're trying to control) cannot possibly react in any way other than the one you (the controller) predict. And that's complete bullshit.

You guys who want to slavishly classify everything you see into a dichotomy of a good box or an evil box only build a box around your own vision.

Guilt by Association IS a fallacy, period. This is simple logic, it's got absolutely jack SQUAT do to with left or right or liberal or conservative, so don't even bother with that game. It's a fallacy every time, no exceptions, and you don't get to apply it selectively. Because it's not about the person who's associated with; it's about the person making the argument.

That's only 'under the law', not in my opinion or anyone else's... my opinion can make people as equal or unequal as I see them to be.

You are judged by who you associate yourself with, it's a fact of life, so get used to it. If you associate with known criminals and then run for public office, it's reasonable to be questioned about it. Not so much when you're a tv personality associating with another tv personality.

 

[Avatar4321]

who cares

Well clearly you do. Otherwise you wouldn't still be posting.

well no, im just killing time, and i like making you people look like fools. which isnt that hard.

You are killing time in a thread that you don't care about trying to make people look like fools. And yet, we are the foolish ones.

You might want to try harder. You really havent made anyone look foolish. Or even really attempted to to any sort of degree.