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

[nodoginnafight]

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.

I don't detest Obama for hanging out with Wright anymore than I detest this guy for hanging out with Beck.

Different sides of the very same coin.

I live in the middle of those extremeist wackos.

I'm just not hypocritical about it - like the original poster

 

[Pogo]

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)

You are actually proposing to equate rhetorical arguments with criminal acts? You're willing to put your name next to that?

Your point is absolutely ludicrous. Speech is not a criminal act.

 

[billyerock1991]

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?

lool if you want to be duped by a lying piece of shit that's fine you go girl me I sling as much shit right back at him ... if he ever come to my state Ill shout the lying piece of shit down ... so far only Obama was here and it was fantastic ...

 

[BlindBoo]

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 the First Amendment protect us from reprisal use of the very same First Amendment rights of others?

Nah that can't be right. She had every right to ask him and he had every right to answer any way he feels.

Personally, who cares who he associates with. But she did not violate his First Amendment rights. It's great to be an American, ain't it?

I absolutely looove how people like you, Pogo, and nodog are purposefully misinterpreting my thread.

I said nowhere that Ms. Walsh violated his First Amendment rights. I said she needs to acknowledge that fact, for she has that same exact right of her own.

You stated: "According to the First Amendment, Mr. Rowe here has the right to freely associate with whom he pleases without fear of reprisal ..."

There is no such First Amendment protection from reprisal comments from any citizen period. She has every right to speak her mind. I'm glad to see Mike isn't thin skinned too. Good for him.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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...



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...

Why is your argument focused on fallacies? Can you not for the life of you argue the OP?

1) Who said I was "selectively enforcing" anything? The fallacy of yours is assuming Beck is guilty of something. Also, there is your fallacy of assuming I was selectively applying guilt by association, which is no doubt driven by your political biases.

2) See above post.

3) None of what you said just now recuses you from the multiple fallacies and assumptions you yourself made. Not that this 3) excuses your from 1). I did. You only see what you wish to see.

 

[Avatar4321]

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

Please tell me what's outrageous or anti American about the following:

1) The Constitution
2) Nonviolent political involvement
3) Encouraging people to study history
4) Working together with people to build a better country through virtuous living and private service.

I'd love to hear what you have to say.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

Race baiting pimp, money baiting pimp, really isnt much difference. Both are out for attention in the end. Beck is just using your paranoia to make money and i applaud him for it. People like you have supported a lot of careers based on nothing.

Beck is the pimp that takes your money and you are too stupid to leave after he punches you in the face.

Regardless the OP took a hypocritical stance on the whole concept and now you have a bunch of partisan trash going back and forth trying to defend how its different. Its not no matter how many times you repeat it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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

Just a subjective opinion. For which there are just as many subjective opinions to the contrary.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Despite what your boss, George Soros told you, opposing Obama is not "anti-American."

 

[TemplarKormac]

So the First Amendment protect us from reprisal use of the very same First Amendment rights of others?

Nah that can't be right. She had every right to ask him and he had every right to answer any way he feels.

Personally, who cares who he associates with. But she did not violate his First Amendment rights. It's great to be an American, ain't it?

I absolutely looove how people like you, Pogo, and nodog are purposefully misinterpreting my thread.

I said nowhere that Ms. Walsh violated his First Amendment rights. I said she needs to acknowledge that fact, for she has that same exact right of her own.

You stated: "According to the First Amendment, Mr. Rowe here has the right to freely associate with whom he pleases without fear of reprisal ..."

There is no such First Amendment protection from reprisal comments from any citizen period. She has every right to speak her mind. I'm glad to see Mike isn't thin skinned too. Good for him.

My argument was that she needed to acknowledge that fact. Somehow she doesn't like him associating with Glenn Beck. So what? He isn't a terrorist or a murderer like Bill Ayers. Obama was literally shielded from his past ties. So there you have it.

 

[Newby]

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.

I don't detest Obama for hanging out with Wright anymore than I detest this guy for hanging out with Beck.

Different sides of the very same coin.

I live in the middle of those extremeist wackos.

I'm just not hypocritical about it - like the original poster

You should care, one has the power to change your life, the other does not.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

lool if you want to be duped by a lying piece of shit that's fine you go girl me I sling as much shit right back at him ... if he ever come to my state Ill shout the lying piece of shit down ... so far only Obama was here and it was fantastic ...

Problem is no one is slinging anything at you in the first place

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

sure i have. Its not a very difficult thread to begin with. its a trollish/hack thread created by an ultra partisan person who see's things one way and that way is the only way that is right. Regardless of how hypocritical it is.

Since you support Beck naturally you would be in here defending him.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

Race baiting pimp, money baiting pimp, really isnt much difference. Both are out for attention in the end. Beck is just using your paranoia to make money and i applaud him for it. People like you have supported a lot of careers based on nothing.

Beck is the pimp that takes your money and you are too stupid to leave after he punches you in the face.

Regardless the OP took a hypocritical stance on the whole concept and now you have a bunch of partisan trash going back and forth trying to defend how its different. Its not no matter how many times you repeat it.

Exactly. I'm just wondering if they are smart enough to realize how hypocritical they are being.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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)

You are actually proposing to equate rhetorical arguments with criminal acts? You're willing to put your name next to that?

Your point is absolutely ludicrous. Speech is not a criminal act.

I'm not making that argument. I'm giving you examples. You say guilt by association is a fallacy, Pogo, years of legal precedent beg to differ.

 

[Newby]

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.

Race baiting pimp, money baiting pimp, really isnt much difference. Both are out for attention in the end. Beck is just using your paranoia to make money and i applaud him for it. People like you have supported a lot of careers based on nothing.

Beck is the pimp that takes your money and you are too stupid to leave after he punches you in the face.

Regardless the OP took a hypocritical stance on the whole concept and now you have a bunch of partisan trash going back and forth trying to defend how its different. Its not no matter how many times you repeat it.

Yeah, except the current POTUS sat and listened for years and apparently agreed with one of them, that's not okay.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

I don't detest Obama for hanging out with Wright anymore than I detest this guy for hanging out with Beck.

Different sides of the very same coin.

I live in the middle of those extremeist wackos.

I'm just not hypocritical about it - like the original poster

You should care, one has the power to change your life, the other does not.

That's true - at least Wright invited people to accept Christ which is truly a life-changing experience.

 

[billyerock1991]

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?

I'm sorry where did i insert think progress in to this discussion ... just so were clear, think progress isn't a source ... I don't use their web site for anything ... if you want to know something factcheck is a good place to start ... especially if you want to know what a liar Beck is ... the have that clown all over the place correcting his lies

 

[Pogo]

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.

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

That's not what "guilt" means in this context.

Apparently there's more than a few engaged who have no idea what we're talking about here... this is how it works, read and learn:

>> Jen and Sandy are discussing the topic of welfare. Jen is fairly conservative politically but she has been an active opponent of racism. Sandy is extremely liberal politically.

Jen: "I was reading over some private studies of welfare and I think it would be better to have people work for their welfare. For example, people could pick up trash, put up signs, and maybe even do skilled labor that they are qualified for. This would probably make people feel better about themselves and it would get more out of our tax money."
Sandy: "I see. So, you want to have the poor people out on the streets picking up trash for their checks? Well, you know that is exactly the position David Count endorses."
Jen: "Who is he?"
Sandy: "I'm surprised you don't know him, seeing how alike you two are. He was a Grand Mooky Wizard for the Aryan Pure White League and is well known for his hatred of blacks and other minorities. With your views, you'd fit right in to his little racist club."
Jen: "So, I should reject my view just because I share it with some racist?"
Sandy: "Of course." << (Nizkor)

The word "guilt" here doesn't mean the person associated with is "guilty" of something. It means that the other person -- the one doing the associating, in the instant case Mike Rowe-- is "guilty" of taking on the aspects of the person they're associationg with.

Naturally, that conclusion does not follow -- therefore it's a fallacy. Doesn't freaking matter who the associator is.

 

[billyerock1991]

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!

go educate yourself Ayers and the weather under never planted a bomb on any police car ... stay stupid if you want that's your choice...