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

[BlindBoo]

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.

To me wanting to stop the wanton slaughter of millions of Asians and thousand of Americans is a virtue. Sell conspiracy theories to make a few bucks, not so virtuous.

But to each his own I guess.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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."

Then why does he want to fundamentally change America?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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 associating with.

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

That has nothing at all to do with my OP. None. It is human nature to determine guilt by association. Human nature in this case trumps argumentative fallacy. But what you never answered is why we can't make that same determination about Obama and Bill Ayers? Why is it different with them? Hmm?

 

[billyerock1991]

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 ...

No. Im saying we should be kind to one another regardless of what party we are associated with, if any.

stay stupid is all I can say

 

[Pogo]

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.

It's a logical fallacy. You can't compare rhetorical rules to laws about accessory to a crime. They are in NO WAY related.

I think you're aware you've lost the point and are desperately trying to obfuscate. You can't change the facts; a fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy, regardless who's in it, what day of the week it is or whether Neptune is in trine with freaking Uranus.

 

[Newby]

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.

I was talking about obama...

Funny, I never heard Christ mentioned in any of the rantings that Wright made... I don't know if you get any further from Christ's message than Wright did during his sermons.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm sorry where did i insert think progress in to this discussion ...

ROFL

So they told you that Americans are far too stupid to recognize the source of your programming?

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

By "liar" you mean he is critical of the party, right? And that is FAR worse than planting bombs on police cars, as Ayers did - right?

I mean, party above all, right comrade?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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...

No they just bombed the police station. Probably wasn't a single patrol car involved.

Oh but look what I found!!!


December 6 &#8211; Bombing of several Chicago police cars parked in a precinct parking lot at 3600 North Halsted Street, Chicago. The WUO claims responsibility in Prairie Fire, stating it is a protest of the fatal police shooting of Illinois Black Panther Party leaders Fred Hampton and Mark Clark on December 4, 1969.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And what people on the left here are failing to do is answer this one critical point:

If we dissociate with everyone merely because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?

Guilt by association happens on both sides of the aisle, for some justified and unjustified reasons. My grandmother always told me never to hang out with bad influences. Never to set bad examples. When you associate with a terrorist, you are setting a bad example with a bad influence. It isn't hard to see. It isn't complicated as Pogo here would have you to believe.

 

[Pogo]

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 associating with.

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

That has nothing at all to do with my OP. None. It is human nature to determine guilt by association. Human nature in this case trumps argumentative fallacy. But what you never answered is why we can't make that same determination about Obama and Bill Ayers? Why is it different with them? Hmm?

You tell me -- it's you and Newby who seem to be suggesting what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. I've been saying throughout that it's the same fallacy every time; you're the guys trying to have it both ways.

And no, human nature in no way trumps logic. That's never gonna happen. We use logic to get us back on track.

 

[BlindBoo]

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!

Say, wasn't bad boy Billy arrested during the days of rage for protesting at the Democratic Convention in 1968?

Answer: Yes he was.

 

[billyerock1991]

All I can say for you is that you should lose some rep power for that unnecessary remark. Just how is he "scum" anyhow? Are you capable of answering intelligently without using pejoratives?

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 ...

What has he said that makes him "scum?"

where to start ... lets start with every time he speaks he's lying to you

Search here's a starter go to fact check do a search on the name glelnn beck have fun when you see your hero destroyed shown to you what a evil scum bag he really is ... if not the stay stupid praise him with glee... i don't fucking care ...

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

It's a logical fallacy. You can't compare rhetorical rules to laws about accessory to a crime. They are in NO WAY related.

I think you're aware you've lost the point and are desperately trying to obfuscate. You can't change the facts; a fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy, regardless who's in it, what day of the week it is or whether Neptune is in trine with freaking Uranus.

Yeah they are actually. How can it be a fallacy of logic if such a concept is so often used in our justice system? You are reaching. You're getting upset, and that therefore shows you to have a weak argument. I have not made one attempt to obfuscate, Pogo. I along with several others completely dismantled your argument on its face.

You don't like it? Deal with it. Stop throwing a tantrum.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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...

{In 1974, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Jeff Jones and other members formed the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee, the publishing arm of the Weather Underground Organization. The name was inspired by mass murderer Mao Zedong who said, "a single spark can set a prairie fire." Its first book was Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism. In this book, William Ayers admits that he is a communist,

"We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years."

Prairie Fire is dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan, Robert F. Kennedy's assassin.

Interestingly, the book lists Sirhan Sirhan, Robert F. Kennedy's assassin, among many other now-obscure '60s-era radicals, criminals and revolutionaries on the dedication page.

Ayers and his fellow co-authors brag about their numerous acts of domestic terrorism, and provide a handy list detailing not only each crime but in most cases the justification for each crime as well.
Ayers and his fellow co-authors brag about their numerous acts of domestic terrorism.

Among the bombings by Ayers' group listed in the book:

Haymarket police statue, Chicago
Chicago police cars
New York City police headquarters
Marin County Courthouse }

William Ayers - Conservapedia

Hey, you're lying for your GLORIOUS peoples party - so lying is a virtue, right?

Party above all, eh comrade?

 

[Pogo]

And what people on the left here are failing to do is answer this one critical point:

If we dissociate with everyone merely because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?

Guilt by association happens on both sides of the aisle, for some justified and unjustified reasons. My grandmother always told me never to hang out with bad influences. Never to set bad examples. When you associate with a terrorist, you are setting a bad example with a bad influence. It isn't hard to see. It isn't complicated as Pogo here would have you to believe.

Yet more obfuscation from the obfuscator who knows he's lost.

If you aid and abet a terrorist in the business of terrorism, you'd be setting a bad example. But association by itself doesn't make the case. Never did, never will. Period.

Your own OP makes this case. It's your whole point. Hoist with your own petard.

 

[Uncensored2008]

To me wanting to stop the wanton slaughter of millions of Asians and thousand of Americans is a virtue. Sell conspiracy theories to make a few bucks, not so virtuous.

But to each his own I guess.

We know what you're about..

{Ayers stated, "I'm not so much against the war as I am for a Vietnamese victory," and "I'm not so much for peace as for a U.S. defeat."

In 1970, Ayers explained what the Weather Underground was all about: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at."[5] }

William Ayers - Conservapedia

 

[TemplarKormac]

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 associating with.

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

That has nothing at all to do with my OP. None. It is human nature to determine guilt by association. Human nature in this case trumps argumentative fallacy. But what you never answered is why we can't make that same determination about Obama and Bill Ayers? Why is it different with them? Hmm?

You tell me -- it's you and Newby who seem to be suggesting what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. I've been saying throughout that it's the same fallacy every time; you're the guys trying to have it both ways.

And no, human nature in no way trumps logic. That's never gonna happen. We use logic to get us back on track.

Here, let me put it in simple terms for you.

Example A: Mike Rowe and Glenn Beck are TV personalities, who share common political views.

Example B: Barack Obama and Bill Ayers are President and professor slash former domestic terrorist who share common political views.

Now tell me which of these relationships is more innocuous, and which is more disturbing?

 

[Pogo]

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.

It's a logical fallacy. You can't compare rhetorical rules to laws about accessory to a crime. They are in NO WAY related.

I think you're aware you've lost the point and are desperately trying to obfuscate. You can't change the facts; a fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy, regardless who's in it, what day of the week it is or whether Neptune is in trine with freaking Uranus.

Yeah they are actually. How can it be a fallacy of logic if such a concept is so often used in our justice system? You are reaching. You're getting upset, and that therefore shows you to have a weak argument. I have not made one attempt to obfuscate, Pogo. I along with several others completely dismantled your argument on its face.

You don't like it? Deal with it. Stop throwing a tantrum.

I know you think you're baiting, but you misread. I just know to what degree of wrong you are, and it's a killer. Upset? I'm salivating. This is fallacy hunter's gold right here. Because you're not arguing with me -- you're arguing with Plato and Aristotle. Good luck with that.

LAW IS NOT RHETORIC. Never was, never will be. Invoke Danth's Law all you like, it just goes on the fallacy pile.

Go ahead -- prove that it is. You haven't addressed the previous fallacies btw.. seems like you have work to do.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No they just bombed the police station. Probably wasn't a single patrol car involved.

Oh but look what I found!!!


December 6 – Bombing of several Chicago police cars parked in a precinct parking lot at 3600 North Halsted Street, Chicago. The WUO claims responsibility in Prairie Fire, stating it is a protest of the fatal police shooting of Illinois Black Panther Party leaders Fred Hampton and Mark Clark on December 4, 1969.

Ayers bragged in his book about bombing Chicago police cars. Ayers isn't just a terrorist - he's proud of it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And what people on the left here are failing to do is answer this one critical point:

If we dissociate with everyone merely because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?

Guilt by association happens on both sides of the aisle, for some justified and unjustified reasons. My grandmother always told me never to hang out with bad influences. Never to set bad examples. When you associate with a terrorist, you are setting a bad example with a bad influence. It isn't hard to see. It isn't complicated as Pogo here would have you to believe.

Yet more obfuscation from the obfuscator who knows he's lost.

If you aid and abet a terrorist in the business of terrorism, you'd be setting a bad example. But association by itself doesn't make the case. Never did, never will. Period.

Your own OP makes this case. It's your whole point. Hoist with your own petard.

How have I been obfuscating? I have yet to see you post an example of such. Is it because I've got you backed into a corner?

If you support a terrorist and agree with one, it doesn't necessarily make you one, but it shines bad light on you because you do. Such an commonality is magnified if you happen to be the President of the United States.

Your argument is akin to death by a thousand papercuts.