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

[Newby]

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.

Whenever a conservative presidential nominee associates with known criminals and terrorists, I'll be right there with you Pogo. I don't think logic is your strong suit, is it?

 

[billyerock1991]

What has he said that makes him "scum?"

You must understand, to the minions of Soros, opposition to the party is FAR worse than planing bombs on police cars or trying to murder civilians.

The leftists here hold the party above all. Those who criticize the party must be destroyed - killed if possible, slandered if not.

Beck has spoken against the party - this is blasphemy. Mindless drones like billyerock1991 are programmed by Soros and his lieutenants to attack enemies of the party with every resource at their disposal.

You cannot reason with drones like BlindBoo or billyerock1991, they lack the higher cognitive development needed for reason. They are driven only by emotion - and their handlers at DailyKOS have filled them with hatred and rage, making them effective soldiers for the party.

Glenn Beck is an enemy of the party, ergo billyerock1991 hates Glenn Beck with every fiber of his soul.

pull you head out of both your asses this has nothing to do with soros ... I don't listen to the man I don't know of any liberal that does ... he speaks in the press and you whack jobs go nuts ... assuming he's our leader cause he rich ... or he pissed you republicans off ... we don't follow people because of wealth we follow people because of their wisdom something both you republicans lack ...

 

[ClosedCaption]

Guilt by association is ok when we do it


Signed,

Republicans

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

and you guys have sat and listened to beck for years and thats apparently ok. This is a case of do as i say and not as i do, which is typical of people of your party.
you can't complain about guilt by association and then turn around and use it for your own argument against someone you don't like.
Then again i am not one to stop someone like you from making a fool of themselves. So please have a ball.

 

[Pogo]

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?

That's a good way to put it.

The answer is: unknown. We don't have the requisite info.
We would have to know exactly how each one influenced the other and to what degree the influencee took that influence to heart. And by simple association, there is no way to know that.

Here's another example:
You and I are on this board right now, associating. Does that mean you're a bad influence on my logic? Am I incapable of making my own argument and thus doomed to shift to your position?

Think about it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Bush and the Bin Ladens not fair, Obama and Rev Wright ZOMG

 

[Pogo]

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.

Whenever a conservative presidential nominee associates with known criminals and terrorists, I'll be right there with you Pogo. I don't think logic is your strong suit, is it?

For the most part it's literally all I post about. Maybe you haven't noticed.

Still waiting for you or anyone to show me how logical fallacies get turned on and off like a light switch depending on whose interest it serves...

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Apparently you're the one invoking Danth's law by insisting that my entire argument is fallacious, which therefore means yours by default is superior. That within itself is a fallacy in logic. I did provide arguments to your fallacies, you refuse to acknowledge them. You're wrong. Accept it. Your entire argument is based on the appeal to coincidence fallacy, in which you fail to acknowledge clear reasons behind an effect. On top of that, it is an argument by dismissal; in which you simply dismiss my argument without stating clear and cogently why. It is also an argument from inertia, insisting on an incorrect view despite given facts to the contrary.

 

[billyerock1991]

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.

no I clearly said if you want to stay stupid and lied to, then fine go with glenn beck ... its not his politics I don't like its his constant lying and sponges like you sopping it up is what i don't like

 

[Newby]

Guilt by association is ok when we do it


Signed,

Republicans

Guilt by association is open for anyone to enjoy, just make sure there's legitmate guilt before you tar and feather the association..

 

[Newby]

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.

Whenever a conservative presidential nominee associates with known criminals and terrorists, I'll be right there with you Pogo. I don't think logic is your strong suit, is it?

For the most part it's literally all I post about. Maybe you haven't noticed.

Still waiting for you or anyone to show me how logical fallacies get turned on and off like a light switch depending on whose interest it serves...

Only you seem to think there's a 'logical fallacy' going onhere... when in fact, the only logical fallacy is yours... Glen Beck is not guilty of any wrong doing, Bill Ayers is... you can have 'guilt by assoc.' with Bill Ayers, not so much with Glen Beck.

 

[billyerock1991]

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

ain't that the truth

 

[Pogo]

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.

Apparently you're the one invoking Danth's law by insisting that my entire argument is fallacious, which therefore means yours by default is superior. That within itself is a fallacy in logic. I did provide arguments to your fallacies, you refuse to acknowledge them. You're wrong. Accept it. Your entire argument is based on the appeal to coincidence fallacy, in which you fail to acknowledge clear reasons behind an effect. On top of that, it is an argument by dismissal; in which you simply dismiss my argument without stating clear and cogently why. It is also an argument from inertia, insisting on an incorrect view despite given facts to the contrary.

Do I have to explain everything?

"Danth's Law" means declaring yourself the winner (or your opponent the loser), which is what you did. Making an argument is not in itself a fallacy. Obviously if I have a different view I need to make my case. What, you're saying only you can make a case and I have to shut up?? Nor is having confidence in my position. SMH...

Jesus Christ on a bicycle, are you sure you want to study law?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

ain't that the truth

Oh palease..... you're insane....

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Answer: Yes he was.

And in 1972 the radical left assumed control of the democratic party. In 68' the democrats were still pro-American and anti-communist.

 

[Pogo]

Whenever a conservative presidential nominee associates with known criminals and terrorists, I'll be right there with you Pogo. I don't think logic is your strong suit, is it?

For the most part it's literally all I post about. Maybe you haven't noticed.

Still waiting for you or anyone to show me how logical fallacies get turned on and off like a light switch depending on whose interest it serves...

Only you seem to think there's a 'logical fallacy' going onhere... when in fact, the only logical fallacy is yours... Glen Beck is not guilty of any wrong doing, Bill Ayers is... you can have 'guilt by assoc.' with Bill Ayers, not so much with Glen Beck.

You don't have the slightest clue what we're talking about here, do you?

"Guilt" does not mean in the culpable sense. "Wrong doing" has nothing to do with anything.

Read post 119.

 

[billyerock1991]

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.

Bwaq hahahahahahahahahahah my side theyre acking BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you havew a lot to learn like I said go tpo factcheck.or do a search on glenn beck heres what you will find
1) The Constitution he knows nothing about
2) Nonviolent political involvement he insites peopel to violence all the time
3) Encouraging people to study history his version of history not the real history
4) Working together with people to build a better country through virtuous living and private servi if you want to have the right to choose then you're fuck ... as I said he knows nothing about the constitution

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

That's a good way to put it.

The answer is: unknown. We don't have the requisite info.
We would have to know exactly how each one influenced the other and to what degree the influencee took that influence to heart. And by simple association, there is no way to know that.

Here's another example:
You and I are on this board right now, associating. Does that mean you're a bad influence on my logic? Am I incapable of making my own argument and thus doomed to shift to your position?

Think about it.

We do have the requisite info. You have the wealth and cornucopia of human knowledge known as the "internet" sitting at your fingertips. Obama met Bill Ayers in 1995. So he's known him or about him for almost 20 years. There has been ample time for any of Ayers' influence to rub off on him. Ayers stated personally that while he never knew him on a deeply personal level, he wished to "get to know him better." Obama and Ayers also held a fundraiser together all those years ago.

Obama claimed he didn't know him all that well

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense

However, Ayers has a different story

&#8220;We were friendly, that was true; we served on a couple of boards together, that was true; he held a fundraiser in our living room, that was true; Michelle [Obama] and Bernardine were at the law firm together, that was true. Hyde Park in Chicago is a tiny neighborhood, so when he said I was &#8216;a guy around the neighborhood,&#8217; that was true.&#8221;

There. I provided some requisite information to back up my "guilt by association" claim.

 

[Uncensored2008]

pull you head out of both your asses this has nothing to do with soros ... I don't listen to the man I don't know of any liberal that does ...

First off, you're not a "liberal," you are a leftist.

And Soros funds virtually ALL the efforts of the extreme left in this nation. It was the Soros machine that put Obama in office, and the Soros machine that leads the demagoguery efforts of your shameful party. KOS, TP, Democratic Underground, and MoveOn are all Soros mechanisms.

MSNBC, MotherJones, and Rolling Stone are tightly integrated with the Soros demagoguery machine.

So you, you are just a mindless drone, spewing the hatred that Soros has programmed you to spew.

he speaks in the press and you whack jobs go nuts ... assuming he's our leader cause he rich ... or he pissed you republicans off ... we don't follow people because of wealth we follow people because of their wisdom something both you republicans lack ...

Soros rarely speaks to the press. He uses the $32 billion that he stole and defrauded, to fund radical left efforts.

Mindless fools like you do the speaking. And you all spew the same shit.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Apparently you're the one invoking Danth's law by insisting that my entire argument is fallacious, which therefore means yours by default is superior. That within itself is a fallacy in logic. I did provide arguments to your fallacies, you refuse to acknowledge them. You're wrong. Accept it. Your entire argument is based on the appeal to coincidence fallacy, in which you fail to acknowledge clear reasons behind an effect. On top of that, it is an argument by dismissal; in which you simply dismiss my argument without stating clear and cogently why. It is also an argument from inertia, insisting on an incorrect view despite given facts to the contrary.

Do I have to explain everything?

"Danth's Law" means declaring yourself the winner (or your opponent the loser), which is what you did. Making an argument is not in itself a fallacy. Obviously if I have a different view I need to make my case. What, you're saying only you can make a case and I have to shut up?? Nor is having confidence in my position. SMH...

Jesus Christ on a bicycle, are you sure you want to study law?

Dude. You're the one who lost his point by turning this into a discussion about "fallacies." So yes, I think it serves you better to quit while you're behind. Cease with this tautology of yours. Your arguments beg the question, they don't answer it. You make the argument of petitio principii. Once again you use argumentum ad hominem to attack my credentials, not my argument. This is over.