Pogo
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2012
- 123,708
- 22,749
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
“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 ‘a guy around the neighborhood,’ that was true.”
There. I provided some requisite information to back up my "guilt by association" claim.
No, you didn't. And we can reduce it to this right here:
There has been ample time for any of Ayers' influence to rub off on him.
You're making the leap that simply because there has been "ample time" for something to happen, therefore it is presumed to have happened. Or to put it in your own words, and "appeal to coincidence fallacy". Not to mention you're timeshifting.
This is why I say you're not going to get far in law with thinking like this. You've drawn a conclusion without a basis. Case not proven.
Now is there some special reason you didn't want to touch the second example?
Last edited: