quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: ... Which means that the man that the people on Fox and Friends just fearmongered out the wazoo as being sinister and anti-American, adding to their never-ending tirade against the Park51 center, is one of their owners.
I'm remarkably comfortable with all of Christianity, Islam, AND FoxNews taking the fall on this one Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Ad hominem is attacking an argument by attacking the person making the argument instead. In this case, I'm using "video" in lieu of "argument," the point being that he ought to let the video stand on its own.
So, I was making an "ad-hominemey" argument, only in this case substitute video 'in lieu' (in the place of?) of argument and criticism of source 'in lieu' of anything even remotely resembling an attack on Geraine's person? Or ..
You don't make any sense. You aren't making any sense. I'm going to actively wonder if you could take it upon yourself to personally review your statement and see that what I said wasn't 'ad-hominemey' at all, because if you can't, you don't understand the concept nearly well enough to start slinging about fallacy names in any fashion.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: A much more reasonable comparison would be, say, claiming that no Christian church could be established near the burnt out shell of an abortion clinic ...
That would be a more reasonable silly comparison. I have just a smidge of suspicion, however, that if such a thing were proposed, many of the same people outraged right now would be outraged that anyone was upset at the idea of a church nearby.
*waves* Still around
(being a bit glib of course, I'd personally squish outraged to something much more mild)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't really see how you could disagree with that, as it seems pretty clear from his behavior, but I can hardly force you to discuss something
Well, as well as his personal admissions caught on tape and in many people's honest account, which is him basically saying flat out that his goal superseding any desire to uphold any sort of journalistic ethic is that he desires to take down the institutional left via any means available to him.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
hey listen to this about the dude what stabbed the cabbie!
quote:Mr. Enright is a volunteer with Intersections International, a nonprofit that works to promote cross-cultural understanding and has spoken out in favor of the proposed Islamic cultural center near ground zero.
omg taking bets now! Did he snap? Or was this a false flag attack!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Ad hominem is attacking an argument by attacking the person making the argument instead. In this case, I'm using "video" in lieu of "argument," the point being that he ought to let the video stand on its own.
So, I was making an "ad-hominemey" argument, only in this case substitute video 'in lieu' (in the place of?) of argument and criticism of source 'in lieu' of anything even remotely resembling an attack on Geraine's person? Or ..
You don't make any sense. You aren't making any sense. I'm going to actively wonder if you could take it upon yourself to personally review your statement and see that what I said wasn't 'ad-hominemey' at all, because if you can't, you don't understand the concept nearly well enough to start slinging about fallacy names in any fashion.
Wait, there's been a misunderstanding. I wish, instead of saying I don't make any sense and generally being kind of a jerk, you could ask for a clarification or something.
I wasn't saying you were being "ad hominemy" towards Geraine. Or at least, I wasn't trying to. You didn't attack him at all. The ad hominem was towards Breitbart.
You were attacking the source of the video, instead of the video itself. This is ad hominem. Or at least, would undeniably be so if you replaced "video" with "argument."
PS: The internet has a dictionary. If you're confused by the phrase "in lieu of" you can always look it up.
PPS: You figured it out from context though. Good job! Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I wasn't saying you were being "ad hominemy" towards Geraine. Or at least, I wasn't trying to. You didn't attack him at all. The ad hominem was towards Breitbart.
You were attacking the source of the video, instead of the video itself. This is ad hominem. Or at least, would undeniably be so if you replaced "video" with "argument."
The question I asked of Geraine was that I was intruigued as to why, after the Sherrod thread and all that was present in it about Breitbart's willful and damaging distortion, that he would cite breitbart as a counter-narrative. If you can learn how that's different from "That source is automatically wrong because it's from Breitbart," you could probably learn how calling this 'ad hominemy' is silly.
It's not even going into calling the use of a source into question in light of referenced and very well documented controversy over their purposeful and demonstrable intent to mislead; ad hominem, again? Or at least 'would undeniably be so' in situations not actually present?
Rakeesh already has this covered. It's fine if you would like to stick to your guns over whether Breitbart is a non-credible, wilfully misleading source, but if as you say you don't want to get into that argument, then don't tiptoe around that and just poke at whether or not I'm 'ad hominemy-ing' him by bringing up issues over his credibility as a source. If you do that, it brings up a direct challenge over whether Breitbart as a source deserves this kind of inquiry.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: PS: The internet has a dictionary. If you're confused by the phrase "in lieu of" you can always look it up.
PPS: You figured it out from context though. Good job!
I appreciate that you feel inclined to counter my presumed jerkiness with straightforward and purposeful jerkiness, but it voids a lot of the grounds you would usually rely upon where you would usually wonder why i get a 'free pass' for acting one way, or double standard, or blah blah blah.
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: Ad hominems are not always fallacious.
And what would the purpose of Dan's comment be if he believed my query to be legitimate and non-fallacious?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: PS: The internet has a dictionary. If you're confused by the phrase "in lieu of" you can always look it up.
PPS: You figured it out from context though. Good job!
I appreciate that you feel inclined to counter my presumed jerkiness with straightforward and purposeful jerkiness, but it voids a lot of the grounds you would usually rely upon where you would usually wonder why i get a 'free pass' for acting one way, or double standard, or blah blah blah.
I am amused, though!
You thought that was jerkiness? But I had a smiley and everything. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: Ad hominems are not always fallacious.
And what would the purpose of Dan's comment be if he believed my query to be legitimate and non-fallacious?
Well, I think this example illustrates precisely why it is fallacious. You dismissed the link out of hand because it went to Breitbart's site. But the video Geraine was linking to had a valid point. Well, arguably valid, but however you feel about the comment I think it's pretty safe to say there is literally no way the guy who made the comment in the video is being misrepresented.
You seemed to dismiss the video out of hand. From what you posted, it seems like you didn't even watch it. Solely because of the source.
You are literally saying "I don't need to address what that video shows, after all, just consider the source!"
So... that's pretty ad hominemy.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Lol. Now, like Parkour before me, I have no idea whether or not I'm getting trolled.
My partner read over my post and she says I'm trollin'. So, perhaps I am.
Only with regards to the jerkiness, though (the PostScripts and my reply to your reply.) I'm absolutely serious about the actual argument re: ad hominem etc. I promise.
Sorry if I trolled, I wasn't exactly trying to. I keep trying to figure out a way to interact with you and not get offended at your constant disrespect and denigration. It seems like, even though we disagree, we ought to be able to do so respectfully, but then you say things like "You're not making sense. You don't make sense." and my feelings get hurt. But if I react with indignation, I'm a martyr. And if I react with anger then I'm just a prick. So this time I tried condescension and snarkiness... which, in hindsight, still sort of makes me a prick. Sorry about that.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You may be too new to know the fellow, Dan_Frank. Used to go by the name of Thor. I suspect you'll get to know his posting style a little bit in the coming days, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Well, I think this example illustrates precisely why it is fallacious. You dismissed the link out of hand because it went to Breitbart's site.
So when I queried geraine out of curiosity why he would offer breitbart as a counter-narrative in light of recent events, you saw that as 'dismissing the link out of hand?'
quote:You are literally saying "I don't need to address what that video shows, after all, just consider the source!"
posted
Samprimary, to be honest the main reason I linked Breitbart is because you linked to websites/articles that I believe have an obvious bias.
I'm not a fan of Breitbart since the Sherrod charade (say that three times fast!), I simply wanted to illustrate that the hate is on both sides of the issue. I really don't believe these people accurately represent the majority of those that are for or against the mosque. For that reason I was puzzled as to what your purpose was when you linked the articles. I simply wanted to provide another perspective.
Also, why not link to Breitbart? Should I dismiss every news program that CBS has because Dan Rather had that mishap concerning Bush's military service in 2004?
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Also, why not link to Breitbart? Should I dismiss every news program that CBS has because Dan Rather had that mishap concerning Bush's military service in 2004?
See, here is how those things are different.
Dan Rather, after more that half a century of often courageous journalism, several Emmy's and seven Peabody Awards on one occasion did not sufficiently check documents that were given to him. He retracted the story and was soon after fired from CBS. This mistake was a blight on an otherwise stellar career.
The only thing that Breitbart does is gin up conservative propaganda.
Can you see how these things are not equal? Or are. like too many conservatives, not capable of that?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I'm not a fan of Breitbart since the Sherrod charade (say that three times fast!), I simply wanted to illustrate that the hate is on both sides of the issue.
This is a repeat of what I am starting to consider Hatrack's favorite argument (I really do encounter it here more than anywhere else: the equivalence argument. To wit, we have two sides who are vastly, amazingly unequal when it comes to hate/bigotry/intolerance; one side is, in fact, defined by reflexive intolerance and a campaign that is entirely about intolerance, and it is being spearheaded and organized by some of the most islamophobic and bigoted persons/groups around. The other side is attempting to counter this intolerance and cannot by any of these metrics be considered equal in any of these not-nicey metrics. You can show me plenty of things that show that the pro-mosque side is not flawless, but I don't think anyone here would have argued that they are.
The hate IS on both sides of the issue. One side just happens to have nearly all of it.
quote:I really don't believe these people accurately represent the majority of those that are for or against the mosque. For that reason I was puzzled as to what your purpose was when you linked the articles. I simply wanted to provide another perspective.
I grabbed the TPM muckrakers report as a sampling of response to a very important video. If you want a neutral source describing the video, you can have it too. But either article would illustrate my point: that as long as the anti-mosque crowd represents themselves in this hilariously bad (but not unexpected, given the motivations, mentalities, and proclivities of those inspired enough to demonstrate against the mosque) display of bigotry and (yup) racism, then .. like I said, I don't even have to try. I have my work cut, dried, and done for me. I can be confident that, if this continues like this, their legacy will join the anti-gay-marriage types in the embarrassments-of-our-ignorant-past portfolio of America's historical dustbin (the anti-miscegenationists have warmed up a seat next to them).
You can believe as much as you want that these people should not be representative of their cause, but they will. They, in fact, already have! This is without offering an argument as to whether they should be considered representative. I'm sure very few in the anti-mosque camp would like to think so. Just like 'don't get me wrong, I'm not a racist' and 'don't get me wrong, I'm not a homophobe,' nearly nobody to whom the term legitimately qualifies — and it qualifies for a startling amount of anti-mosque activists — you will get 'don't get me wrong, I'm not an islamophobe' or 'don't get me wrong, this isn't about Islam, per se ...'
Also, you will note that TPM can't even begin to qualify as being an equivalent source to Breitbart because 'they're both biased.' You can't even make that argument of DailyKOS, even though I never cite them. More false equivalencies!
quote:Also, why not link to Breitbart? Should I dismiss every news program that CBS has because Dan Rather had that mishap concerning Bush's military service in 2004?
No, and when you begin to understand the weaknesses of the equivalency arguments, you would be able to tell me why.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I'm not a fan of Breitbart since the Sherrod charade (say that three times fast!), I simply wanted to illustrate that the hate is on both sides of the issue.
This is a repeat of what I am starting to consider Hatrack's favorite argument (I really do encounter it here more than anywhere else: the equivalence argument. To wit, we have two sides who are vastly, amazingly unequal when it comes to hate/bigotry/intolerance; one side is, in fact, defined by reflexive intolerance and a campaign that is entirely about intolerance
Sounds like the Arab/Israel conflict.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the arguement against the "equivalency" arguement is, in essence, "The side I hate really is worth hating."
I have bad news . . . the other side feels the same way.
I know, I know. "My hate is indignation. Their hate is intolerance."
**********
For the record, I never said that either side's hate made the other side's all right.
My argument was that, as long as both sides feel that the other side's attitudes justify their attitudes, neither side will start trying to find a solution.
But at this point, no one wants to find a solution. Both sides just want to be the good guys.
****************
Just for the record, I'm going to go on record here with what I feel both sides could have done that would have gone a long way towards solving this problem.
The people who were worried about this mosque, instead of trolling through this guy's speeches looking for quotes and soundbites to pile up against him, could have realized that this is a REAL GUY who is STILL ALIVE and more than capable of speaking for himself. And that he likely has people associated with him that are also still alive and capable of speaking for themselves. Instead of worrying about what this mosque COULD mean, and then setting out to pick and choose facts that prove themselves right, they could have let this guy and his associates make their own case.
As for the people building the mosque, they could have realized the sensitivity of what they were doing (If the Mormon Church were to build a temple on the site of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, don't you think that would be seen as a wee bit sensitive on the part of church leaders? Even if one believed they had nothing to do with it?).
Then, they could have attempted outreach programs to the community and those who had questions or concerns regarding the project. Following 9/11, here in Los Angeles, where racial tensions can be high anyway, there were a number of projects regarding building connections between the Islamic communities and other communities. Some were handled poorly--some Muslims came across as having more contempt for the people who blamed Islam for the 9/11 attacks than they did for the people who attacked on 9/11 and gave those people a bad impression of Islam.
But such was not universally the case. Many of these meetings, held in community centers and churches as well as muslim buildings (I'm not sure if they were mosques--I don't know the details of how their houses of worship work, and whether big events like that are held there. I only attended ones held at other denominations), many of these meetings were done in a spirit of respect and understanding. Questions were answered and disscusion was heartfelt.
The key to both of these is letting the other side to become human beings again, whose worries and concerns are as valid as mine, as whose misunderstandings give us an opportunity to enlighten, not an opportunity to villify.
I mean, that's basically the question--which is the more exciting concept: That you have the opportunity to enlighten or the opportunity to villify? If it's one, then your group is seeking peace. If it's the other, then your group is seeking war.
I don't mean that in the literal sense. I mean it in the sense of, "You're either seeking to escalate conflict or resolve conflict," whether that conflict is with words, signs, money, guns, or bombs. Whether it involves nations, religions, communities, families, or a single couple.
While many individuals aren't, in the broad, national sense, both sides of this arguement are handling it in a way that will perpetuate the conflict rather than resolve it.
*************
As for what I think should be made to happen?
Nothing should be made to happen. This is America. If you want somebody to change their mind, you have to talk them into it.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is America. If they're law-abiding, and have done everything about buying the property, building/modifying it etc, legally and properly, then let them build.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Also, why not link to Breitbart? Should I dismiss every news program that CBS has because Dan Rather had that mishap concerning Bush's military service in 2004?
See, here is how those things are different.
Dan Rather, after more that half a century of often courageous journalism, several Emmy's and seven Peabody Awards on one occasion did not sufficiently check documents that were given to him. He retracted the story and was soon after fired from CBS. This mistake was a blight on an otherwise stellar career.
The only thing that Breitbart does is gin up conservative propaganda.
Can you see how these things are not equal? Or are. like too many conservatives, not capable of that?
Seriously? Maybe you can explain to me why they are different. CBS news had no evidence that the documents were real, and even had evidence to the contrary before the story was even aired. Mary Mapes had even brought up the problem with the "th" superscript. Four document examiners could not verify the authenticity of the documents given to them. They aired the story anyway. Two months before the Presidential election.
Breitbart willing took a speech and played only part of it. It was taken out of context and the White House made a decision to fire her. It was a dishonest thing to do as well.
So how you would you not equate these? They both had evidence that what they were posting was probably not true, but aired it anyways. Both are media outlets, both reported dishonestly. Come on now Kmboots. Whether I am a regular newscaster or a liberal/conservative journalist, dishonest news is still dishonest. Just because Breitbart continues to spin things does not excuse Dan Rather. By the way, Dan Rather did not want to apologize, he was forced to by the studio executives twelve days after he ran the story. Also, he was not fired, he resigned.
I also do not understand why you would talk about the capability of conservatives to equate things. If you just said that to get a rise out of me then fine. But if you honestly believe that, then I don't know what to say. I guess things only equate if it plays into your point of view.
Sam, why do you do this? I am really trying to understand you. People that are part of a Pro-Mosque crowd punches a camera man and spits out anti-semetic comments. A man that works for a Pro-Park 51 organization stabs a cab driver after asking if he is a muslim. Yet... The anti mosque people are the ones that have a monopoly on the hate? Granted the anti-mosque crowd has its own set of problem people, but they exist on both sides.
Samprimary, I feel like you aren't even trying to see things from the other sides point of view. If you hate the other point of view, then by golly you better go out of your way to demean and diminish that point of view. You rush to conclusions too quickly. A Tea Party guy went on a racist rant, so most tea partiers must be racist. Some anti-mosque protestors say some anti-Islamic slurs, so most of the hate must be contained in that camp!
Both sides have loons. I don't know who has more, I'm not going to go out and perform psych tests on everyone to find out. If you have the ability to read minds though and this gives you the insight to know that most of the hate is contained on one side, then PLEASE contact a university so you can be studied. Perhaps you could find out where Bin Laden is, or find out if Elvis is really dead.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Samprimary, I feel like you aren't even trying to see things from the other sides point of view.
I see their point of view just fine, thank you very much. You can proceed from this point under tke knowledge that I have gone to lengths to understand their position, and that from that I'm even more convinced that they're silly.
quote: Yet... The anti mosque people are the ones that have a monopoly on the hate?
You should read my posts! This is not an argument I am now or ever making. You just assumed so when you objected to the notion that I an mot being Fair And Balanced in bringing to attention enough snippets of pro-mosque people being idiots. Nobody's claiming that the anti-mosque people have a monopoly on the hate.
quote:Both sides have loons. I don't know who has more, I'm not going to go out and perform psych tests on everyone to find out. If you have the ability to read minds though and this gives you the insight to know that most of the hate is contained on one side, then PLEASE contact a university so you can be studied. Perhaps you could find out where Bin Laden is, or find out if Elvis is really dead.
1. It's not about which side has more loons; it's about which side is more 'hateful,' if we're talking about a comparison between the two. My own posts, if you haven't picked it up from my repeated declaration, are about 'check out this event where anti-mosque people do all the work for me!' And as for hatefulness comparisons, you wanted to make that comparison, and pull a 'see, they do it too!' — leading to the logical counterpoint and clarification that this is defending yourself against a position not actually taken.
2. If you really believe that there's no way to determine this in situations like these without actively having supernatural powers, it may explain a lot about your own position, and it would lead me to find you actively incurious, but it's not true. This is a situation in which it is actually remarkably easy to figure out which side is more hateful and intolerant. Or which side is coming off worse, all things considered.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for the people building the mosque, they could have realized the sensitivity of what they were doing (If the Mormon Church were to build a temple on the site of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, don't you think that would be seen as a wee bit sensitive on the part of church leaders? Even if one believed they had nothing to do with it?).
Except that it's more like the Episcopal church getting protested for building a church at the massacre site. And then, when they explain that they're actually different sects, the protesters ignore them, and continue screaming about how the Christians need to be more sensitive.
Do you see why the insensitivity here is actually the unwillingness of the mosque opponents to differentiate between vastly different groups of people? And why it is inherently bigoted?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Do you see why the insensitivity here is actually the unwillingness of the mosque opponents to differentiate between vastly different groups of people? And why it is inherently bigoted?
Have you considered that at least for some people, it isn't a matter of being unwilling to make the differentiation, but an actual difference of opinion over whether a differentiation can be made? You don't have to agree with that view, and I'd be shocked if you did, but can you at least recognize that it exists? That there are people who really and truly think that the problem is Islam and not a handful of maniacs? And that they have some evidence for this, even if it doesn't meet your standards of proof?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ...That there are people who really and truly think that the problem is Islam and not a handful of maniacs?
And that's fine as long as they are clear that their problem is with Islam itself instead of claiming that it's the insensitivity of the builders that they are opposed to.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, being asked for your resignation, at that level, is the equivalent of being fired. Or do you think that Gen. McChrystal's resignation was nothing to do with the Rolling Stone article.
Again, with CBS you are talking about generations of news reporting - Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite - with the occasional mistake. Breitbart is a guy with an admitted agenda who has done nothing else but contrive anti-liberal propaganda.
If you still can't see the difference in credibility, you are not being reasonable.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ...That there are people who really and truly think that the problem is Islam and not a handful of maniacs?
And that's fine as long as they are clear that their problem is with Islam itself instead of claiming that it's the insensitivity of the builders that they are opposed to.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Have you considered that at least for some people, it isn't a matter of being unwilling to make the differentiation, but an actual difference of opinion over whether a differentiation can be made? You don't have to agree with that view, and I'd be shocked if you did, but can you at least recognize that it exists? That there are people who really and truly think that the problem is Islam and not a handful of maniacs? And that they have some evidence for this, even if it doesn't meet your standards of proof?
Yes, I have considered that. There are a few reasons why I addressed my post the way I did.
First is that I suspect that my interpretation is the likelier one for the majority of the Park 51 opponents in the US. I doubt that most Americans are all that aware of differences between sects of Islam, much less aware of what those differences are.
The second reason is that I would guess that my interpretation is likelier for docmagik, specifically. I hope he'll correct me if I'm mistaken on that point.
The third reason is that I consider ignorance on the subject to be the less damning explanation. I hate to put it so baldly, especially since it seems like you took effort to moderate the tone in your post (which I really do appreciate) but there it is. For what it's worth, I do believe that there are those "who really and truly think that the problem is Islam and not a handful of maniacs." I don't doubt that they are being honest about their opinions.
I also believe that the problem is at once bigger, narrower, and more insidious than that, that blaming "Islam" is a simplistic and indulgent answer, and that doing so leads to bigotry.
quote:It's a form of cultural blindness, I guess. Here in a majority Christian nation it's almost necessary for the typical citizen to distinguish between the different sects of Christianity. You can't be pissed off at *all* Christians for the behavior of a few Catholic priests because, after all, there'd be very few people left to not hate.
Islam, however, is both "foreign" and a minority so such nuance is lost. It's similar, I think, to the way that the typical American sees China as a enormous homogeneous nation, not a collection several distinct ethnicities.
quote:Redefining "ground zero" has been an essential element of the construction of this controversy.
quote:You are literally saying "I don't need to address what that video shows, after all, just consider the source!"
I'm literally saying this, hmm?
Man, you totally got me. I hate it when people misuse "literally" like that. Ugh. I'm just disgusted with myself now.
I'm still quite convinced that it was the implied message, but you absolutely did not "literally" say it, and I apologize for claiming you did.
PS: This isn't sarcasm or trolling. I really am sorry that I misused "literally." Not just sorry, ashamed even.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Gay Muslims for Jesus should be allowed to sell hot dogs near straights, hindus or people who give Christ to others through the TV.
Posts: 377 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it funny that Beck is holding an Honor rally in DC that coincides with the place and anniversary of King's speech in DC. I have zero problems with it. Seems funny to say though, "But it's so INSENSITIVE to hold a rally in DC on the anniversary and place as King's speech. You have like 300+ other days a year to rally."
quote:Samprimary, I feel like you aren't even trying to see things from the other sides point of view.
I see their point of view just fine, thank you very much. You can proceed from this point under tke knowledge that I have gone to lengths to understand their position, and that from that I'm even more convinced that they're silly.
quote: Yet... The anti mosque people are the ones that have a monopoly on the hate?
You should read my posts! This is not an argument I am now or ever making. You just assumed so when you objected to the notion that I an mot being Fair And Balanced in bringing to attention enough snippets of pro-mosque people being idiots. Nobody's claiming that the anti-mosque people have a monopoly on the hate.
quote:Both sides have loons. I don't know who has more, I'm not going to go out and perform psych tests on everyone to find out. If you have the ability to read minds though and this gives you the insight to know that most of the hate is contained on one side, then PLEASE contact a university so you can be studied. Perhaps you could find out where Bin Laden is, or find out if Elvis is really dead.
1. It's not about which side has more loons; it's about which side is more 'hateful,' if we're talking about a comparison between the two. My own posts, if you haven't picked it up from my repeated declaration, are about 'check out this event where anti-mosque people do all the work for me!' And as for hatefulness comparisons, you wanted to make that comparison, and pull a 'see, they do it too!' — leading to the logical counterpoint and clarification that this is defending yourself against a position not actually taken.
2. If you really believe that there's no way to determine this in situations like these without actively having supernatural powers, it may explain a lot about your own position, and it would lead me to find you actively incurious, but it's not true. This is a situation in which it is actually remarkably easy to figure out which side is more hateful and intolerant. Or which side is coming off worse, all things considered.
Fair enough. I appreciate your response. I get where you are coming from a little better now. I don't agree, but I understand.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dabbler, Beck has said this of the rally: "This is a moment, quite honestly, that I think we reclaim the civil rights movement."
This strongly suggests to me that Beck is sending the message that he and what he has to say is the logical follow-up to King's famous speech. I can understand why some people might find this highly offensive, not least since it strongly implies that (in Beck's opinion) the Civil Rights Movement since that moment has been moving in the wrong direction and needs "reclaiming."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are literally saying "I don't need to address what that video shows, after all, just consider the source!"
I'm literally saying this, hmm?
Man, you totally got me. I hate it when people misuse "literally" like that. Ugh. I'm just disgusted with myself now.
I'm still quite convinced that it was the implied message, but you absolutely did not "literally" say it, and I apologize for claiming you did.
PS: This isn't sarcasm or trolling. I really am sorry that I misused "literally." Not just sorry, ashamed even.
Okay, it's fine, and I appreciate the apologies you've been giving in this thread. But if you are convinced that it is the implied message, that's an incorrect interpretation as well. You can disabuse yourself of the notion.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I may not think highly of what he has to say but I don't have a problem with him saying it there.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have "a problem" with it only insofar as it can be said to be both a comment on the Civil Rights Movement and an attempt to co-opt/denigrate that movement.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Daily Show has really focused a lot on Glenn Beck. It's all been funny, but I think it's getting too narrow.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Dabbler, Beck has said this of the rally: "This is a moment, quite honestly, that I think we reclaim the civil rights movement."
This strongly suggests to me that Beck is sending the message that he and what he has to say is the logical follow-up to King's famous speech. I can understand why some people might find this highly offensive, not least since it strongly implies that (in Beck's opinion) the Civil Rights Movement since that moment has been moving in the wrong direction and needs "reclaiming."
Or perhaps Beck feels that White Americans think that only minorities ought to be concerned with civil rights, and that in addition to the majority having a responsibility to protect minorities, it must also act to ensure that its own civil rights are not ignored.
Yes, we can all sneer at white Americans having their rights ignored because they have so much of the power, but I think that sort of hypocrisy seriously undermines the integrity of the movement.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: The Daily Show has really focused a lot on Glenn Beck. It's all been funny, but I think it's getting too narrow.
I get that, I agree that Jon Stewart has taken a few too many easy shots at Beck.
It is fair to note that he has gone into Obama's hypocrisy on extraordinary rendition, military commissions, etc. thing with some style: herePosts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: The Daily Show has really focused a lot on Glenn Beck. It's all been funny, but I think it's getting too narrow.
I get that, I agree that Jon Stewart has taken a few too many easy shots at Beck.
It is fair to note that he has gone into Obama's hypocrisy on extraordinary rendition, military commissions, etc. thing with some style: here
He also just a few days ago mentioned that when he was younger and protested the NRA holding it's annual conference in Colorado because he felt it was insensitive to the Columbine victims, that he was wrong then. He then tied it to those who are complaining about the Muslim community center being built two blocks from ground zero.
I already liked Stewart a lot, but he still picked up some more points with that episode.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
