Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-21-2011, 01:17 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-21-2011, 01:33 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Do conservatives like Perry just because liberals hate him?

Well that's certainly an added value.

It reminds me of what Dennis Miller said: "I like Palin because so many people I don't respect hate her".
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-21-2011, 02:23 PM
Undertoad Undertoad is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Valley Forge Natl Park
Posts: 25
Default Re: Do conservatives like Perry just because liberals hate him?

Palin is adored because of how deeply she's hated, and that she has played on this. I don't think she's made her various gaffes on purpose, but she's been purposefully coy about running for President. She's put herself out there in the big painted bus, constantly being attention-whorish, and she's been making a mint from it all.


I used to listen to Mr. Miller's show, but that was one of the statements he made that caused me to stop. At first he was all like, I want the show to be a salon, I want it to be a forum for ideas. At some point it changed, and the Palin point was evidence that he was changing to being "tribe against tribe" and no longer about ideas.

At first he was engaging the callers that disagreed with him. At some point he started to mock the callers that disagreed with him. It was a very disappointing moment for me, I shut his show off and feel very good about that decision.

Last edited by Undertoad; 08-21-2011 at 02:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-21-2011, 04:39 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Do conservatives like Perry just because liberals hate him?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
At first he was engaging the callers that disagreed with him. At some point he started to mock the callers that disagreed with him. It was a very disappointing moment for me, I shut his show off and feel very good about that decision.
That's interesting and I agree, it's too bad. I like Miller but I've never listened to him on the radio. He was especially hilarious when he was doing color commentary on NFL Sunday. The problem was that he was too oblique in his comedy and I don't think a lot of the people got him.

One of the best ones was when one of the refs (who looked just like Alfred Hitchcock) stepped out on the field and Miller said, in that Hitchcockian voice, Good evening! This might have been too subtle for the Budweiser crowd.

Anyway, I have noticed a difference in him lately. He just ain't as funny anymore.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-21-2011, 03:34 PM
Hal Morris Hal Morris is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 85
Default Re: Do conservatives like Perry just because liberals hate him?

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Well that's certainly an added value.

It reminds me of what Dennis Miller said: "I like Palin because so many people I don't respect hate her".
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That's why we supported Saddam Hussein, the Tallaban, the Shah of Iran, Noriega, and endless other examples. Sometimes it's the only thing to do, as in the alliance with Stalin in WWII, and courting China to weaken the USSR (though there's usually a big cost), but I think the previous examples show that, more often, what you get is less than nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-21-2011, 04:42 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Do conservatives like Perry just because liberals hate him?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal Morris View Post
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That's why we supported Saddam Hussein, the Tallaban, the Shah of Iran, Noriega, and endless other examples. Sometimes it's the only thing to do, as in the alliance with Stalin in WWII, and courting China to weaken the USSR (though there's usually a big cost), but I think the previous examples show that, more often, what you get is less than nothing.
So Machievelli was right. In the end it's impossible to know what you got for what. That's because there never is an end and so many things come into play in the interim.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-21-2011, 02:25 PM
dman dman is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Does Obama deserve to be re-elected? Civil liberties, really, that's what's most important, 2011-2012? I'm sure a third party candidate will be coming along that will suit your needs, and the other 0.0009% of voters.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-22-2011, 12:30 AM
eeeeeeeli eeeeeeeli is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Palm Desert, CA
Posts: 811
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dman View Post
Does Obama deserve to be re-elected? Civil liberties, really, that's what's most important, 2011-2012? I'm sure a third party candidate will be coming along that will suit your needs, and the other 0.0009% of voters.
This was my thought too. Very odd. Although as a libertarian, you're probably pretty used to being able to die on the hill of randomness.
__________________
my blog
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-21-2011, 02:26 PM
T.G.G.P T.G.G.P is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 278
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Way to put the national-interest of your country and wellbeing of its citizens first, Miller. And the rest of those nearsighted "conservatives".
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-21-2011, 02:30 PM
Undertoad Undertoad is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Valley Forge Natl Park
Posts: 25
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Precisely, TGGP (see my late edit)
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-21-2011, 04:33 PM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Conor has always intrigued me in his apparent cluelessness on many issues, I'm grateful to him for finally acknowledging that the reason is other than the 'extreme security' reaction to 9/11 he really doesn't care, especially about domestic issues. That's a lot not to care about. From now on hopefully he will resist from commenting on these topics is he isn't interested enough to learn the facts or ramifications. That little snippet around the 20 min mark explained alot. What an astounding lack of curiosity, I wonder if (in a moment of honest relfection) he would call it 'Palin-like'.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-21-2011, 06:52 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
I'm grateful to him for finally acknowledging that the reason is other than the 'extreme security' reaction to 9/11 he really doesn't care, especially about domestic issues.
How dare he. Osama is not dead, he's still alive and kicking the ass of the United States. He won the War on Terror when Obama decided that Americans should not be able to travel without being groped, sacrificing liberty for an illusion of security.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-21-2011, 05:31 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

I probably won't be voting for Obama for the exact reasons Adam gives as to what is most important in voting for President. A person is voting for a party when they vote for president, and should vote for the party that best represents their values. (Or, as in my case, against the party that least represents them)

However, I do think Obama deserves reelection for the exact reason that Conor thinks he doesn't. Conor does seem clueless on the threat of terrorism. People gave Bush a pass on 9/11 happening on his watch because nothing like it had ever happened before; Americans were so surprised most don't hold it against Bush for being surprised as well. No other president can be forgiven for being surprised.

If something similar to 9/11, or worse (terrorists have the will and seek the means to do much worse), were to happen on Obama's watch, not only would he not be forgiven, the Democratic party would not be forgiven for a long time. That's the political consideration that Obama owes to those Americans on the left who he represents. But a far more important consideration is his primary job in protecting the American people. He could say anything to the loony left regarding national security in campaigning, but when he actually got in office, he has to do what he has to do. And he's done it well for the most part.

Domestic policy wise, he's just been unlucky with the economy, and I appreciate the fact that he's reacted much more temperately then the base of his party would have liked. That's responsible leadership.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-21-2011, 05:57 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post

Domestic policy wise, he's just been unlucky with the economy, and I appreciate the fact that he's reacted much more temperately then the base of his party would have liked. That's responsible leadership.
I know there are many who disagree but I think pushing radical change as embodied in ACA in a time of such economic uncertainty was... i can't think of a nice word.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-21-2011, 06:27 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I know there are many who disagree but I think pushing radical change as embodied in ACA in a time of such economic uncertainty was... i can't think of a nice word.
I don't support ACA and hope it is ruled unconstitutional because of the mandate.

However, I don't think it is, in the historical context of what the American left is all about, all that radical.

I'm also a little skeptical that ACA is a significant factor in holding back the economy, although I'm sure it's contributed some. I think when (if) it goes into effect, the drag will have some significance as all these government takeovers of the economy do.

With this in mind, while I completely oppose ACA, I really can't hold it against him as an incompetent move on his part. Those guys won an election, its the sort of thing we can expect. When judging a left wing president's competence, I have to cut him a little slack for having to work with the handicap of his and, (more often), his constituents' ideology.

This is the reason I think Clinton, overall, was a good president. Obama still has a year (and perhaps more) to go, so it may be to early too say this, but as it stands now, I'll probably always regard him as a good president.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-21-2011, 10:41 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
However, I don't think it is, in the historical context of what the American left is all about, all that radical.
So I just read this. What do you think are some things that the American left is all about that are more radical? And have any of those things been passed into law?
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-21-2011, 10:55 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
So I just read this. What do you think are some things that the American left is all about that are more radical? And have any of those things been passed into law?
I think Social Security is as radical.
Medicare is as radical.
Unemployment Benefits is as radical.
I think giving people free money with no controls or requirements on their part is probably more radical. This has happened quite a bit in the past, and maybe still to some degree today.

Some versions of health care that have been proposed from the left are more radical then what they passed. What was passed was something largely comparable to what the guy I'm supporting for President, Romney, passed in his state. I do agree with Romney that passing it in a state is a great deal less radical then on the federal level, but other then that, not much different.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-21-2011, 06:50 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
If something similar to 9/11, or worse (terrorists have the will and seek the means to do much worse), were to happen on Obama's watch, not only would he not be forgiven, the Democratic party would not be forgiven for a long time. That's the political consideration that Obama owes to those Americans on the left who he represents. But a far more important consideration is his primary job in protecting the American people. He could say anything to the loony left regarding national security in campaigning, but when he actually got in office, he has to do what he has to do. And he's done it well for the most part.
Right. And to prevent from being accused of negligence, he has instituted the most ridiculous and absurd policies, like TSA gropings. I think terrorist attacks in general help Republicans, because I remember Democrats worrying between 2003 and 2008 that another terrorist attack would ruin their chances, even though (they thought) Bush would be to blame for being negligent.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-21-2011, 07:06 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
Right. And to prevent from being accused of negligence, he has instituted the most ridiculous and absurd policies, like TSA gropings.
I probably fly more then most, and I don't like the process either. But I don't know an alternative. What's your alternative?


Quote:
I think terrorist attacks in general help Republicans, because I remember Democrats worrying between 2003 and 2008 that another terrorist attack would ruin their chances, even though (they thought) Bush would be to blame for being negligent.
This is a good point, and high lights how damaged the Democrat brand has been in relation to national security since the 60's and 70's. I think that to some degree it is true that if it happens on a Republican's watch folks would be more likely to say "Thank God, we have a Republican in the WH", and if it happens on a Dems watch "Oh no, I wish we had a Republican in the WH".

It may not be fair for current Dems, but they do have the influence they gave all those hippies in past decades to blame. They should be thanking Obama because he's made some progress in reversing this damage to the brand.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-21-2011, 07:32 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
I probably fly more then most, and I don't like the process either. But I don't know an alternative. What's your alternative?
For what? TSA-gropings? The alternative is not to have TSA-gropings, as was policy before 2010. Nothing ever happened, but Obama couldn't leave good enough alone. He decided to mandate groping and porn shoots for passengers to (in theory) lessen an already infinitesimal chance of a terrorist attack. Isn't it enough that flying is much safer than driving? Is it really necessary to make flying hell, just to give people a false sense of security?

Alternatively, profiling could be instituted. 8-year-old children generally don't commit terrorist acts, even if they are Muslims. On the other hand, a 24-year-old named Muhammad Abu Saif ad Din bin Zarqawi? Why don't you have a seat right over there? Of course, Barack Hussein Obama refuses to institute such a policy, because under such a policy, a man named Barack Hussein Obama would be the first to be singled out. No, let's grope little children instead, and humiliate 95-year-old women with adult diapers. For something that has either no discernible or significant effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
This is a good point, and high lights how damaged the Democrat brand has been in relation to national security since the 60's and 70's. I think that to some degree it is true that if it happens on a Republican's watch folks would be more likely to say "Thank God, we have a Republican in the WH", and if it happens on a Dems watch "Oh no, I wish we had a Republican in the WH".

It may not be fair for current Dems, but they do have the influence they gave all those hippies in past decades to blame. They should be thanking Obama because he's made some progress in reversing this damage to the brand.
Dirty hippies destroyed the Democratic Party, in much the same way that the religious right destroyed the Republican Party.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-21-2011, 07:50 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
For what? TSA-gropings? The alternative is not to have TSA-gropings, as was policy before 2010. Nothing ever happened, but Obama couldn't leave good enough alone. He decided to mandate groping and porn shoots for passengers to (in theory) lessen an already infinitesimal chance of a terrorist attack. Isn't it enough that flying is much safer than driving? Is it really necessary to make flying hell, just to give people a false sense of security?

Alternatively, profiling could be instituted. 8-year-old children generally don't commit terrorist acts, even if they are Muslims. On the other hand, a 24-year-old named Muhammad Abu Saif ad Din bin Zarqawi? Why don't you have a seat right over there? Of course, Barack Hussein Obama refuses to institute such a policy, because under such a policy, a man named Barack Hussein Obama would be the first to be singled out. No, let's grope little children instead, and humiliate 95-year-old women with adult diapers. For something that has either no discernible or significant effect.
Ok, so your alternative is to grope only people with Arabic names? I actually don't have much of a problem with this in theory.

Except, what about those hundreds of millions of Muslims who aren't Arabs and don't have Arabic names?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-21-2011, 07:57 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Ok, so your alternative is to grope only people with Arabic names? I actually don't have much of a problem with this in theory.

Except, what about those hundreds of millions of Muslims who aren't Arabs and don't have Arabic names?
Actually, those aren't Arabic names, but Islamic names (not necessarily the name I mentioned). Most Muslims have Islamic names, even if they are not Arabs. For example, Persians are not Arabs, but that miscreant is still named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mahmoud is an Islamic name, as is Ahmad, wheras nejad is Persian. The prime minister of Pakistan (not an Arab, but an Aryan) is named Asif Ali Zardari. Hell, Barack Hussein Obama is not an Arab, but he's still named... Barack Hussein Obama. Of course, he is not a Muslim, but his father was named by Muslims, and he was named after his father.

Of course, this isn't enough. Profiling of Middle-easterners and people from Islamic countries is also necessary, unless it is clear that they are not Muslims (like being named John). Also, notorious Muslims should be searched more thoroughly, even if they are named Cat Stevens. This won't be a perfect system, some Muslims will slip through it, and some decent people who have abandoned the religion of peace will face treatment they should not get, but it sure beats the current system of groping little children, to prevent Muslims from being offended.

Last edited by apple; 08-21-2011 at 08:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-23-2011, 11:03 AM
Diane1976 Diane1976 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 333
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
Actually, those aren't Arabic names, but Islamic names (not necessarily the name I mentioned). etc.
Aside from finding your posts about Muslims offensive, which I guess is my emotional reaction to your emotional reaction to Islam, so I wont try to argue about that, your suggestion on airport security doesn't seem very logical to me. First, in a previous message, you said the risk of a terrorist attack is "infinitesimal" and you're probably right, statistically. Then you say the alternative to the random search system, including the incidents where officers seemed to lack common sense, should be replaced by a system that focuses only on people with supposed Muslim names. Actually, you would have to add this system on top of the random one because it wouldn't make sense to let it be known that only people with certain names would be searched, and, in any case, it wouldn't eliminate the possibility of some officers sometimes lacking good judgement. Fake travel documents aren't that hard to obtain, and although some people think they can tell who is a Muslim by looking at people, that's not really true. There is definitely no reason why a would-be terrorist would show up with what we think of as a typical Muslim look, Muslim name, long beard, familiar headgear, a Koran under his arm, passport indicating travels to Afghanistan, etc., and an evil look in his eye. But, whatever the official system is, I have a feeling officers are on the look-out for him anyway. So, to deal with this "infinitesimal risk" you want to do everything that's being done now plus add this complicated "name based" system besides, or else replace the present system, with all the drawbacks of being openly discrimanatory in a negative way towards millions of people, including citizens, plus increasing whatever risk there is.

Last edited by Diane1976; 08-23-2011 at 11:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-24-2011, 08:45 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diane1976 View Post
Aside from finding your posts about Muslims offensive,
Yes, I know the one ideology one isn't permitted to criticize is Islam. I criticize liberals, conservatives, libertarians, moderates, moral relativists, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and everyone else, but that is not considered "offensive", for whatever reason. Perhaps they rank lower on the leftist pecking order.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diane1976 View Post
which I guess is my emotional reaction to your emotional reaction to Islam,
I'm sure you'd like to think of my reaction to Islam as being emotional, but it is not. It is the result of acquiring knowledge about Islam, which precious few liberals have - preferring to assume that "all religions teach people to be good" and that it is a religion of peace.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diane1976 View Post
your suggestion on airport security doesn't seem very logical to me. First, in a previous message, you said the risk of a terrorist attack is "infinitesimal" and you're probably right, statistically. Then you say the alternative to the random search system, including the incidents where officers seemed to lack common sense, should be replaced by a system that focuses only on people with supposed Muslim names.
Not supposed Muslim names, actual Muslim names. You will find no Arab Christian who names his children after Muhammad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diane1976 View Post
Actually, you would have to add this system on top of the random one because it wouldn't make sense to let it be known that only people with certain names would be searched, and, in any case, it wouldn't eliminate the possibility of some officers sometimes lacking good judgement. Fake travel documents aren't that hard to obtain, and although some people think they can tell who is a Muslim by looking at people, that's not really true.
Like I said, mistakes will be made, that's natural, there will be some false positives, but it's better than having a system where 99% of the people groped are not even Muslims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diane1976 View Post
There is definitely no reason why a would-be terrorist would show up with what we think of as a typical Muslim look, Muslim name, long beard, familiar headgear, a Koran under his arm, passport indicating travels to Afghanistan, etc., and an evil look in his eye.
No, this is correct. Mohammed Atta did not have a long beard, or familiar headgear, and he left his Koran in the car. However, his name was MOHAMMED Atta, and if you don't know, that's an Islamic name. He's named after the mass murdering prophet Muhammad, and he did a good job of following his namesake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diane1976 View Post
So, to deal with this "infinitesimal risk" you want to do everything that's being done now plus add this complicated "name based" system besides, or else replace the present system, with all the drawbacks of being openly discrimanatory in a negative way towards millions of people, including citizens, plus increasing whatever risk there is.
Get a grip. It has the advantage of not groping the millions of people who are not intent on blowing up planes. When people cannot travel without being groped, Osama bin Laden has won.

Discriminatory? Suppose that you wanted a babysitter for your 8-year-old daughter. Suppose the two candidates were a 44-year-old man and a 16-year-old girl. Whom would you pick?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-25-2011, 12:05 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
Yes, I know the one ideology one isn't permitted to criticize is Islam.
saying they should not be allowed to exist anywhere on the face of the earth is not quite what most people mean by "criticize"
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-25-2011, 10:27 AM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
saying they should not be allowed to exist anywhere on the face of the earth is not quite what most people mean by "criticize"
That's what Muslims think about us. Our choices are conversion, death or dhimma. What do you like?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-25-2011, 10:28 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
That's what Muslims think about us. Our choices are conversion, death or dhimma. What do you like?
Well, they share a point of agreement with you, then, given that death or conversion are the options you want for them. Enjoy.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-25-2011, 10:32 AM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
Well, they share a point of agreement with you, then, given that death or conversion are the options you want for them. Enjoy.
Where did I say that? And I mean outside your imagination.

Also, if you condemn me for (allegedly) believing this, why won't you condemn Islam?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-25-2011, 10:54 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
Where did I say that? And I mean outside your imagination.

Also, if you condemn me for (allegedly) believing this, why won't you condemn Islam?
you have said repeatedly that Muslims are only acceptable if they convert and under no other circumstance. You've advocated thermonuclear destruction of their population centers.

As for why I don't condemn Islam, it's for the same reason i don't condemn atheists based on your views. I condemn your views. I condemn Muslims who hold the views you attribute to all Muslims. I don't condemn Muslims who don't hold these views.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-25-2011, 11:27 AM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
you have said repeatedly that Muslims are only acceptable if they convert and under no other circumstance. You've advocated thermonuclear destruction of their population centers.
Where to begin? I said that if Muslims detonate a nuclear weapon in Israel, Israel should strike back at Islamic (un)holy sites, because they are (un)holy sites, not because they are "population centers". If you wanted to kill lots of Muslims, the M&M-strategy would not be the optimal way to achieve that, as there are many cities where more Muslims live.

At no point did I say that Muslims should convert or die. So you're argument is made in really, really bad faith. How sad, but typical of leftists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
As for why I don't condemn Islam, it's for the same reason i don't condemn atheists based on your views. I condemn your views. I condemn Muslims who hold the views you attribute to all Muslims. I don't condemn Muslims who don't hold these views.
Great. So you'll condemn the pedophile prophet Muhammad for holding these views? Will you condemn 80%+ of the Muslims of Egypt for supporting stoning and murder for apostasy?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-25-2011, 12:20 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
At no point did I say that Muslims should convert or die. So you're argument is made in really, really bad faith. How sad, but typical of leftists.
or die is your phrasing, I said shouldn't exist. You said repeatedly that the only acceptable conclusion for Muslims is to convert to non-islam. How you enforce that is probably only known to you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
Will you condemn 80%+ of the Muslims of Egypt for supporting stoning and murder for apostasy?
If it's true that 80% of Muslims in Egypt support stoning for apostasy, I condemn those Muslims. I won't condemn the 20%+ of Muslims in Egypt who DON'T support stoning, or the vast majority of American Muslims who don't support stoning.

Our disconnect is not about how objectionable the views of radical islamists are. It's about how fair it is to hold non-islamist muslims responsible for them.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-25-2011, 04:20 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
or die is your phrasing, I said shouldn't exist. You said repeatedly that the only acceptable conclusion for Muslims is to convert to non-islam.
You're engaging in demagoguery straight from the Euthydemus. If you want someone to become wise, then you are wishing him to be that which he is not. So you want him not to exist. Great argument. I shouldn't say that stupid people should become wise, or that Muslims should liberate themselves, because that would be making them not be what they were before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
If it's true that 80% of Muslims in Egypt support stoning for apostasy, I condemn those Muslims. I won't condemn the 20%+ of Muslims in Egypt who DON'T support stoning, or the vast majority of American Muslims who don't support stoning.

Our disconnect is not about how objectionable the views of radical islamists are. It's about how fair it is to hold non-islamist muslims responsible for them.
Muslims are not responsible for the views of "radical" Islamists, I have never said that. That's ridiculous. On the other hand, Muslims are responsible for what they themselves believe. And what they believe is that the 'prophet' Muhammad, a great criminal, was the best man who ever lived. This troubles me. It's like me saying that Charles Manson was the best man who ever lived. One can only hope that they won't seek to imitate their 'prophet'.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-22-2011, 12:34 AM
eeeeeeeli eeeeeeeli is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Palm Desert, CA
Posts: 811
Default Re: Obama deserves to be reelected (but I won't be voting for him)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
I probably won't be voting for Obama for the exact reasons Adam gives as to what is most important in voting for President. A person is voting for a party when they vote for president, and should vote for the party that best represents their values. (Or, as in my case, against the party that least represents them)
This pretty much sums up how I feel too. Especially with the president, who has to try and be so many things to so many people. Remember, these people are called "representatives" for a reason.
__________________
my blog
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-21-2011, 07:27 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Adam Serwer thinks that finding it strange that people would oppose vaccines for their children makes him a liberal. No, it makes him just not a complete moron. Friedersdorf makes good devil's advocate arguments against the HPV-vaccine, but of course, these reasonable objections were not the objections of the religious right. The religious right was upset that young people unlucky enough to be born to fundies, who had sex, could not be punished (presumably by God) with HPV and cervical cancer anymore. This "I WANT MY CHILDREN TO GET CANCER IF THEY HAVE SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE"-attitude is reprehensible, and it's evil.

In other words, it's typical of the religious right.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-21-2011, 07:39 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
Adam Serwer thinks that finding it strange that people would oppose vaccines for their children makes him a liberal. No, it makes him just not a complete moron. Friedersdorf makes good devil's advocate arguments against the HPV-vaccine, but of course, these reasonable objections were not the objections of the religious right. The religious right was upset that young people unlucky enough to be born to fundies, who had sex, could not be punished (presumably by God) with HPV and cervical cancer anymore. This "I WANT MY CHILDREN TO GET CANCER IF THEY HAVE SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE"-attitude is reprehensible, and it's evil.

In other words, it's typical of the religious right.
Using this same logic I could say that your stance against 'TSA gropings' means you want Americans to be blown up if they fly on airplanes.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-21-2011, 07:46 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Using this same logic I could say that your stance against 'TSA gropings' means you want Americans to be blown up if they fly on airplanes.
Socons are against HPV vaccines, because it prevents cancer, which encourages sex. If I (as a hypothetical environmentalist) said that I oppose TSA gropings, because they prevent terrorist attacks, which encourages flying - you would be exactly right, I would want Americans to be blown up.

But if you've paid attention, that is not my argument.

Come on, don't make it so easy for me.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-21-2011, 08:05 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
Socons are against HPV vaccines, because it prevents cancer, which encourages sex.
It might be good to tone down the rhetoric just a bit, The vaccine is new and guess what, sometimes new things turn out to have problems.

Quote:
"Time will tell how safe any vaccine is, says Karen Smith-McCune, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of California-San Francisco. Smith-McCune, a gynecologist, was an early and vocal skeptic of the HPV vaccine. This is a new product. It is possible there are risks that have not come to light yet because of the newness of the product, and that's what VAERS is for: to assure us we haven't missed something unknown. We don't know about safety until something's been around a long time," she says. "It's valid for parents to ask why they should do it."

Smith-McCune says she resisted the adoption of the HPV vaccine early on because cervical cancer is quite rare and preventable in females who get regular pap smears. And most of the time, the body fights off HPV without harm. She says she feels the vaccine was "shoved down our throats, as parents."
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-21-2011, 08:09 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
It might be good to tone down the rhetoric just a bit, The vaccine is new and guess what, sometimes new things turn out to have problems.
Your link does not show any actual problem, it only says that there are POSSIBLE problems. Also, had you read my initial post, you would have known that I explicitly addressed reasonable objections: "Friedersdorf makes good devil's advocate arguments against the HPV-vaccine, but of course, these reasonable objections were not the objections of the religious right." My argument was directed against the miscreants who think that cancer is bad, but not as bad as premarital sex.

So no, I'm definitely not toning down the rhetoric against the people who want children to get cancer.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-21-2011, 08:05 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
Socons are against HPV vaccines, because it prevents cancer, which encourages sex. If I (as a hypothetical environmentalist) said that I oppose TSA gropings, because they prevent terrorist attacks, which encourages flying - you would be exactly right, I would want Americans to be blown up.
Maybe the hypothetical environmentalist does not want anyone to get blown up, but agrees with you that way more is being given up in submitting to TSA gropings then the risks warrant.

But more to the point, in addition the environmentalist believes that the damage done to human beings through flying greatly outweighs any risk of being blown up that TSA gropings mitigate. And yet those same gropings give passengers the false impression that flying on planes is safe and encourages more flying, when it actually has huge potential to destroy the planet and humans.

Last edited by whburgess; 08-21-2011 at 08:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-21-2011, 08:15 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Awkward and Excruciating Edition (Adam Serwer & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Maybe the hypothetical environmentalist does not want anyone to get blown up, but agrees with you that way more is being given up in submitting to TSA gropings then the risks warrant.
That has nothing to do with the evils of flying per se, and thus, it is not analogous to the arguments of the religious right. The religious right is not arguing that the HPV vaccine is more dangerous than the risks of cervical cancer warrant, but that it "encourages" sex by preventing young people who have sex from getting cervical cancer. So it's exactly analogous to what I said, and not at all to what you said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
But more to the point, in addition the environmentalist believes that the damage done to human beings through flying greatly outweighs any risk of being blown up that TSA gropings mitigate. And yet those same gropings give passengers the false impression that flying on planes is safe, when it is actually has huge potential to destroy the planet and humans.
Stick to the point. The environmentalist doesn't want flying to made safer (in this scenario, we are assuming that TSA gropings do make flying safer, which I do not concede), because more people will fly if there is a greater chance that they won't be immolated. That's the basis. So they *do* want people to be blown up, as to discourage flying. If you want to argue that that's legitimate, go right ahead, but I won't.

It's remarkable how many excuses secular conservatives will make for fundies. It's really sad how some sell out rationality, reason and reality to defend the indefensible. I have vowed never to become the tool of anyone, which is why I will criticize everyone, when there is reason to criticize.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.