Toons Continued...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Yesterday we posted on Michelle Bachmann's most recent looney activities. Her McCarthy era style fear mongering.
Radical Islam, where it exists must be confronted and the appropriate actions to safeguard ourselves and our nation certainly must be taken. Where it indeed exists and when backed up with proper intelligence data to support such allegations.
Senator McCain is right this time. We ought to listen to voices of reason because tyranny (often of the worse strain) can be self inflicted, the result of unsubstantiated and unbridled fear.
Today we are putting up the other side of the argument, just to be balanced and equitable. Presented compliments of GBTV and Michelle Bachmann herself.
Read the transcript here.
One can't help but wonder but maybe this being a presidential election year just might have something to do with the zaniness of Backmann and Beck.
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Yesterday we posted on Michelle Bachmann's most recent looney activities. Her McCarthy era style fear mongering.
Radical Islam, where it exists must be confronted and the appropriate actions to safeguard ourselves and our nation certainly must be taken. Where it indeed exists and when backed up with proper intelligence data to support such allegations.
Senator McCain is right this time. We ought to listen to voices of reason because tyranny (often of the worse strain) can be self inflicted, the result of unsubstantiated and unbridled fear.
Today we are putting up the other side of the argument, just to be balanced and equitable. Presented compliments of GBTV and Michelle Bachmann herself.
Read the transcript here.
One can't help but wonder but maybe this being a presidential election year just might have something to do with the zaniness of Backmann and Beck.
Via: Memeorandum
The other side of the argument? To be "balanced and equitable?"
ReplyDeleteThat's like putting up the "other side of the argument" to be "balanced and equitable" for making Jews wear the Star of David and for putting them into death camps.
There is no other "side" of the argument.
Beck and Bachmann are dangerous idiots. And there's no "other side" of the argument on that either.
No Shaw, unless you're a demagogue there is always two sided to an issue.
DeleteWhy? Because there is a real threat from extreme Islamic fundamentalism. 911 Proved that one. There are other facets of extremists in The Middle East and Persia (Iran) and we need to be vigilant. Having said this extreme fundamentalist Christianity is a real danger to our liberties as well, and so vigilance is needed in that arena too. But note I do not equate Islamic fundamentalism and world wide terror to fundamentalist Christianity.
The problems with so many liberals is they fail to recognize that the dangers of Islamic extremism is very real. The problem with so many "conservatives" is they seem to see the Islamic threat and extremism at every corner block.
Reasonable people see both sides of the issue and take reasonable action in a responsible manner. That is really the point. It is why I presented the issue the way I did. Because reasonable and rational individuals will see through the Bachmann hysteria yet recognize there is (are)in fact a threat(s) to be watchful of.
If not we are indeed in deep sh*t.
But lets not demagogue it shall we?
Les, I agree with Shaw that Bachmann and Beck are "dangerous idiots". I would just also throw people like Paul Krugman and Markos Moulitsas into the hopper, too. Doubtful that she would.
DeleteI agree. Just because someone's father was a terrorist does not mean that the child is.
ReplyDeleteRN wrote: "No Shaw, unless you're a demagogue there is always two sided to an issue."
ReplyDeleteReally.
Then explain to us what "the other side of the issue" would be for putting 6 million Jews into the ovens.
Or, say, raping children. Where's the other side of the issue for raping children?
You statment isn't true.
Did I post about rape, or Jews in ovens Shaw? A resounding no. Does any rational person think I did, likely not. You brought it up, I gave a reasonable response.
DeleteJust shaking my head. Wacko's and loonies all around.
If you wish to discuss those subjects fine. I get your point which is loonies like Bachmann when accepted by the populace in mass and their fear mongering gets taken to its extreme can and has resulted in the things you mention. But this is a long ways from that.
And hopefully it remains so.
But your drawing equivalency of my post to this... I'll say no more. Reasonable people can judge fir themselves the posts point and purpose.
good Day Shaw..
Guess you missed this part huh Shaw?
Delete"Senator McCain is right this time. We ought to listen to voices of reason because tyranny (often of the worse strain) can be self inflicted, the result of unsubstantiated and unbridled fear."
Just wondering what you might think that means.
And this:
"Radical Islam, where it exists must be confronted and the appropriate actions to safeguard ourselves and our nation certainly must be taken. (Note):Where it indeed exists and when backed up with proper intelligence data to support of such allegations."
What's the implication is there Shaw?
And from the prior post"
"Bachmann is not only Not presidential material Ever, she, as well as the other idiots involved in this with her are not fit to hold the office of U.S. Congresswomen/men."
Could I have made it much clearer? If so how may I ask?
Fortunately there are fewer of these than not.
Shaw's up to her tired diversionary tactics.
ReplyDeleteShaw: Read what Les wrote! He's not defending Hitler.
Yes, some get whipped into a hysteria over muslim fundamentalism, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that is doesn't pose a threat.
The politically correct Army ignored a Major convert to Islam going off the deep end because they didn't want to offend.
We've all lost the ability to simply view things clearly.
"Did I post about rape, or Jews in ovens Shaw?"
ReplyDeleteRN and SF: This is what Les stated:
"No Shaw, unless you're a demagogue there is always two sided to an issue."
I gave you as an example of an "issue:" the killing of 6 million Jews and the raping of children. Those are issues.
I then asked you to give me the "other side" of killing Jews and raping children.
One side, the morally correct side, says it's wrong. So what is the "other" side. If you are correct in saying all issues have two sides, then what is it?
A perfectly legitimate question, since it is YOU not I who insists there are always two sides to an issue. Otherwis people are demagogues.
You and Silverfiddle are deliberately pretending you don't know or understand this. Or you really don't know or understand logic.
If every issue has two sides, I asked you, Les, what are the two sides of the issue in those two examples.
Of course you and Silverfiddle know there is NO "other side" to the issues of killing Jews and raping children. Therefore, I showed you that your premise was wrong, and you and Silver seem not to be able to accept that.
Your problem, not mine.
Shaw no matter how much you try to spin your comments reasonable and rational individuals will see through your agenda driven bulls*it.
DeleteI will not play you childish and partisan liberal driven games. If you wish to discuss the specific relevancy and points of the post(s), ...((which by the way you obviously missed they were CRITICAL of Michelle Bachmann and the danger she presents, hence reference to McCarthyism)) as I posted them fine. We'll go at it.
Other than that, we have nothing further discuss.
Les, I completely understand why you just don't get it:
ReplyDeleteThe balance fallacy, also known as false balance,occurs when two sides of an argument are assumed to have equal value regardless of their respective merits. The application of the fallacy leads to two major problems:
Firstly, it can lead to equal exposure to arguments despite their merits or relevance. This may arise due to a misunderstanding of probability; that two outcomes or positions lead to a probability of 50:50 for each, and so both deserve an equal chance to put themselves forward. In fact, probability is not necessarily equal.
Secondly, it can lead to the belief that the truth must lie somewhere in between the two opposing sides, when in fact it's possible that one side is completely wrong. In this context the balance fallacy may be the result of attempts to reach a compromise between mutually exclusive positions, as often found in political debate where there is not necessarily an objective "truth", as such, to be found behind a political policy.
Avoiding the balance fallacy requires objective criteria for assessing arguments, and cannot rely on just giving all arguments equal exposure for the sake of fairness. Arguments must be assessed using criteria such as formal logic, scholarly consensus and empirical evidence to see if a legitimate controversy exists between two viewpoints.
Avoiding the balance fallacy does not entitle someone to the freedom to reject any and all criticism because they claim to have sufficiently "proven" their position, a tactic used by Ayn Rand and others.
Shaw, you are the one who does not "get it." I'm Sorry my dear that I have not the time for your snobbish elitism, which is precisely what you are displaying given the nature of my written word on this post.
DeletePlease have a pleasant evening. Since you obliviously think yourself too good for the common guy we have nothing else to discuss.
And if I sound condescending it is intentional.
I tend to believe there are an innumerable number "sides" to any "issue." It's just a question of looking for them, as opposed to looking for those few that may fit some other agenda or agendas one may have, like ideology and superstition.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
Yeah, yeah, yeah jmj, now go actually read closely my post. Then reread it and perhaps you will grow to understand it a damn site better than Shaw apparently is able to.
DeleteEasy there, Les, I was with you there. I happen to think you are far more open-minded, intellectually, than most people.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
jmj, my apology. Perhaps I was still over heated by Shaw and her obvious blindness to what my post actually says. She is truly driven by ideologically leftist purity and apparently incapable of seeing reality.
DeleteAgain my apology if I misread your comment.