Obama Charming The Press

[Kulindahr]

If you can't understand it any other way then you're able to understand opposition to President Obama's words or actions only in racist terms. And that says more about you than others.

'WAY off the mark!
His post was pretty accurate, and said nothing about him.

 

[Kulindahr]

And the highway to hell is paved with good intentions.

The original statement was that hell is paved with good intentions.

According the St. John Chrysostom, the road to hell is paved with the bones of preachers.

 

[NickCole]

'WAY off the mark!
His post was pretty accurate, and said nothing about him.

Maybe to you it's accurate, but it's a ridiculously broad generalization that states as "fact" that Obama is "a normal, well-intentiioned" man (meaning good) and implying some white guys (presumably on this forum) who don't believe that "fact" are racist.

First of all, how do you or Kurn know for a fact that Obama is "normal"? Have you and Kurn met Obama, known him away from his public persona? We know less about whether or not Obama is "normal" than we know about many public people. Have we ever even seen pictures of him at his own home, much less the intimate kind of things one needs to know to state as a fact that someone is "normal"? Almost everything we've seen is staged for public consumption. His private self is virtually a blank slate except for the manufactured image created for him and what he's written about himself (in a book that starts with a qualifier that this is how he "remembers" it and that others might "remember" it differently). It's not a fact that he's "normal," it's a conclusion drawn from a mostly manufactured image.

Secondly, "well-intentioned" can be a subjective conclusion. No doubt Dick Cheney and his supporters think he was well-intentioned. It's possible "some white guys" could see Obama's intentions as less than ultimately positive for the nation for fully legitimate reasons having nothing to do with race, not because Obama doesn't have a basketball in his hand.

Oh and BTW, Obama plays basketball, apparently is pretty good at it, and there are lots of pictures and videos of him doing it. So what's up with "Obama doesn't have a basketball in his hand"?

Cognitive Dissonance: Obama doesn't have a basketball in his hand and some white guys can't get their minds around the fact that he really is just a normal, well-intentioned, but very bright individual.
I can't understand it any other way.

 

[chance1]

Cognitive Dissonance: Obama doesn't have a basketball in his hand and some white guys can't get their minds around the fact that he really is just a normal, well-intentioned, but very bright individual.
I can't understand it any other way.

If you can't understand it any other way then you're able to understand opposition to President Obama's words or actions only in racist terms. And that says more about you than others.

so many kudos to kurn on his "on the mark" post - and i do enjoy a good kurn post for sure (legit)

but this one basically says whites guys who don't like obama are racist

that's not "on the mark"

that's just saying "ur a racist"

kinda marley like

so it sounds better than how marley puts it ................. seems like kurn is saying it nice-like

but shit is shit

whether its on ur shoe or wrapped in a pretty box with a bow



so i whole heartedly agree with nick c on this one

thanks for giving me material to comment on guys

 

[Kulindahr]

but this one basically says whites guys who don't like obama are racist

that's not "on the mark"

that's just saying "ur a racist"

kinda marley like

so it sounds better than how marley puts it ................. seems like kurn is saying it nice-like

but shit is shit

whether its on ur shoe or wrapped in a pretty box with a bow



so i whole heartedly agree with nick c on this one

thanks for giving me material to comment on guys

Well, chance, I guess you and nick aren't very good at reading -- generalization fallacy, when he specifically avoided suggesting it, by his wording.

Nick is picking at nits, and avoiding the fact that he engaged in a fallacy.

 

[NickCole]

Well, chance, I guess you and nick aren't very good at reading -- generalization fallacy, when he specifically avoided suggesting it, by his wording.

Nick is picking at nits, and avoiding the fact that he engaged in a fallacy.

He may not have used the word "racist" but any intellectually honest person can figure out what's behind this transparent curtain:

Cognitive Dissonance: Obama doesn't have a basketball in his hand and some white guys can't get their minds around the fact ...

And it's nonsense.

 

[NickCole]

^^ Only prejudicial in that it's possible some could be too stupid or ignorant to recognize the implication of racism where there's no evidence it's the case.

Cognitive Dissonance: Obama doesn't have a basketball in his hand and some white guys can't get their minds around the fact that he really is just a normal, well-intentioned, but very bright individual.
I can't understand it any other way.

It's a racist, or race-baiting, statement that says more about the speaker, and maybe some who support Obama, than the vague "some white guys" he's trying to categorize.

 

[NickCole]

It's the same goddamn fallacy again, Nick.

And the fallacies continue... utterly pathetic.

Learn to argue.

It wasn't a fallacy in the first place.

Your obsession with the word "fallacy" doesn't mean it's appropriate everywhere you want it to be.

I remember my younger brother had a similar obsession with the same word in high school. Suddenly everything he disagreed with or didn't like the sound of was a fallacy. As his guidance councellor pointed out, the notion of fallacy is a great comfort to an immature mind struggling to prevail over arguments of more mature ideas.

 

[Kulindahr]

He may not have used the word "racist" but any intellectually honest person can figure out what's behind this transparent curtain:

And it's nonsense.

At the risk of sharing another fallacy of yours, Nick--

Any intellectually honest person would read the grammar of the sentence, realize it is entirely correct, and agree that he described an actual problem.

What you're doing is saying that for someone to point out that certain other people may be engaging in racist responses is itself racist.

By that logic, Gen Alfie is a neocon Republican.

 

[Kulindahr]

Cognitive Dissonance: Obama doesn't have a basketball in his hand and some white guys can't get their minds around the fact that he really is just a normal, well-intentioned, but very bright individual.
I can't understand it any other way.

It's a racist, or race-baiting, statement that says more about the speaker, and maybe some who support Obama, than the vague "some white guys" he's trying to categorize.

No, Nick, to be blunt, what it shows is that you can't read.

The main subject in that sentence throws out your main assertion instantly: "some". That's a word that means "not all" -- an unspecified quantity or number, but not every individual in the category. Happily, the category is described: "white guys" -- so the compound subject is "an unspecified number of males who are white".

The main verb is "can". It has another verb with it, namely, "wrap". The main verb is modified by a negative.

So the root sentence here is "some can" (yes, they can!).

And obviously you can discern racism in a writer who isn't making a hasty generalization as you are, who isn't expressing any racist opinions, who isn't endorsing one opinion or another, except to claim as a fact that "that he really is just a normal, well-intentioned, but very bright individual".

Since that's the only statement of his own opinion in the statement, are you claiming that considering Obama to be "that he really is just a normal, well-intentioned, but very bright individual" is racist???

 

[Kulindahr]

It wasn't a fallacy in the first place.

Your obsession with the word "fallacy" doesn't mean it's appropriate everywhere you want it to be.

I remember my younger brother had a similar obsession with the same word in high school. Suddenly everything he disagreed with or didn't like the sound of was a fallacy. As his guidance councellor pointed out, the notion of fallacy is a great comfort to an immature mind struggling to prevail over arguments of more mature ideas.

Your first fallacy was a simplistic generalization which was contra-indicated by the grammar.

Your second fallacy was using loaded terms -- as was your third.

Now you've committed an invalid comparison, and then repeated the prior one.


Tell me -- when your younger brother had that obsession, did you bother to learn what a fallacy is, so you could both instruct him and avoid them?

 

[NickCole]

Your first fallacy was a simplistic generalization which was contra-indicated by the grammar.

Your second fallacy was using loaded terms -- as was your third.

Now you've committed an invalid comparison, and then repeated the prior one.

You're wrong in all these cases.

Tell me -- when your younger brother had that obsession, did you bother to learn what a fallacy is, so you could both instruct him and avoid them?

I'm well familiar with what a fallacy is and how some people use them.

Also I know intellectual dishonesty and bullying and manipulation when I see it. And buised egos and petty revenge and stupidity.

 

[Kulindahr]

You're wrong in all these cases.


I'm well familiar with what a fallacy is and how some people use them.

Also I know intellectual dishonesty and bullying and manipulation when I see it. And buised egos and petty revenge and stupidity.

Sorry, Nick, but crying "Did not!" stopped working on the playground in grade school.

You used emotionally loaded terms for your argument -- that's a fallacy.
You made false generalizations -- that's a fallacy.

Now you're playing the

game.

"Bruised ego"? Hardly -- I'm more amused than bruised.

"Manipulation"? Of what? or whom?

"Petty revenge"? Patient instruction is kilometers closer to the mark.

"Stupidity"? That's a cheap defense against documented critique of your reasoning.

 

[Kulindahr]

So, you are familiar with your own posts then. Are you proud of these characteristics?

Cheap shot -- but at least partially accurate.