Grames Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 No, he should stay away from Beck because his agreement on political issues with Beck will actually render him guilty by association. EDIT: Guilty of what you may ask? My answer is political appeasement of the Right. Guilt by association is a rhetorical fallacy. This is your argument? How could you possibly think embracing a fallacy would be true, or persuasive? Regarding Kelley, when Kelley shows up at a function which is not televised, he is addressing the people at the function. When Brook turns up on Beck's show he is not addressing Beck, he is addressing the television audience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axiomatic Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Guilt by association is a rhetorical fallacy. This is your argument? How could you possibly think embracing a fallacy would be true, or persuasive? Regarding Kelley, when Kelley shows up at a function which is not televised, he is addressing the people at the function. When Brook turns up on Beck's show he is not addressing Beck, he is addressing the television audience. I am not embracing any fallacy, I am saying that sitting down and nodding head with Beck on political issues IS appeasement of his views. Brook IS addressing Beck, don't say that he is not when he most certainly is. Regarding Kelly, yes I understand that he is addressing that particular people at the conference, that was not my point. When Brook goes on Beck, he is more than just addressing an audience, he is addressing political points and agreeing on most of them with Beck himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackethan Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Are there any citable examples where Yaron agrees with Beck on something anti-Objectivist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axiomatic Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Are there any citable examples where Yaron agrees with Beck on something anti-Objectivist? No, so what? That is not my point at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 No, so what? That is not my point at all. Then you don't have a point to make except a willfully irrational fallacious point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axiomatic Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Then you don't have a point to make except a willfully irrational fallacious point. You must elaborate and prove else it is your assertion that is wilfully irrational and fallacious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Guilt by association is a rhetorical fallacy. This is your argument? How could you possibly think embracing a fallacy would be true, or persuasive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axiomatic Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Guilt by association is a rhetorical fallacy. This is your argument? How could you possibly think embracing a fallacy would be true, or persuasive? I already replied to that. I am not making such a fallacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 You wrote "... will actually render him guilty by association." Association fallacy If you retract your error, you have nothing left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 So the podium from which he speak does not matter at all, as long as he speaks the truth? So much for the Peikoff/Kelly debate then, I didn't know we could just drop the whole context. Thanks. I have no idea what you're talking about. You are yet to give a reason why it would be wrong of Yaron Brook to go on Beck's show. The best you can come up with is guilt by association, which is illogical. First off, no crimes were commited. Second, associating with someone who is wrong does not make one wrong. If you wish to prove that he agreed with someothing that is wrong, go ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axiomatic Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 You wrote "... will actually render him guilty by association." Association fallacy If you retract your error, you have nothing left. You are very picky about wording and fail very well at looking at the meaning of what I say, especially when I elaborate so explicitly. This was my reply to you: "I am not embracing any fallacy, I am saying that sitting down and nodding head with Beck on political issues IS appeasement of his views. Brook IS addressing Beck, don't say that he is not when he most certainly is. Regarding Kelly, yes I understand that he is addressing that particular people at the conference, that was not my point. When Brook goes on Beck, he is more than just addressing an audience, he is addressing political points and agreeing on most of them with Beck himself." I do not mean to say he is guilty by association, I mean to say that he is guilty in as far as he appeases Becks views. I make myself very clear, yet you seem to get hung up on every word I typed and not the meaning behind them. Its quite annoying, especially when I clarify my position so much. Now how about you actually address my most recent reply to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axiomatic Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Let me give an example question: If I go on national television with a Libertarian and agree with most of their political views, would you view that as appeasement or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 ... sitting down and nodding head with Beck on political issues IS appeasement of his views. Brook IS addressing Beck, don't say that he is not when he most certainly is. ... as far as he appeases Becks views. No, so what? That is not my point at all. What is appeasement? Where is the appeasement? Be specific. If Yaron Brook agrees with Beck about anything at all, does that constitute appeasement regardless of the content, regardless of the truth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axiomatic Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 No, so what? That is not my point at all. What is appeasement? Where is the appeasement? Be specific. If Yaron Brook agrees with Beck about anything at all, does that constitute appeasement regardless of the content, regardless of the truth? Refer to my last question and answer it. Then I will answer yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axiomatic Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 (edited) Appease - pacify: cause to be more favorably inclined; gain the good will of; Edited October 8, 2009 by Axiomatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Let me give an example question: If I go on national television with a Libertarian and agree with most of their political views, would you view that as appeasement or not? Appeasement of what? You can only appease someone who is doing something wrong to you. For instance the US is appeasing Arabs who are trying to kill us. Glenn Beck doesn't need appeasing, or the opposite of appeasing: punishing. You mentioned the synonym of to appease, which is to pacify. Last time I checked, Glenn Beck didn't go after anyone with a baseball bat, so how would someone pacify him? By agreeing with things that he's right about? Do you not realize the absurdity of this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 After seeing a few more Beck/Brook face offs, it is definitely my opinion that the OP inflated the anti- Objectivist stance of Mr Beck. He is vehemently anti- atheism; but as someone said earlier (more or less) "Nu, what's new?" But, I think that he displays a sneaking regard for O'ism, and has been generally accepting- to- tolerant of Dr Brook's principles. Except for the Big One, naturally. And this is the one that counts. The association of the two men - and I don't know how this became "guilt by association", unless a poster was trying to introduce a straw man - is still seriously imbalanced, rationally and morally. IMO, no matter how it was in the past on these interviews, Beck has blown it now; with his latest sermon from his pulpit. An Objectivist arguing the fallacy of deity in a Church or synagogue to the 'faithful' (and I gather this the vast majority of Beck's TV audience) would be compromising his morality. To support this imbalance and contradiction beyond this point will become justification and rationalisation, and possibly pragmatism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 An Objectivist arguing the fallacy of deity in a Church or synagogue to the 'faithful' (and I gather this the vast majority of Beck's TV audience) would be compromising his morality. Why would speaking out against the views of a bunch of religionists in a religious setting compromise Dr. Brook's morality? If an Objectivist were to argue with a Nazi or a Communist at a rally, is that compromising the Objectivist's morality? By the way, I'm not comparing Beck to either a Nazi or a Communist. That would be absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Let me give an example question: If I go on national television with a Libertarian and agree with most of their political views, would you view that as appeasement or not? I have no idea because I would have no expectations associated with your name. You are not a spokesman for an organization or personally famous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Let me give an example question: If I go on national television with a Libertarian and agree with most of their political views, would you view that as appeasement or not? That's not a proper hypothetical for the situation at hand. If you were to go on TV and agree with some of the Libertarian's political views and clearly point out the areas where you disagree and also explain why, then that wouldn't be "appeasement" at all, would it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 As a by the way, I would like to say that I admire immensely Yaron Brook's style and intellect : he is apparently of the conviction that he will find and concentrate upon the areas of synergy with another intellectual, before identifying (and never evading) the points of departure. This has been my own aspiration. But of course, often the points of departure become too wide a gulf... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) An Objectivist arguing the fallacy of deity in a Church or synagogue to the 'faithful' (and I gather this the vast majority of Beck's TV audience) would be compromising his morality. I'm not sure what you're saying. What are the beliefs of the vast amjority of people watching FOX, and how do you know this? And how exactly does that compromise the morality of someone who appears on FOX? I say FOX, instead of Glenn Beck, because the audience doesn't change in mass from one hour to the next. Glenn Beck shares the majority of his audience with other shows on FOX, so any appearance in front of the same audience would have the same effect on someone's morality. To support this imbalance and contradiction beyond this point will become justification and rationalisation, and possibly pragmatism. To support any contradiction is rationalization. Unfortunately you haven't mentioned any contradictions. All I see is one Objectivist, and one religious person. That's not a contradiction, that's a difference. If it was one person, both Objectivist and religious, that would be a contradiction. So what contradiction? But of course, often the points of departure become too wide a gulf... The Fox audience is about as representative of the United States as any group of people. If you really believe talking to them is pointless, then you should just give up. Edited October 9, 2009 by Jake_Ellison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Ok .. Yes, I think I went a bridge too far with the 'contradiction' statement - but it is certainly an imbalance of value between the two. The 'difference' you correctly point out just might lead to contradiction. Now that Beck has made himself absolutely clear, it would seem to me to leave Brook with a decision to make: 1. Either he politely declines all future invitations to appear on the show; or 2. He informs Beck that from now on the gloves will be off - that whatever benevolence he has showed in the area of 'godliness', has now ended - and he will strongly attack this irrationality. (And probably end up never being invited back.) When one is invited onto a show like this one, it is a little like being invited into someone's house, and therefore a level of etiquette and courtesy is appropriate. (Both ways, actually.) Taken too far, this can IMO tend towards a bland, boring, non-confrontational mutual- back-slapping session, where important principles are avoided. I have always supported goodwill and tolerance from O'ists (INITIALLY), but the immorality of religion can no longer be compromised with; from here on, it will be Brook sanctioning Beck, if he continues in his previous vein. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Honestly, folks, expecting Glenn Beck not to advocate his religious views is like expecting ice not to be cold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) I have always supported goodwill and tolerance from O'ists (INITIALLY), but the immorality of religion can no longer be compromised with; from here on, it will be Brook sanctioning Beck, if he continues in his previous vein. Glenn Beck is a totally independent entity. No one is sanctioning him, he needs no one's sanction, he exists independently of anyone's will or actions. If it is your claim that Yaron Brook is sanctioning an immoral action of Beck's, or an idea he is wrong about, please state the specific means of this "sanctioning". Again, guilt by association is illogical, the fact that he is on his show, goes over to his house on holidays, or gives him a blowjob, does not mean he is sanctioning any of his ideas. To sanction an idea is to act to support or spread it. To sanction an action is to support it with words or actions. My friends can say or do what they want, and I don't take kindly to someone holding me morally responsible for ideas they expressed that I don't agree with. I have no intention or duty to select my friends and people I work or do business with, based on their religion or view of atheism. To suggest I do have such a duty, or that anyone has it, and to judge them based on it, is not Objectivism. Edited October 9, 2009 by Jake_Ellison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.