Glenn Beck's 8-28 Rally in Washington D.C.

[Geniasis]

I'm not disrespecting the veteran. I'm disrespecting his viewpoint. It's quite stupid to go around accusing people of being traitors without a lengthy explanation.

I'm not even going to address the second point.

You called him an idiot. That's not disrespecting an opinion, that's an attack on the person.

And hating troops = hating freedom, right? Isn't that how it usually goes?

[Holy Paradise]

I'm not disrespecting the veteran. I'm disrespecting his viewpoint. It's quite stupid to go around accusing people of being traitors without a lengthy explanation.

I'm not even going to address the second point.

You called him an idiot. That's not disrespecting an opinion, that's an attack on the person.

And hating troops = hating freedom, right? Isn't that how it usually goes?

"If you don't like America then you can just GIT OUT."

[Zephie]

Martin Luther King's niece is obviously a racist.

-_-

No one's called her a racist. She is homophobic, though.

Which is ironic. The niece of a great civil rights leader is against the civil rights of homosexuals.

Yes! I have a dream one day homosexuals will have the right to vote, and take a sip from the straight fountain.

Or you know...the ability to fucking adopt?

In a study by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffrin in 1996 whereby they published 57 life-story narratives of children who had grown up with homosexual parents, the authors found that in 92 percent of the cases, children mentioned one or more problems or concerns. Of 213 scored problems, 201 were attributed to homosexual parents.

http://www.mfc.org/contents/article.cfm?id=538

Umm yea, the website has ads on church and family.....not exactly a credible source.

Try again.

They source their information. Read again.

[Greater Tezdrian]

I'm not disrespecting the veteran. I'm disrespecting his viewpoint. It's quite stupid to go around accusing people of being traitors without a lengthy explanation.

I'm not even going to address the second point.

You called him an idiot. That's not disrespecting an opinion, that's an attack on the person.

And hating troops = hating freedom, right? Isn't that how it usually goes?

One can be stupid and a veteran at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Urcea]

I'm not disrespecting the veteran. I'm disrespecting his viewpoint. It's quite stupid to go around accusing people of being traitors without a lengthy explanation.

I'm not even going to address the second point.

You called him an idiot. That's not disrespecting an opinion, that's an attack on the person.

And hating troops = hating freedom, right? Isn't that how it usually goes?

He is an idiot, as he harbors idiotic opinions. That make sense?

I don't hate troops. I thoroughly support troops, idiots or not.

[Vervaria]

Martin Luther King's niece is obviously a racist.

-_-

No one's called her a racist. She is homophobic, though.

Which is ironic. The niece of a great civil rights leader is against the civil rights of homosexuals.

Yes! I have a dream one day homosexuals will have the right to vote, and take a sip from the straight fountain.

Or you know...the ability to fucking adopt?

In a study by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffrin in 1996 whereby they published 57 life-story narratives of children who had grown up with homosexual parents, the authors found that in 92 percent of the cases, children mentioned one or more problems or concerns. Of 213 scored problems, 201 were attributed to homosexual parents.

http://www.mfc.org/contents/article.cfm?id=538

Umm yea, the website has ads on church and family.....not exactly a credible source.

Try again.

They source their information. Read again.

Link a actual source then. Not his job to prove your argument.

[Geniasis]

"If you don't like America then you can just GIT OUT."

Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
Now there's a hefty in' fee
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?

[Holy Paradise]

I'm not disrespecting the veteran. I'm disrespecting his viewpoint. It's quite stupid to go around accusing people of being traitors without a lengthy explanation.

I'm not even going to address the second point.

You called him an idiot. That's not disrespecting an opinion, that's an attack on the person.

And hating troops = hating freedom, right? Isn't that how it usually goes?

One can be stupid and a veteran at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, but he made the accusation towards the person based merely on a single opinion that person held. Their opinion may be considered "stupid", but holding that opinion does not make the person "stupid".

[Geniasis]

He is an idiot, as he harbors idiotic opinions. That make sense?

So you were disrespecting the person, then? Because that's what a personal attack is.

[Urcea]

He is an idiot, as he harbors idiotic opinions. That make sense?

So you were disrespecting the person, then? Because that's what a personal attack is.

Not necessarily. Calling somebody out for being an idiot isn't, on its own, a personal attack.

So hop the fuck off.

[Holy Paradise]

I'm not disrespecting the veteran. I'm disrespecting his viewpoint. It's quite stupid to go around accusing people of being traitors without a lengthy explanation.

I'm not even going to address the second point.

You called him an idiot. That's not disrespecting an opinion, that's an attack on the person.

And hating troops = hating freedom, right? Isn't that how it usually goes?

He is an idiot, as he harbors idiotic opinions. That make sense?

I don't hate troops. I thoroughly support troops, idiots or not.

He only gave you one opinion. That is not enough information to determine someone's intelligence.

[Greater Tezdrian]

He is an idiot, as he harbors idiotic opinions. That make sense?

So you were disrespecting the person, then? Because that's what a personal attack is.

Again, one can be stupid and a veteran at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Holy Paradise]

He is an idiot, as he harbors idiotic opinions. That make sense?

So you were disrespecting the person, then? Because that's what a personal attack is.

Again, one can be stupid and a veteran at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

But that does not excuse ad hominem arguments. They are logically fallacious.

[Zephie]

Martin Luther King's niece is obviously a racist.

-_-

No one's called her a racist. She is homophobic, though.

Which is ironic. The niece of a great civil rights leader is against the civil rights of homosexuals.

Yes! I have a dream one day homosexuals will have the right to vote, and take a sip from the straight fountain.

Or you know...the ability to fucking adopt?

In a study by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffrin in 1996 whereby they published 57 life-story narratives of children who had grown up with homosexual parents, the authors found that in 92 percent of the cases, children mentioned one or more problems or concerns. Of 213 scored problems, 201 were attributed to homosexual parents.

http://www.mfc.org/contents/article.cfm?id=538

Umm yea, the website has ads on church and family.....not exactly a credible source.

Try again.

They source their information. Read again.

Link a actual source then. Not his job to prove your argument.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/ ... culties-2/

[Wilgrove]

Martin Luther King's niece is obviously a racist.

-_-

No one's called her a racist. She is homophobic, though.

Which is ironic. The niece of a great civil rights leader is against the civil rights of homosexuals.

Yes! I have a dream one day homosexuals will have the right to vote, and take a sip from the straight fountain.

Or you know...the ability to fucking adopt?

In a study by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffrin in 1996 whereby they published 57 life-story narratives of children who had grown up with homosexual parents, the authors found that in 92 percent of the cases, children mentioned one or more problems or concerns. Of 213 scored problems, 201 were attributed to homosexual parents.

http://www.mfc.org/contents/article.cfm?id=538

Umm yea, the website has ads on church and family.....not exactly a credible source.

Try again.

They source their information. Read again.

This is not even a scientific article, it's an Anti-gay opinion piece. Also, your own source betrays you.

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a policy in February endorsing same-sex adoptions?

The AAP is a credible source. They approach things from a scientific perspective, not one from a political/religious one.

The AAP announced that: “a growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.”

As for the study you quoted. It was conducted by Marriage Law Project. I did some research on this and it appears to be a Catholic Church organization that supports DOMA.

Sorry, but your source is bunk. I simply cannot take anything that Robert Lerner, Ph.D, and Althea K Nagai, Ph.D says in their paper titled No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting (January 2000) seriously. It has such obvious bias it's not even laughable.

Once again, try a better source.

[Xsyne]

He is an idiot, as he harbors idiotic opinions. That make sense?

So you were disrespecting the person, then? Because that's what a personal attack is.

Not necessarily. Calling somebody out for being an idiot isn't, on its own, a personal attack.

So hop the fuck off.

Calling someone an idiot is a personal attack. By definition.

[Urcea]

Calling someone an idiot is a personal attack. By definition.

No it's not. That's absurd.

[Zephie]

He is an idiot, as he harbors idiotic opinions. That make sense?

So you were disrespecting the person, then? Because that's what a personal attack is.

Not necessarily. Calling somebody out for being an idiot isn't, on its own, a personal attack.

So hop the fuck off.

Calling someone an idiot is a personal attack. By definition.

Name calling is to inhibit debate. Period.

[Holy Marsh]

As a US Veteran, dedicated to the principles this Nation is founded upon, I will not be attending this rally ran by traitors, and other such unAmerican elements, as Beck, and Palin.

Bwahahaha. Idiot.

Just wanted to quote your post again so we can all see that yes, you were personally attacking him. If I called you an idiot, it would be a personal attack. Now, you can defend it any which way you want, but facts are facts and the fact is it was a personal attack.


As for the rally, I laugh at it. Many there are angry at government's power, but didn't say a word and even supported Bush when he made the government have more and more power. I just find it funny that many there likely would have supported a militarized America living under some auspices of martial law, but shit themselves and scream when they detect the very air of socialism. Both would be bad, but hey, one is a white Republican and the other is a black Democrat. The reasonings are clear.

[Holy Paradise]

Calling someone an idiot is a personal attack. By definition.

No it's not. That's absurd.

How so? Explain how insulting someone's intellectual capacity is not a personal attack.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

He is an idiot, as he harbors idiotic opinions. That make sense?

So you were disrespecting the person, then? Because that's what a personal attack is.

Not necessarily. Calling somebody out for being an idiot isn't, on its own, a personal attack.

So hop the fuck off.

Incorrect. If your arguments lack the strength to stand on their own, don't stoop to grade-school name-calling. Consider yourself duly informed, and kindly refrain from more of the same in the future.

As for the rest of the thread and folks involved - keep it on topic and out of the inflammatory areas, ok?

[Linux and the X]

He is an idiot, as he harbors idiotic opinions. That make sense?

So you were disrespecting the person, then? Because that's what a personal attack is.

Again, one can be stupid and a veteran at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

But that does not excuse ad hominem arguments. They are logically fallacious.

Ad hominem attacks are not ipso facto logically fallacious. An ad hominem attack can be justified.

[Zephie]

As a US Veteran, dedicated to the principles this Nation is founded upon, I will not be attending this rally ran by traitors, and other such unAmerican elements, as Beck, and Palin.

Bwahahaha. Idiot.

Just wanted to quote your post again so we can all see that yes, you were personally attacking him. If I called you an idiot, it would be a personal attack. Now, you can defend it any which way you want, but facts are facts and the fact is it was a personal attack.


As for the rally, I laugh at it. Many there are angry at government's power, but didn't say a word and even supported Bush when he made the government have more and more power. I just find it funny that many there likely would have supported a militarized America living under some auspices of martial law, but shit themselves and scream when they detect the very air of socialism. Both would be bad, but hey, one is a white Republican and the other is a black Democrat. The reasonings are clear.

LOL Did you not notice all the rallies and protests against Bush? I'm a republican and I hate Bush just as much as I hate Obama.

[Wilgrove]

Martin Luther King's niece is obviously a racist.

-_-

No one's called her a racist. She is homophobic, though.

Which is ironic. The niece of a great civil rights leader is against the civil rights of homosexuals.

Yes! I have a dream one day homosexuals will have the right to vote, and take a sip from the straight fountain.

Or you know...the ability to fucking adopt?

In a study by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffrin in 1996 whereby they published 57 life-story narratives of children who had grown up with homosexual parents, the authors found that in 92 percent of the cases, children mentioned one or more problems or concerns. Of 213 scored problems, 201 were attributed to homosexual parents.

http://www.mfc.org/contents/article.cfm?id=538

Umm yea, the website has ads on church and family.....not exactly a credible source.

Try again.

They source their information. Read again.

Link a actual source then. Not his job to prove your argument.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/ ... culties-2/

Once again the source is questionable. One look at the home page reveals this.

FRR, Aug 2010 - Gays in Military = Traitors in Military

Will Western ‘Gay Rights’ Meld With Islamic Pederasty?

and from the last article, apparently homosexuals are lowering the age of consent and teaching our boys (which I took to meaning an underage male), about homosexual sex.

Ok, since you suck at the source game, I'm going to simplify things for you. If your source includes the word "Family" in it, and it has political articles against homosexuals on the home page, then it's not a good source. It's a biased source and any "research" it does is biased and should be laughed out of the room.

Try again.

[Holy Paradise]

He is an idiot, as he harbors idiotic opinions. That make sense?

So you were disrespecting the person, then? Because that's what a personal attack is.

Again, one can be stupid and a veteran at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

But that does not excuse ad hominem arguments. They are logically fallacious.

Ad hominem attacks are not ipso facto logically fallacious. An ad hominem attack can be justified.

My Theory of Knowledge teacher would have taken me to task for forgetting the exceptions. Yes, that is correct.

In this case, though, I think we can agree that Urcea's ad hominem attack is non-justifiable as it stands.