Pastor Wright - What cabinet position suits him best?

[dex]

Dex:

You presume a priori that the content is "wrong".

a pri·o·ri

(ä' prē-ôr'ē, -ōr'ē, ā' prī-ôr'ī, -ōr'ī')
adj.

1. Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.
2. 1. Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
   2. Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
3. Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.

As you do not know the basis for my comments so your first sentence is not appropriate.
Again you are using some illogical arguments for your post.

Here a couple of site that might help you in identifying illogical arguments.
Detecting illogical reasoning and weak argumentation

A List Of Fallacious Arguments

 

[Gumby]

I'm so distraught that you do not find my style of argument to your liking. But if it helps you avoid the substance, please carry on. You never explained why the substance of Pastor Wright's remarks was "wrong", so it is an a priori assumption of your argument.

Look, it is obvious you and I will never agree on this. Why don't we quit while we're ahead?

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

I remember in the 1960s when the war movement was red hot. I, like almost everyone, was caught up in campus rallies of all sorts. It got to where every speaker (Abbie Hoffman and on down) made their way to my campus. On many occasions, the rallies and protests had speakers who were advocating violence and revolution and were attacking not only the war, but the soldiers who were caught up in it.

While I was rabidly against staying in Viet Nam, I felt very much opposed to (and confused by) violence at home, and I was very supportive of my friends and other troops who were sent over. So my feelings about the protests and rallies become increasingly ambivalent. The radical left was just not articulating my beliefs accurately, though my politics were decidedly anti-war at that time.

All this by way of saying that if I ran for president, there would be many clips of me at anti-war, pro-violence protests, seeming to support the SDS and its kind, even though it was not the case. Obama's presence at a church where the preacher goes over the edge does not mean much about Obama's beliefs or politics to me. And I'd extend the same premise to McCain, Hillary, and every other candidate unless the facts told me otherwise.

I defy anyone to honestly say they have never participated in a group where they didn't feel at odds with the more extreme positions one of its leaders took from time to time.

 

[dex]

I'm so distraught that you do not find my style of argument to your liking. But if it helps you avoid the substance, please carry on. You never explained why the substance of Pastor Wright's remarks was "wrong", so it is an a priori assumption of your argument.

Look, it is obvious you and I will never agree on this. Why don't we quit while we're ahead?

The use of Fallacious Arguments pertains to content not style. The use of such arguments ultimately weakens your position. And from the posts we exchanged detracts attention from your points.

 

[dex]

I defy anyone to honestly say they have never participated in a group where they didn't feel at odds with the more extreme positions one of its leaders took from time to time.

I understand the point you are making but I do not think it applies in this case. In the example, you give there were several speakers; various gatherings, at various locations.

The situation with the senator is different for the following reasons:
1. Pastor Wright brought the senator into the church
2. The Pastor was the leader of the church
3. The has been attending the church for 20 years over which time the pastor's "extreme" (your word) postions have been expressed
5. After knowing the pastor's "extreme" positions the senator chose to return to the church for 20 years
4. The senator made the pastor an advisor for his presidential campaign
5. The senator was married by the pastor and took his children to hear the pastor's sermons.
6.As the senator has had such a close personal relationship with the pastor he was aware of his positions

There is a vast difference between being a part of a large and diverse movement with various speakers and the personal relationship the senator had with his pastor.

 

[Gazingus]

Even today, blacks are incarcerated more frequently and for longer periods of time than whites for identical crimes. The disparity in sentences for crack cocaine versus powdered cocaine is viewed by many as an effort directed specifically toward destroying the black community. When the pretty blond white girl goes missing, it is national news; when the young black girl goes missing, no one notices. No one with their eyes open can miss the fact that racism continues n our country. And we have, in fact, encouraged and supported despots and dictators around the world. It is not entirely unreasonable to view some of what has occurred lately as the "chickens coming home to roost".

I have read opinion pieces that contain charges against our society like the ones used above, but these generalities don't deserve to be repeated as fact. Racism continues all over the world. I feel we are the least racist country. We have less history of slavery than our peer countries, don't you think? Certain people in this country insist on lambasting the US for the treatment of native Americans; can you list a continent where less blood was shed before law and order were established? Try to come up with a different logical conclusion for European immigration to North America. How many countries have provided for conquered, indigenous populations to the same extent? (I know the plight of Native Americans wasn't mentioned, but it's usually incuded in diatribes like the one above).

To list the sins of our country and ignore the tremendous good is the kind of cherry-picking (a term with new popularity) you see in a Michael Moore film.

Why do some people exaggerate the negative to try and build a case that ,what, democracy is a failed expirement? We have evolved into the most stupid, evil population on the planet? What? Is it eight years of GWB that has caused liberals such angst that they lash out in this manner without using any perspective?

It's more than just Gumby's statements that cause me to ignore my own advice about participating in forum controversy. Criticism of the US is everywhere you turn. I think it's unfounded, when perspective is properly employed.

 

[Gumby]

The use of Fallacious Arguments pertains to content not style. The use of such arguments ultimately weakens your position. And from the posts we exchanged detracts attention from your points.

Dex:

Next time you presume to school me, you'd better be correct.

You constructed your argument on the basis that what Reverend Wright said was wrong. Essentially, what you have said is this: Rev. Wright was wrong - Obama did not stop it or leave - Obama is therefore wrong. This argument depends on the assumption that Rev. Wright was wrong. You may have your own reasons for believing that Rev. Wright was wrong, but they remain unstated. Accordingly, on the basis of the argument you actually presented, it is an a priori assumption that Rev. Wright was wrong.

Maybe you can run off now and discuss the proper spelling of potato with Dan Quayle.

 

[Gumby]

I have read opinion pieces that contain charges against our society like the ones used above, but these generalities don't deserve to be repeated as fact. Racism continues all over the world. I feel we are the least racist country. We have less history of slavery than our peer countries, don't you think? Certain people in this country insist on lambasting the US for the treatment of native Americans; can you list a continent where less blood was shed before law and order were established? Try to come up with a different logical conclusion for European immigration to North America. How many countries have provided for conquered, indigenous populations to the same extent? (I know the plight of Native Americans wasn't mentioned, but it's usually incuded in diatribes like the one above).

To list the sins of our country and ignore the tremendous good is the kind of cherry-picking (a term with new popularity) you see in a Michael Moore film.

Why do some people exaggerate the negative to try and build a case that ,what, democracy is a failed expirement? We have evolved into the most stupid, evil population on the planet? What? Is it eight years of GWB that has caused liberals such angst that they lash out in this manner without using any perspective?

It's more than just Gumby's statements that cause me to ignore my own advice about participating in forum controversy. Criticism of the US is everywhere you turn. I think it's unfounded, when perspective is properly employed.

Gazingus: It was not my intention to either list all the failings of this country or ignore the many good points. (I continue to live here, so obviously I like it here on balance). Rather, my discussion is an attempt to put Reverend Wright's statements in the proper context -- he is speaking in a black church, to many people who believe, not unreasonably, that this country has been and continues to be unfair to them. His words are informed by his calling to the ministry and have a specific biblical context. Do I agree with everything he says? No, I do not. But in view of his background and his audience, I do not find it all that outrageous that he said it. In short, I see no need for all you good white people to get your panties in a twist over it.

And, again, I certainly do not believe it is fair to ascribe any of it to Obama. If you want to know what Obama believes, you should ask him, not Reverend Wright.

 

[Texarkandy]

..... -- he is speaking in a black church, to many people who believe, not unreasonably, that this country has been and continues to be unfair to them. His words are informed by his calling to the ministry and have a specific biblical context. ...........

.......In short, I see no need for all you good white people to get your panties in a twist over it.
.........

I suppose by the same token then, you see no need for "good black people" to get their "panties in a twist" over white separatist churches in this country either then?

 

[Arc]

Mmm, hmm, I think Gumby is right, but hey, if everybody who wasn't going to vote for Obama anyway has now loudly proclaimed how this incident has helped them "make up their mind" that's cool. Or is it just a tempting point to start a lobbying campaign with? I mean, really, none of you have a close friend or relative who's said things that might embarrass you? Don't you think if he was preaching this kind of stuff every weekend they'd have more than 2 quotes over the last 5 years to freak out about? Meanwhile Michael Savage gets on the radio every night and says Barack HUSSEIN Obama every night with impunity.

I suggest this will hurt Obama more than you indicate above. Certainly people who would never vote for him (like me) will do as you say. However, in the past Obama has demostrated the ability to come into a state - where the polls showed he would lose big - and campaign himself to either a victory or a very near miss. This kind of stuff could very easily prevent that and steer undecideds away from Obama - especially in a state like mine - PA.

He still has the lead though over Clinton and most agree she will not be able to catch up. This whole thing is incredibly fascinating to me. I'm thinking of scheduling vacation during the week of the Dem convention so I don't miss a thing.

 

[outtarentals]

Meanwhile Michael Savage gets on the radio every night and says Barack HUSSEIN Obama every night with impunity.

His name IS Barack Hussein Obama. That IS his name.

 

[Gumby]

I don't agree with them either, but the fact that they spout their nonsense among each other is really of no moment. I do believe that the majority of the people in this country try to deal with each other in good will, regardless of skin color. But there is a history here, some institutional problems, a small but vocal population of outright bigots, and a larger number who, while they would never use racial epithets or violence, are quietly prejudiced. I like to think that we are doing better on this front, but the battle is far from over.

 

[cantlogin]

A man is known by the company he keeps.

 

[haha]

But there is a history here, some institutional problems, a small but vocal population of outright bigots...

I am curious- would you place this minister in the above group?

Ha

 

[Gumby]

Maybe I have not heard all of his sermon clips, but I do not recall hearing him say white people were inferior as a consequence of their skin color. If he did, that would make him a loud bigot. What I heard was him decrying the way black people are and have been treated by the country as a whole, but primarily by the government. I don't know why certain white people insist on hearing something as an attack on whites as people when it is simply a black person complaining about how he or she is treated by the government. Maybe guilt? I don't know, but I do think the sensitivity is curious. And I think that is precisely the feeling that Ferraro was trying to tap into.

 

[haha]

Maybe I have not heard all of his sermon clips, but I do not recall hearing him say white people were inferior as a consequence of their skin color. If he did, that would make him a loud bigot. What I heard was him decrying the way black people are and have been treated by the country as a whole, but primarily by the government. I don't know why certain white people insist on hearing something as an attack on whites as people when it is simply a black person complaining about how he or she is treated by the government. Maybe guilt? I don't know, but I do think the sensitivity is curious. And I think that is precisely the feeling that Ferraro was trying to tap into.

I do appreciate your explanation!

 

[dex]

Dex:

Next time you presume to school me, you'd better be correct.

You constructed your argument on the basis that what Reverend Wright said was wrong. Essentially, what you have said is this: Rev. Wright was wrong - Obama did not stop it or leave - Obama is therefore wrong. This argument depends on the assumption that Rev. Wright was wrong. You may have your own reasons for believing that Rev. Wright was wrong, but they remain unstated. Accordingly, on the basis of the argument you actually presented, it is an a priori assumption that Rev. Wright was wrong.

Maybe you can run off now and discuss the proper spelling of potato with Dan Quayle.

The senator himself said that the Rev. Wright was wrong.
See the attached article.
Controversial minister off Obama's campaign - CNN.com

I stated in my posts why I beleive this reflects poorly upon the senator.

 

[samclem]

Politics, race, religion--this thread has nearly everything needed to make sure it gets locked.

Hey, I heard that Reverend Wright is advocating that his congregation pay off their mortgages early, buy variable annuities with half of their savings, and take a 6% withdrawal rate in retirement when valuations get right (he has a formula for this based on a 10 year P/E average).

There--that oughta do it . . .

 

[Gumby]

Done