The Tennessee church shootings
I was unplugged over the weekend and am catching up on the horrible church shooting in Tennessee. Two churchgoers died and seven were injured as they watched a children’s performance yesterday in Knoxville:
The gunman was tackled by church-goers and taken into custody by police. He was charged later with first-degree murder, but police declined to give a motive for the shooting and the Tennessean newspaper said his motive remained unknown.
Jim D. Adkisson, 58, of Powell, Tennessee, was being held on a $1 million bond at the Knox County Detention Center, said Randall Kenner, communications coordinator for the city of Knoxville.
The gunman apparently concealed a 12-gauge shotgun until he entered the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church and then fired several shots before being subdued, police said.
Initial reports said the gunman targeted the church because he hated Christians. The latest developments have revealed a four-page letter he wrote expressing hatred towards liberals and gays.
Whatever his motives, this man committed evil acts in a house of God. He will be judged accordingly.
Bob Owens zeroes in on what’s important and gives thanks for small miracles:
While many in the political blogosphere will no doubt focus on the fact that Adkisson said he hated liberals and gays, the fact of the matter is that the didn’t target a gay club or local progressive political groups, he specifically targeted a church. He did so after expressing beliefs to neighbors in the past that he had an abiding anger against Christianity, an anger that appears rooted in his childhood. The church appears to have been targeted because it embodied at least three things this pathetic human being hated, not just the one or two things I know certain critics will single out as they view the world through their own warped prisms.
Adkisson had apparently planned to keep murdering church-goers until gunned down by police. He planned to keep killing innocents until he died in a hail of police bullets… suicide-by-cop. But he was instead tackled and restrained by church-goers just seconds into his attack as he attempted to reload after shooting his shotgun’s magazine dry.
The two people that died were 60 and 61. Those wounded were 38, 41, 42, 68, 69, 71, and 76. Though Adkisson walked past an assembled group of children outside the sanctuary awaiting their stage call, he did not fire on them. No children were physically injured, and no parents of young children were killed, creating orphans. There is reason to be thankful for that…Sunday was a horrible day for the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, and there will be terrible days ahead as they seek to recover, and to heal.
But most will heal, and a day that could have been far worse was not, thanks to small miracles.
Amen.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Pieces of a Whole » Blog Archive » A violent weekend for those claiming Christ
- The Other McCain: Jobless atheist losers are dangerous
- Cwazy Moonbat Needs Glasses » Pirate’s Cove — Give No Quarter!
- The Tennessee Shootings Happened For A Reason « Calvinists 4 Conservatism
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Uncategorized
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
American Thinker
» Sarah Palin and the low ebb of the cultural leftRedstate
» Morning Briefing for November 24, 2009Doug Ross @ Journal
» ACORN pwnage part II: Breitbart's BigGovt Lowers the BoomBig Government
» BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump ScandalVillainous Company
» Amateur Hour in the Oval Office Continues....Nice Deb
» O
Maybe Rusty or lgm was the shooter?
This is exactly the kind of case that I think justifies bringing back Public Hangings. If this guy wanted to die or not it shouldn’t matter. Once convicted he should lose all choice on all matters. The reason I think that Public Hangings would be better is that we have bent over, maybe backwards – maybe not, to show these vile MURDERERS Respect, Dignity and all that silly nonsense. All we have managed to do is make punishment a crap shoot and give these vermin a sense of fame.
I do believe that if a lot of these punks, thieves and rapist were to see the death twitch, ugly and all, they just might think twice. The ‘reports’ or studies that show public hangings were ineffective are bull. Ever notice how speeders slow down when they see someone getting a ticket?
And I also believe public hangings would give the families of victims and us a since of finality that a cold dark night in the prison parking lot wouldn’t. I would be willing to take the training as a hangman—I would pay to take the training as a hangman.
—
Allah be Praised
Allie OOP OOP 2
It was a combination of both. Had this group not been nearby, I’m 100% certain this guy would have gone to a Baptist church, a Catholic Church, a Lutheran Church.
He’s a sick, demented individual. A nut job. And – by all accounts – an atheist.
What he did was inexcusable and indefensible. But I am not going to have people give me the “judge not” shtick when this guy is clearly not representative of Christianity – even a minority of Christians.
Indeed, methinks this guy was – if anything – taking his cue from those wackos at Westboro Baptist…a group decidedly un-Christian as well.
Neanderthal:
I can also tell you, with 100% certainty, that the church that was the target of this shooting will oppose the death penalty for this guy.
That’s their decision, and my husband feels the same way. Me – I’m not so charitable.
There’s no excuse to disrupt a religious service for any reason (and I’ve seen it happen), to extend it to violence because you ideologically disagree with the church or religion in question is beyond the pale.
That is fine, good for them, good for your husband. But a murder is not just about the victim or the victim’s family. It is an attack on the larger society and lessens all our safety and security.
Sometimes you will see a family forgive a murderer and that is a fine show of Christianity. But the person did murder and needs to meet society’s retribution. We sometimes here of a murder claiming to have found faith and repented of his murder; again fine and the Very Angels in Heaven Will Rejoice. But the man still needs to meet society’s retribution. This society’s, any honest society, FIRST and MOST important duty is the protection of its citizens.
We have a large element in this country that will and does commit terrible crimes against our citizens with the belief and knowledge they just might get one Pass Go card from a justice system gone soft. Hang them. Before Texas got serious they actually paroled a serial killer. He killed again. So Texas built more prisons, got serious about the death penalties and the experts are baffled as to why crime is declining.
Hang them in public. The criminals, not the experts. Just fire them.
—
Allah be Praised
Allie OOP OOP 2
Die Hippie, Die re: #92 “…Baffling”.
Mmmmm, not so much. The church was most likely the center of his particular community, hence it represented society to him and sociopaths by definition can’t deal with society.
It is a tragedy, that this happened. It does however speak volumes about the character, personality and perhaps the very soul of those who would use such an incident to attempt to make political hay.
Upon seeing how Christianity answers the four questions all religions must answer (origins, purpose, morality, and destiny) and the soundness of Bible versus other “scriptures” (how the Bible is composed of 66 books, written by over 40 authors- most of whom never knew one another, across 3 continents, in 3 different languages, over a span of 1500 years, yet these accounts all corroborate one another without any conflicts of theme), I’ve made up my mind that given the historicity alone, Christianity trumps all other religions. So yes, I have judged Christianity among all of the other religions, and have found it far more plausible than all the rest.
Does it matter? All you can do is use reason to its fullest. One of the things he does well is to point out the fallacies of others (usually at the expense of addressing sound and valid arguments). I’d imagine an actual one-on-one conversation with him would actually be quite enlightening, rather than in a crowd where one can choose not to answer while focusing on the fallacies of others.
For example, what does this have to do with anything? What possible good comes from ad hominem crap like this?
It’s far easier to respond to fallacies like this rather than reasoned arguments.
Actually, with that reasoning, a better target” would have been a local “Metropoliatn Community Churh” – it’s congregations are almost exclusivey homosexual.
This sounds more like an evil, warped mind that looks for an excuse/rationale for committing horrific ctime. As I’ve noted elsewhere on one topic and/or another, Charles Manson and his “family” had reasoning for the evil acts they committed.
englishqueen01, brooklyn red:
I should have added a
Nawwww, I would have gone there anyway…
What a quitter! How hard is it to get to the leaders of the liberal movement in a university town? Judging by Adkisson’s lack of perseverance, I’d speculate that he was at least a closet liberal.
Fire up Old Sparky!
Okay. Look. I have been asking since lgm uttered…
How did you deduce that he is a Christian?
Just because the guy can find a church on a Sunday does not make him Christian. What seems to be coming out in news reports is quite to the contrary.
So, before you continue to thread jack, tell me how, in your infinite widsom you deduced that Jim Adkisson, the shooter in this horrific incident, is “Christian?”
Send Me:
I guess you don’t know lgm. Reason does not work with him. It’s a waste of time.
lgm is our libtard pinata.
By what I’ve seen there, I can’t imagine why lgm or any non-Christian would want to become one. Jesus said that people would “know them by their fruits.” Paul said, “If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.” This is not to say that we are not to argue, to use reason to find Truth. Peter said, “always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.” How many times in Acts does it say that Paul “reasoned in the synagogue?” “Reasoned”, not “tongue lashed.”
Bottom line: If you say you are a Christian, then “bridle your tongue” when discussing a topic with others. Ask yourself what you plan to accomplish with the words you say.
Good point SendMe, hard, but good.
Do you really have to ask? I’m sure that Adkisson was every bit as Christian and conservative as Hitler was – not at all.
Good point. Jesus himself said, “So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practices lawlessness.’”
Not necessarily:
“Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;” (Mk 11:15)
And “turn the other cheek” was an act of resistance, not submission.
Cheers
Not necessarily what? To whom was this intended and in response to what?
From a distorted mind comparison, lgm and the shooter are of the same mindset. Both unable to grasp and deal with the truth and realities in which they find themselves on this planet.
My prayers are with the families of the shooting victims. I’m also praying for those who were injured.
Rignerd, I agree that we should pray that the victims accepted Christ as their savior.
I respectfully do not agree with your statement that Ms. Malkin always goes after “failings of conservatives.” I await Ms. Malkin’s acklowledgement of the “terrorist fist jab” comment by Fox News’ E.D. Hill. Ms. Malkin did not mention it back in this thread, and has not mentioned it (to the best of my knowledge) at any other point on this website.
Darkknight said:
You have got to be kidding with the above quote…Will you blame Michelle Malkin for not being involved with weather reporting next?..go drink your latte and take a deep breath…You’ve been studying/working too hard.
Frankly the media including Fox is in the tank for Obama..pathetic.
E.D. Hill is just fine with me.
Love2Rumba:
No, I don’t expect Ms. Malkin to respond to the weather.
But consider this…
Nas and others were angry with Fox over a variety of reasons- several of which are discussed in the Reuters article (which you can read at your leisure).
http://uk.reuters.com/article/mediaNews/idUKN2346236720080723
Ms. Malkin, in her post, responds to:
-The “baby mama” story
-The confusing of “Osama” and “Obama” by Liz Trotta
-The alleged “lynch party” quote by Mr. Bill O’Reilly
But she doesn’t respond to the “terrorist fist jab” comment.
As I said, I look forward to Ms. Malkin acknowledgement about E.D. Hill’s unfortunate choice of words in that incident, as this was one of the reasons why some people were angry at Fox News and staged the protest.
Seriously, what has happened to this site? Can we no longer contest ideas here? Can we no longer enter into rational discourse with one another without these mindless ad hominem fallacies? Darkknight raised a question. Why not answer it with a reasoned response rather than attacking him?
#88 lgm said:
lgm, your principle argument on this thread is clearly one of your most ignorant, or else one of your most dishonest to date. Just today:
In case you didn’t understand this particular British poll:
1. 32% of UK Muslim students believe that “killing in the name of religion” can be justified.
2. 60% of activist Muslim students in the UK feel the same.
3. Only 2% of non-Muslim students in the UK feel the same way.
lgm, take off your blinders.
Frankly SendMe, I have discussed it and I have every right to say that some points of view are not only something to disagree with, but to also point out how petty it is.
I did not say ’shut up’…I merely said this is apoint of view that is a product of something I expect from a busybody with too much time on their hands…I’ve seen better points raised by LGM on occasion than by the point made by DarkKnight and yes I did check out the site he referred to.
I do have a right to roll my eyes when i feel it necessary
The comments on this thread have been very interesting.
Send_Me, that is an excellent point.
We have spoken before about the tone of today’s political discourse. A favorite bibical verse of mine from Isaiah 1:18: “Come now, let use reason together…”
As I have said before, I find the political conversation on here very interesting as many (but not all) people with varying opinions on a variety of issues come together, not to hurl insults, but to honestly discuss consistency (or sometimes lack thereof) of the messages of people and groups involved in the formation of our nation’s public policy. I, for one, am grateful for the opportunity to discuss such matters.
darkknight,
You seem to be building a list of grievences for MM to address, including your problem with MM failing to mention that NaS (the racist wearing the “Nigger” tee-shirt in the previous postinging) had switched the name of his latest recording from “Nigger” to “Untitled.”
darkknight, as long as you’re bringing up race on a ‘Tennessee Church Shooting’ thread, can I ask you why you failed to mention that NaS’ latest recording, “Untitled,” still mentions the word “Nigger” sixty-eight times?
DarkKnight, I have been watching Fox for some time including Bill O’Reilly and I have never seen the comment of “Lynching Party” with respect to Michelle Obama in any way.
Michelle Obama was an idiot for making that asinine comment about her pride in her country….in any other context for any other reason her support for America should be questioned.
How dumb can she be to say after she got out of Harvard University capable of making (without BO in her life) a cool half million dollars and now saying you had pride in the US only because BO is running for office??-what an ingrate!
More to the point I have seen enough gang bangers here in Seattle do the ‘fist jab’ to recognize its affection by criminals-and I view terrorists as criminals at minimum and foreign commandos at maximum the difference in terms of menace to society is nominal at best…hence my eye rolling.
ED Hill did nothing wromg other than commit a specious bit of political incorrctness…big deal. I am not an oversensitive liberal.
I still think ED Hill’s ‘crime’ is much ado about nothing-in fact it was a bit of speculation that was more accurate than not.
You most assuredly do “have every right to say” whatever you want. People have the right to make, by definition, absurd arguments, commit every fallacy in the book, and completely dodge questions.
You also have the right to “point out how petty” something may be. Great. I’ll be glad to hear your argument. Just calling someone a “busybody” does not count.
LOL. I have to agree qith your sentiment, L2Rumba.
It’s absurd to expect that Michelle should have to – much have any interest in – responding to the goofy laundry list demands of a fringe lunatic group like MoveOn. It should be happy it got off with just being condemned by Democrats and Republicans alike in the Senate.
Send_Me,
If ED Hill had said Barack Obama was in cohoots with terrorists and got specific about the accusation, and then could not back up her statement (as if and probably would be hauled into court for either defamation or libel), Fox News and anyone else would be right to fire her behind.
Send_Me…there is no issue here with respect to ED Hill…
I also did not call anyone a ‘busybody’ per se. I am trying to explain to you by an otherwise common reference to an individual who has made a point that has practically no substance to it…can you understand that?
By the way, Send_Me, …I have made my argument, if you would employ your faculties to the points I’ve made.
More to the point when you do quote me, please be specific and not just that “Love2rumba said…”
By the way, Send_Me,
Obviously you are a liberal, and that’s fine…so is LGM.
I do not know how by any other way to explain to you the fact that E.D. Hill, has not done anything wrong. Such may never be possible.
I tried humor with respect to DarkKnight and you seem more perturbed about it than he is. If you want to carry his water, that’s your business.
I have to get back to work.
Apparently you missed my point in writing. I honestly could not care less about E.D. Hill and whatever she said; however, Darkknight did and does.
My argument was that upon his asking a question concerning the issue, your response was lacking substance, to say the least.
So, let’s break this down.
1. “You have got to be kidding.” This emotional response does what to further this discussion? It’s a fallacy of relevance.
2. “Will you blame Michelle Malkin for not being involved with weather reporting next?” And what’s the price of tea in China? Again, a fallacy of relevance. But, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. I’ll risk something here and assume you meant, “This is petty. Do not concern yourself with this.”
3. “go drink your latte and take a deep breath…You’ve been studying/working too hard.” I’d chalk this up as an ad hominem. In a very condescending way, (again, I’m assuming) you mean “don’t get yourself worked up about this.”
4. “Frankly the media including Fox is in the tank for Obama.” I was not aware that Fox was “in the tank” for Obama..pathetic.” Care to follow-up on this assertion? According to this study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason, Fox News is the most balanced.
5. “E.D. Hill is just fine with me.” And? Again, this is another fallacy of relevance, along the lines of an appeal to an authority, namely, yourself. Why should Darkknight take your word that E.D. Hill is “just fine”?
Your argument can be broken down into this: Because, 1) “You have got to be kidding,” 2) This is petty, 3) darkknight should calm down, 4) Fox News is in the tank for Obama (which it isn’t, but ok), and 5) you say E.D. Hill is just fine, we can conclude that E.D. Hill did nothing wrong? Did I get this right? Please let me know if I misunderstood what you wrote in response to Darkknight. Thanks.
Thank you for the quick reply. I appreciate it. So, am I a “liberal” because I would not accept poorly formulated and fallacy-ridden arguments? Because otherwise, I fail to see by what measure you can call me a “liberal.”
Humor does not get one very far in a court of reason. I’m “perturbed” to see such disrespect of another, one who may have something to offer to the discussion.
The main reason I’m “perturbed” is because of the complete hypocrisy of folks here, combined with their willful ignorance for logic.
So, folks like lgm are the “communists”, as folks have said on this threat, or, my favorite:
Then there’s this one. So, who’s intolerant? So, who’s looking to silence others? This, by definition, is fascism. Lgm wishes to know the difference between Christianity and any other religion. Rather than explaining it and praying for him, we vilify him and wish to kick him to the curb. Nice.
So yes, in terms of the political spectrum, I guess I am liberal, in comparison to fascism that is.
SendMe -
Recycling talking points minutiae from fringe leftist groups like MoveOn and then demanding Michelle respond to them, as DarkKnight expects, is both laughable and unreasonable.
Yes you have wrote a ton about nothing.Please allow me to return the favor. I actually have been more substantive and proportionate than you have given me credit for, Send_Me.
I have been relevant to the “importance” of Ms hill’s alleged transgression as far as it has any value. Obviously there are people who would like to take her and try her in some Kangaroo court for her comment, which is why I roll my eyes at this non-sense.
Hence ….
Ad Hominem means from the latin “to the man” Ad Hominem is where I would have called someone a name like “troll”-which I did not. So please get it straight.
The issue was E.D. Hill-and I determined along time ago that there was no issue. Fox wasted their time (if not their credibility) by removing her from her show. Its done..over.
That’s my opinion.
Your entire arguments against my posts have been irrelevant sophistry all night. You are starting to remind me of the pro-Soviet “gradualist” economists who did whatever they could, particularly through oratory to stifle economic reform during the Transitional era by making strawman arguments. I am an Economics major, BS degree.
This forum is not a legal court, it is a place to make opinions substantive, humorous or not.
Do you understand that?
Why yes Send_Me! Hallelujah ya got it right, dude!
Woo hoo!
Where have you been all night, man?
Send_Me, you crack me up!
Send_Me,
You self-righteous libs just crack me up.
Thanks for the entertainment.
Here is a podcast of Knoxville Police Chief Sterling Owen talking to Hallerin Hilton Hill the morning host of WNOX News Talk in Knoxville this morning about the shootings at TVUUC.
BrianNY, I am not “building a list.” I’m simply bringing up information that was left out… for whatever reason.
I was simply asking why Ms. Malkin did not respond to the 4 grievences listed in the article, instead only addressing 3. Ms. Malkin is a Fox News contributor, but I am willing to give her the benefit of a doubt. I’m just asking the question.
BTW, I did not buy Nas’ album. It doesn’t matter if it’s Nas or Rev. Jackson, I do not like the “n-word” regardless of who uses it. I said that in the Nas thread and I reiterate it here.
They have the freedom of speech. I have the freedom whom I patronize.
FYI, I was simply responding to the post by “rignerd” (#35), when I disagreed, named my alternative point and this whole discussion started.
Purplepeep, I did not look at talking points from MoveOn or any other group. I didn’t know they had talking points. No, I’m not a member of MoveOn or anything. I read the posts on this blog from time to time, and I was simply noting the omission from her post as it relates to the AP article and the controversies/grievences Ms. Malkin addressed (or in this case, the one she didn’t address).
Love2Rumba, thanks for at least giving your opinion on the issue. Perhaps that is exactly how Ms. Malkin feels as well. The point is, we don’t know and may never know.
Send_Me, I’m glad that people are able to ask questions and discuss issues. I guess this is just an example of what we were talking about a few weeks ago.
Have a good one.
I would point out then, to balance your equivalence argument, that there are hundreds of thousands of people (what was the last estimate?) that Sadaam killed while he was in power?
If you want to push the numbers, then start there, Rusty.
*sorry this is late
There is a difference from a person accidentally being killed or being killed because they are directly helping a gang called Al-Qaeda who also happen to be under the age of 18. If someone were targeted simply because they were blue, left handed, or a Buddhist, then that might invite interest.
The Truth, from a Vietnam Veteran I talked with while in Mosul, Iraq in 2004. He was attacked, while in Vietnam by an enemy with a knife. The person stuck the knife under his shoulder. The soldier shoved him away. The person re-attacked, twisting the knife in him. He shot and killed him with one bullet. The VET was court-martialed for killing a child.
That’s an absurd comparison Rusty, even for you.
First of all it makes no sense to compare accidental civilian casualties of war with victims of deliberate murder.
Secondly, the US did not declare war in the name of Christ. We are not killing Muslims for being Muslim.
Most importantly, how do you know they’d be alive? Given the tendency of Saddam and his family to casually rape, torture and murder the citizens of Iraq the odds are that more than 90,000 civilians would be dead today. How many mass graves and children’s prisons do we need to uncover before you get it through your thick skull that Iraqis were not “safe” before the invasion?
Some facts from local Knoxville news:
1. Adkisson was recently divorced from his *fifth* wife, who was a long-time member of TVUUC. He did not randomly pick this church.
2. He had a history of erratic behavior – charming at times and violent at times, and apparently had been a complete loner for the past year or so. He was reported to be a very heavy drinker.
3. As other posters have pointed out, he had raved against Christianity as well as the “Liberal Movement” and gays. He was all over the map.
4. News reports said this morning that police had removed books from his residence by Savage, O’Reilly, and Hannity. Of course, this will be used to prove that conservative talk shows generate mass murderers. The more fair-minded among us wonder why no mention was made of anything else he read.
5. A bit of opinion: He was on food stamps, so he couldn’t have hated liberal government all that much; and
6. Wherever you are on the spiritual or political spectrum, these people did not deserve to die, and they and their survivors do deserve our prayers.
Excellent. I’m glad I haven’t missed anything.
Are you implying that I’m making “straw man” arguments? I fail to see how. In fact, you agreed with me in my assessment. I showed how fallacy-riddled your argument was. “Irrelevant sophistry”? So, is this what one says when one is called out for making fallacious arguments?
I recall reading about people saying the same sorts of things about Wilberforce, John Adams, Themistocles, William Tyndale… I by no stretch compare myself with these men. I do, however, compare you with their detractors.
If I were you, I wouldn’t brag about credentials that obviously have not contributed to your ability to think for yourself and formulate arguments. You may be the world’s greatest economist, but your logic and reasoning skills fail to impress me.
I’m fully aware of the term’s meaning. Ad hominem not only applies to “name calling”, but also to insinuations about another person outside the realm of the argument at hand. Ad hominem fallacies are a subset of the broader category of fallacies of relevance. When you said, “go drink your latte and take a deep breath…You’ve been studying/working too hard,” you were making a fallacy of relevance, specifically, an ad hominem by insinuating Darkknight had qualities of a person who typically drinks lattes and overreacts, both things which have no bearing on this discussion. I should not have to explain this to someone with a BS in economics.
Whenever and wherever groups gather the opportunity for mayhem is presented. I have often wondered what would happen in my own church if a gunman or a group of gunmen were to attack during the service. It isn’t keeping me from attending services or obtaining a weapon, but I wonder.
While this attack was not completely random, we are all at risk from those among us who are not mentally stable. It isn’t a political issue or even a religious issue. Large gatherings present targets of opportunity.
Send_Me:
You might have to go over what a straw man is as well. Posters here use that term incorrectly probably half the time.
Allow me to save you a whole lot of typing.
Logical Fallacies
darkknight,
I thought you were questioning MM for not disclosing that NaS changed the name of his recording from “Nigger” to “Untitled.”
Your previous post:
I was wondering why you would want MM to mention anything at all about NaS’ title when he still uses the word “Nigger” 68 times on his recording?
Therefore, and with that in mind, I am wondering why you are continually seeking a more detailed response to the “racial” grievances of a proven racist like NaS? We basically have a foul-mouthed racist who uses the word “Nigger” 68 times on his latest recording and who walks around in tee-shirts emblazoned with the word “Nigger” and you want to know why MM hasn’t opined further on this same foul-mouthed racist having a problem with a morning anchor using the term “terrorist fist-jab?”
I’m not a media expert, but I have noticed that much of this foul-mouthed racist’s new recording contains references to Bill O’Reilly’s outrage at UVA inviting NaS to perform vile, racist and violent lyrics at a concert memorializing those who were shot and murdered on their campus just five months after the incident.
Do ya think that maybe that’s the reason why NaS has a problem with Fox News lately? I don’t see him going after Dan Rather for mistaking Obama’s name with Bin Laden’s just the other day. I don’t see him holding the Clinton Campaign accountable for interjecting race into Campaign ‘08. I don’t see him going after Michelle Obama for introducing the term “Baby’s Momma/Daddy” into national politics in 2004.
It seems to me that NaS’ condemnation has been very selective towards Fox in particular; a network that has ironically held him accountable for his violent, racist and misogynistic lyrics in the past. I’m wondering why you would give this racist’s selective grievances any credence at all?
correction: UVA s/b Virginia Tech.
Send_MeFor an individual who has been making ad hominem attacks on me all night, you are rich.
Yup liberal think hard at work. Ignore reality and then claim I have no standing…standard tack. yes you do remind me of sophists of every category from the left side.
If you cannot understand the differnece between ad hoiminem and a simile…I do not know what to say. Maybe for you you are busy changing definitions so that in your mind you begin to believe the fallacy of your own arguments…just like the left calls anyone a “racist” for opposing their pet projects in affirmative action.
Insofar as he suggested a degree in economics is irrelevant to the topic at hand… I’m sorry, but he’s right.
This is another ad hominem.
I believe the statement he was referring to was that “latte sipping” remark. That cannot be called a simile, at least under any definition I’m aware of, and it was an ad hominem. The clear intent of the statement was to suggest that 1) latte sippers (that is, liberals) are by definition wrong and 2) the person you were addressing is a latte sipper. That’s the very definition of an ad hominem.
Given the pattern of your posts I suspect your immediate response will be to dismiss what I’ve just said as liberal claptrap. That would be wrong for two reasons. First, it would be yet another ad hominem fallacy. Second, I’m a gun owning, Bush voting, war supporting veteran of the US Navy who believes in personal responsibility, and therefore not a liberal in the currently understood sense of the word.
I have? Please, show me.
You’ve saved me quite a bit of typing. Thanks for your post.
In this regard, we only differ in two ways: 1) U.S. Army, 2) still active.
Actually – and to even more correct – you, by your own citation, regurgitated complaints from two fringe leftist groups.
As I said it’s patently goofy that anyone should demand that any sane American do anything other than condemn such anti-America thugs like MoveOn, as both Democrats and Republicans already have done. Of course, you are welcome to be – as your citation says – “led by” them, but you just shouldn’t expect anyone to take your repetition of their garbage seriously.
Really? Because there are approximately 90,000 dead Iraqi civilians, most of whom were presumably Muslim, that would still be alive if it weren’t for a certain Christian president and Christian vice-president.
Naw, JF, it’s par for the course of Renowned Rusty Relativism ™ – where up is down and down is up. As I’ve said before, Rusty would be mighty hard pressed to be able to differentiate between the 9-11 attacks and D-Day.
The only double standard I see are certain liberals and the ACLU being silent on CAIR’s infiltration of American schools, but they scream whenever the The Ten Commandments are shown in an unseen corner of a courtroom.
Regarding Islam, can you find any of these in the New Testament:
If they refuse to convert, offer the Jizya. If they refuse that, kill them wherever you find them.
The rocks and trees will shout out “come! there is a Jew behind me!” [so you can kill him].
Do tell, LGM.
The other double standard: LGM doesn’t support the troops, but values his/her freedom.
James Felix, Send_Me
What ED Hill said way back when about BO was not worth getting her fired or its equivalent. I think anyone who gets upset about her comment was overwrought and it amazes me tha neither of you can see this.
Additionally, I am entitled to give my opinion of DarkKnight’s opinion at anytime. All you have to do is say “I disagree with it”. Frankly I gave all reasoning I felt the comment was worth. Trying to convice you to see the error of your ways as I see it is a good thing not a bad thing as your posts collectively have made it out to be…this kind of tactic you two are employing is very common from my personal experiences with liberals. I am also entitled to that opinion and observation, too.
And yes based on my personal experiences with liberals over the years, I would have to come to the conclusion that ideologically you two are liberals at this point…perhaps you have some recorded recordsof campaign contributions, letters to the editor, political activism going back to age 18 or other such proof to indicate that you are not?
Please show me!
You are welcome to convince me that I am wrong using reason at anytime.
For the victims in Tennesee I offer my condolenscences.
atheling,
they are having a good time with you over at Crooks and Liars.
Send_Me, James Felix,
Allow me to ask the following question of you: If a person gets a minor cut…such as a so-called ‘paper cut’ on their finger do either of you believe that the injury is equal to, greater than, or less in terms of pain than having a finger chopped off?
Keep in mind in both cases the victim did not receive anesthesia.
My answer without a ton of intellectual reasoning is that the ‘paper cut’ is less painful than getting a finger chopped off. This should be a ‘no brainer’ for anyone.
Do either of you disagree?
I’m afraid you’ve set up a false analogy. You’ve compared an intellectual, a philosophical point (the E.D. Hill comment) with an existential point, one of experience, of the senses (the physical degrees of pain). These things are incomparable.
It’s been a while since I last saw Annie, but for the life of me I can’t recall a shootout scene.
Hippie,
This particular version was more of an homage to orphan musicals directed by Tarantino. So the confusion was understandable.
I beg to disagree Send_Me..they are in fact comparable because at minimum they are concepts, and the the experiential aspect of the ‘finger’ argument is to make clear to one’s own conceivable experience of difference between one choice and another.
But nevertheless sir, you are good dogged, debater.