Topic: About the Chart
Ron Paul ankle-biters will swallow your soul! Exchanging ideas is a good thing, and Nolan Chart created a favorable environment for it. Unfortunately, Ron Paul ankle-biters have turned the comments page into a YouTube clone. Name calling and finger pointing do not qualify as intellectual discourse!by Gary R. Carter
(Libertarian)
Sunday, April 27, 2008
It is not a long shot to say that the Nolan Chart is quite a breeding ground for Ron Paul supporters. The Chart can routinely be counted on the have more than an ample amount of coverage of the great doctor. While I personally think he deserves all the coverage he can get, I wouldn't expect it to be all too satisfying for those members who do not support Paul. Despite the ubiquitous skewing and monopolization of the majority of media sources, it is not unfair to expect and seek out balanced and informed journalism. So, while the onslaught of Ron Paul articles on the Chart compels me to feel compassion for those opposed to his message, that quickly dissipates under the knowledge that they don't have to go far to be in like-minded company. From there, my compassion dissipates even further when these same people go out of their way to bash Paul on a regular basis. It is at this point that their habit begins to reveal itself as merely an attention-getting device. By the time these bashers recycle stand-by MSM championed smears that boil down to name calling and finger pointing, my compassion has completely disintegrated and nausea has taken its place. While any genuine Ron Paul supporter would welcome debate and feedback, these petty attacks that have become a common response to every Paul article and do not qualify as either of the two. While I am familiar with the accusations, I have yet to see them expounded upon beyond the headlines they were pulled from. This is what I know:
Manufactured Attack #1- Sound Money/ Gold Standard
Arguing against sound money and a commodity-based currency is like asking the government to put it in a little bit deeper. You are essentially saying that you like the market to be unstable and your currency to be debt. By abandoning the gold standard, the government isn't restricted by the amount of reserves they need to have for spending. They can just print up more money! To compound matters, the Federal Reserve is a private bank. Instead of exercising one of the few necessary roles for government and printing currency themselves, the government buys it at a rate that already includes debt. They pay for that debt with more borrowed debt, and this results in the advent of a little ditty we like to call the IRS. Also, by abandoning the gold standard and embracing fiat money, you are welcoming the instability of valueless paper in comparison to gold, or some other commodity. By increasing the supply of money, the Federal Reserve devalues the currency that was previously earned at a better rate. The opposite process can also be applied, where bankers refuse new loans while still collecting on current ones, and thus decreasing the supply of money. Despite being blamed on the "free market", the Great Depression was caused by the manipulation of fiat currency economy. This system is only beneficial to those at the top. By suggesting that the gold standard is antiquated or kooky, you expose yourself as either ignorant, sadistic or in on the cut.
Manufactured Attack #2- Racist/ Anti-Semitic
In an attempt to uncover dirt on Paul, nothing tangible was recovered by a media that produces political scandal like they are printing fiat money. Instead, the MSM offered up a verdict of racism based on events and associations from 15+ years ago. Comprised largely of vague associations, statistical commentary often not even written by Paul, and by presumption, this ploy only resulted in highlighting the unusually clean slate of a rare politician who dares to defy the standards of corruption and scandal. Continuing this farce by suggesting Paul is anti-Semitic based on his assessment that the Israel lobby in D.C. is too powerful and not in a good way, is like calling him a gay basher for not watching Queer Eye For The Straight Guy. Under this logic, all actions are based on race solely and criminal activities can all be attributed to racism. It is not a secret that the Israel Lobby carries a substantial amount of influence on U.S. Foreign Policy, though you will seldom catch many politicians pointing that out. The reluctance of current candidates to address the Israel Lobby lends more fodder to the idea of their influence being of a less than savory influence. Furthermore, the fact that racism is a foreign concept to true libertarians and individualists completely debases these fruitless accusations, and is evidenced in Paul's own words.
Manufactured Attack #3- He associates with that wackjob Alex Jones
I find this one rather amusing. I love to see these trends congealing from top down. Somebody in the media uses a word, other people in the media grab a hold of this word, and next thing you know, it is being repeated with firm conviction all over the streets. This was the case with Alex Jones, as well as with the conclusion that he was a kooky, nutty, wacko, etc. The process is most brilliantly represented in the use of the word "terrorist" these days. Where it once applied to a certain type of person, it now applies to pretty much anybody who disagrees with the official story. Likewise, but not on the same scale, the media has created an army of soldiers ready to throw around names casually and discredit people by guilt of association. First of all, to suggest that Paul is "associates" with Alex Jones, both paints the accuser as a spoon-fed broken record, and it assumes that Paul associates, or is associates, with every member of the media he ever does an interview with. So, I am sure he also associates with Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and George Stephanapolus. While Jones' personality and bravado don't particularly lend well to an argument in his favor, his research is always well documented and his websites provide articles and documents that the average tax payer couldn't collect in a full day of devoted attention. Lack of support for independent media is what drives our current corporate media-opoly. Truth as news was sold out a long time ago. Now, we have paid "experts" and "analysts" deciding the news.
Manufactured Attack#4- He believes in an imaginary and secret North American Union Plan
To be sure, when the President participates in secret meetings, unbeknownst to and without the oversight of Congress, and proceeds to adopt legislation, it might be construed that he is up to something. Speculation of a North American Union plan is largely based on meetings held by the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and the ongoing construction of the Trans-Texas Corridor. The secret meeting in Montebello, Canada in August 2007 even came complete with a 25 square mile security perimeter and agent provocateurs. A bill sponsored by Tom Tancredo and John Olver included language to restrict funding to the SPP, and was passed on November 14, 2007, but has yet to be signed by the president. Bush did, however, attend the 4th annual SPP summit in New Orleans on April 21st, 22nd of this year. With protest over the mysterious activity becoming more and more heated, the summit was seen largely as an effort to play down all the unwanted attention the SPP has been gaining. It is no wonder considering the SPP acknowledges their willingness to implement "evolution by stealth" if necessary. If Lou Dobbs discusses the NAU on CNN, 20 members of the House band together in opposition to the NAU, and a number of states develop legislation locally to oppose the NAU, then Paul's comments can only be seen as reasonable queries that reflect the concern and foresight of a good politician. By using his comments as a platform to accuse him of "kookery", the accuser only exposes their feeble-mindedness and lack of concern for truth.
Manufactured Attack #5- Paul's supporters are nuts/ are 9/11 truthers
In politics, a vote is a vote. This argument can also be discarded by the simple understanding that a person's supporters do not reflect that person directly. Regardless, I would like to go further on it. In the eyes of the MSM and its finger puppets, what exactly is it about Paul's supporters that make them "nuts"? From my perspective, anybody that would support the majority of the original candidates and/or fail to see the superiority of Ron Paul is nuts. It has been acknowledged long before the United States came into existence that government is the natural enemy of man. Government exists for the sole purpose of exerting power over people, and history gives more than ample evidence that governments are inclined to increase their power, always much to the chagrin of the people. The United States represent a novel experiment in reversing this order, which was unfortunately undermined from the time the experiment began. It is done in such a simple way too- Politicians offer the people neat gifts and fashionable programs, and naturally, people oooh and aaaah at the prospect of free things. The problem is, the politicians never tell the people that they will have to pay for it; and, that the people who have no use or interest for these gifts will also have to pay for them. So it goes, over and over again, yet politicians continue to win votes by offering up new gifts to the people. The people that have brought this huge elephant into the room and have begged to allow the elephant to stay, have no right at all to call those willing to acknowledge the elephant, nuts. It is an absurd example of reverse logic and those that support this reverse logic have revealed their own illegitimacy.
As for 9/11 truthers- the same rules apply. Without engaging in a lengthy diatribe on all of the evidence that has been brought forward by countless amounts of experts, just as qualified as the government's experts, I will just say that the official theory is just as kooky if not more kooky than alternative theories. Once again, 9/11 truthers supporting Ron Paul only reflects on Paul in the notion that those who desire truth generally seek to find like-minded company. Paul has never stated that he believes in an alternative theory, only that he would like to see another- independent- investigation. Anybody that has read the 9/11 Commission Report should realize that is was quite plainly a whitewash. Nancy Drew could have done a more in-depth investigation than that even without the paltry financing that the Commission received.
Manufactured Attack #6- Ron Paul is a conspiracy theorist
Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty." -- GW Bush speaking before the UN General Assembly
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." ~ FDR
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." And "History is decided by the winners." ~ Napoleon Bonaparte
Employing the tactics of Unspeak, the media has managed to turn any and all alternative theories into "conspiracy" theories. Now, by questioning the conclusion of a handful of people, one becomes a "rabid conspiracy theorist". Winston Smith experienced this in 1984 when he was convinced that 1+1=3. Of course, it took a little bit more to persuade him than it has for the faithful media minions that propagate the same plan for intellectual discourse. Labeling someone a conspiracy theorist is, after all, just a cowardly avoidance of engaging that person in intellectual discourse.
Manufactured Attack #7- Ron Paul is a non-interventionist/ an isolationist
Congratulations!
We are interventionists, and have been since WWI. You should be happy that we look to be continuing on the obviously superior path of murdering people worldwide for Democracy. Never mind the implications that forcing people to pay for an illegal war has on the actual presence of this so-called Democracy. 1+1=3, right?
Conclusion
Ron Paul ankle-biters choose to attack his loyal supporters for not giving up. One of the most amusing ankle-biters I have come across finds amusement in calling Ron Paul a dictator. This kind of twisted logic is endemic of the breed and only assists in identifying the ailment. Undoubtedly, somebody will say that Paul and his supporters wish to force their views on the rest of the population, when actually, we are merely asking the population to stop forcing their collectivist views on us.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 47 thumbs so far
2008 Gary R. Carter, all rights reserved.
Published: Sunday, April 27, 2008
Last modified: Monday, April 28, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Gary R. Carter only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Gary R. Carter is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-04-27 13:27:00
They also choose to "ankle Bite" Paul because he surrounds himself around paranoid nut cases. He chooses to correspond with nuts like Alex Jones and his numerous supporters who screwed up his campaign by screaming insane things at rallies like "Stop the NWO." No intellectual will ever take these people seriously; imagine the media!
I was saying that in order for Ron Paul to have been a success, that he would need to be a dictator to get his promises done.
There is a little interuption called Congress that has derailed most of President Bush's (good) plans. Ron Paul would have the same problem that Bush had. The only differance is that Bush knew how to fight. What has Ron Paul accomplished in Congress? This same question has been asked of Obama with no answer.
Ron Paul is a good guy, but he appears to be a kook to too many mainstreamers. I support 85% of his platform, but he is too kooky for me to vote for him. That, and he already lost a long time ago with his leave the world in the mess that it is in and close up our borders idea.
Sorry, most Americans like the idea that they can change the world, be it via Environmentalism, Christian Missionaries, or pro Democratic Revolutionaries. They may be wrong, but the last thing that you do in politics is tell the majority that they are stupid. Ron Paul's campaign did this frequently. Stupid move by Ron Paul.
Yes, it is true that the emporer has no clothes and he doesn't like to be told it. Ron Paul believes in being forward and honest with the people. He's not going to tell them what they want to hear just to appease them. While this can be political suicide, sometimes such straight talk is necessary. As for his accomplishments in Congress, I rather enjoy the fact that he is not trying to put more laws on the books to dictate our lives. I like that he is opposing many new actions Congress is passing, even if he is the only one opposing it. This is exactly the kind of person I feel we need in Congress, the Oval Office, and just about any other seat of public power.
"This is exactly the kind of person I feel we need in Congress, the Oval Office, and just about any other seat of public power."
True, but you would need them seated in the majority of chairs to get this done. Christian Politics, environmentalist politics, and Socialist creed will keep Ron Paul from wining.
Posted By: Gary R. Carter
Date: 2008-04-27 14:57:21
Christopher- See Manufactured Attack #3
Lloyd-
"I was saying that in order for Ron Paul to have been a success, that he would need to be a dictator to get his promises done."
Though, I feel like I have seen you use the term numerous times, I don't recall ever seeing a footnote with it that spelled out the implication.
It is likely that he would face some difficulty from Congress, but I would have no interest in settling for a lesser candidate based on speculation that their ideas will be accepted more by Congress. In fact, it seems everyone would want a president that didn't pressure Congress to pass bills without reading them as with the Patriot Act, didn't create his own law as with signing statements and whatever will take effect with the SPP and didn't refuse to follow the laws that were created to limit the president's power.
"Ron Paul is a good guy, but he appears to be a kook to too many mainstreamers. I support 85% of his platform, but he is too kooky for me to vote for him. That, and he already lost a long time ago with his leave the world in the mess that it is in and close up our borders idea."
The average mainstreamer, and you too apparently, must not know the meaning of "kook" then. Without the media developing opinions for people, how would they automatically come to the conclusion that absolute Conservatism based firmly on the one and only Constitution we have= kookery? Nope! That surely doesn't qualify as kookery. Especially with the other candidates available. A Constitution based on their beliefs would make the PRC Constitution look liberal.
Leave the world in a mess? Why is it the duty of the U.S. to take care of the world? I realize that collectivist indoctrination has been pretty successful, but that outlook obviously ceases to acknowledge why governments historically go to "clean up" the world and who gets screwed in the process.
"Sorry, most Americans like the idea that they can change the world, be it via Environmentalism, Christian Missionaries, or pro Democratic Revolutionaries. They may be wrong, but the last thing that you do in politics is tell the majority that they are stupid. Ron Paul's campaign did this frequently. Stupid move by Ron Paul."
Well, anybody who listened to Paul would have realized that he would let them do pretty much anything they want, except forcing people to pay for somebody else's crusade. I am not sure how he told the majority they were stupid, especially considering that he was never given the opportunity to reach the majority.
Anyway, those questions aside, I am not sure you understand the message of this article. I am not campaigning for Paul here, I am merely trying to understand why so many people have a personal crusade against Paul. On a personal level, he ear couldn't be any friendlier, any more tolerant or any more skilled. On a political level, how can anybody so vehemently dispute policies which do nothing but benefit individual liberty, especially when the alternative is nothing but policies that other people have to pay for. How can anybody justify asking for something that a person who makes $10,000 a year will have to pay for?
So, that leads me to wonder what your own vendetta is against Paul. You say you support 85% of his ideas, but I don't see that. I only see you regularly and aggressively going out of your way to trash talk him. Why do you care? For that matter, I am not sure you are a libertarian as you state. Not so much because I put too much stock in the Nolan Chart label, but moreso because of the language you use. You seem to frame everything in the context of society as opposed to the individual.
Ok fine Mr. Carter, I'll say it. I fear that Ron Paul would actually win if his message were to get out there.
No I wouldn't he never had a chance. The more his message played the worse he sounded. People are for the most part stupid. Neal Boortz proves this time and time again. I am just stating fact that Ron Paul does not have the support to get into office. We need to sacrifice him to the wolves and move on. Quit acting like he is still in the race. At this point John McCain has to take the snap and neal on it to kill the clock. The Ron Paul supporters are making every effort to Sack McCain before he can get his knee on the dirt.
It is time for him to accept this and just speak his mind at the convention along with perinial Christian Kook Alan Keyes.
John McCain is an excellent politician. He bet on the fact that a lot of people would hate the way Bush did things that he constantly swam upstream against the Administration. He did some of the same stuff that Ron Paul did, only he took the popular means of doing it, that and he was well known at the time. Ron Paul on the other hand is a small fish in a large Ocean. I say let's get him to run for Governor of Texas in 2010 and see if he can beat moonbat Evangelical Rick Perry.
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-04-27 16:41:02
"Christopher- See Manufactured Attack #3"
Do you know why parents don't like their children hanging with druggies? It's because they hope to god their children aren't druggies themselves. Even if their children haven't done anything neighbors will still think that these parents have children who are druggies. Get the drift Carter?
Posted By: Gary R. Carter
Date: 2008-04-27 16:51:45
Do you know why the legal voting age is 18? That is the age when children legally get to determine who is a druggie and who isn't for themselves. Any other stupid questions Espinal?
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-04-28 13:28:37
Carter, Obviously you didn't get the drift behind the "stupid" question. Age has nothing to do with it. Guilt by association is what I'm talking about. Ron Paul hangs around conspiracy nut - he is bound to be demonized for associating himself with them. That is my point.
I don't think YOU and others who defend Paul can seriously ask people to not look at the nuts that surround him and make judgements. My comment wasn't meant to be condascending but an analogy to a simpler situation. Get the drift Carter?
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-04-28 13:35:42
"Dear Mr. Espinal: I'm an intellectual, and I support Ron Paul. I can't imagine why any intelligent person would not support him."
If you read my comment you would realize that I was commenting not on Paul but the nutty supporters who made their way to his rallies. The crackpots who screamed conspiracy theories scaring potential supporters away. Those are the folks that intellectuals can't take seriously.
BTW: just because you call yourself an intellectual means nothing. Self-congratulatory statements should only make people weary of what one has to offer.
Posted By: Gary R. Carter
Date: 2008-04-28 14:57:09
Uh, yeah, I got your logical fallacy, but you are equating apples and oranges.
First of all, if parents put their concern with what the neighbors think prior to the well-being of their children, then they are not very good parents. Second, which you have still neglected to address, is how a politician doing an interview with a radio show host makes that politician an associate of the radio show host. Third of all, what gives you the technical authority to call anybody a "paranoid nut case"? Did you come to that conclusion all by yourself or did you have help?
The entire article is a condemnation of feeble attacks on Ron Paul that are completely removed from sound logic or statistical evaluation, yet you simply repeated that process by offering up your rudimentary metaphor. Then, I pointed that out to you again and you still failed to get the point. So, here it is again:
Voters are adults. A responsible voter should look at all of the information, and try to avoid being persuaded by special interests. Attacking Ron Paul's supporters by saying they are "loony", or whatever the consensus is, is irresponsible, especially if you offer up no logical reason for this conclusion. The same goes with Ron Paul supposedly hanging with Alex Jones- who you have also condemned in direct opposition to the entire point of the article, but you do not back it up with anything, which is especially tedious considering I pointed out arguments against that and pointed them out to you a second time. At what point did Ron Paul begin associating with Alex Jones? Can he be associated with everybody he does an interview or a show with? I certainly wouldn't approve of his associating with Glenn Beck, but from that, I wouldn't conclude that he is hanging out with the wrong crowd and the neighbors aren't going to be pleased about it.
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-04-29 07:41:15
So it seems that people like you really dislike folks that disagree with your statements. That brings you to say condascending a-hole comments like: "I got your logical fallacy, Did you come to that conclusion all by yourself or did you have help?" If you want to be condascending it will get us no where.
You don't even try explaining how my comment is a "logical fallacy." How is it apples to oranges?
My comment makes perfect sense. We are judged by the people who are around us....by children and by adults. The fact that you think adults should be able to understand this is quite absurd and counter what humans...even adults...actually do. That is my point. I think this point is much stronger than "adults having the ability to use information properly without being persuaded by special interests."
If that were the case there wouldn't be special interests. If that were the case there wouldn't any thing like advertising which also aims to influence your decisions.
That is the reason why I think your comments are juvenile. They are normative remarks talking about the way the "world should be." They don't even reflect how people think.
So that's why I think you're wrong. So if you respond...try being an "intellectual" and not a jerk-off.
Great article and should've been posted a year ago.
This article should be entitled, "Truth Hurts so go Ahead and Bite Me!!
Never underestimate the stupidity of those that don't like to hear uncomfortable information. It means that they might have to actually do something like, say, turn off the TV.
Ron Paul's message is simply; take care of yourself because if you want big government to do it, then you will have to give up freedom, peace and privacy.
Make a choice.
If you want government to take care of you, then go collect your wellfare check and get back to your regularly scheduled TV program. But don't be surprised if you find yourself in some BFE foreign country getting killed for corporate territory.
If you want to keep your freedom, peace and privacy, then you're going to have to get off the couch and fight for it here in the political battles.
Nothing new, no conspiracy, just a historical fact.
Good article Gary. Seems to have pulled in a few ankle biters. This article is spot on and clear. Just ignore the little yippy ankle biters as they are the type of personality just looking for attention and must argue and dispute everything. They come back to an article over and over commenting the whole way. It is actually a disease I believe.
Just remember "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies".
Posted By: Gary R. Carter
Date: 2008-04-29 18:02:46
Christopher, third time's a charm I suppose. I am pretty sure you opened that condescension door, but I will try to avoid being inflammatory in this final attempt. First of all, if I didn't explain this: Uh, yeah, I got your logical fallacy, but you are equating apples and oranges, then what is this :
First of all, if parents put their concern with what the neighbors think prior to the well-being of their children, then they are not very good parents. Second, which you have still neglected to address, is how a politician doing an interview with a radio show host makes that politician an associate of the radio show host. Third of all, what gives you the technical authority to call anybody a "paranoid nut case"? Did you come to that conclusion all by yourself or did you have help?
The entire article is a condemnation of feeble attacks on Ron Paul that are completely removed from sound logic or statistical evaluation, yet you simply repeated that process by offering up your rudimentary metaphor. Then, I pointed that out to you again and you still failed to get the point. So, here it is again:
Voters are adults. A responsible voter should look at all of the information, and try to avoid being persuaded by special interests. Attacking Ron Paul's supporters by saying they are "loony", or whatever the consensus is, is irresponsible, especially if you offer up no logical reason for this conclusion. The same goes with Ron Paul supposedly hanging with Alex Jones- who you have also condemned in direct opposition to the entire point of the article, but you do not back it up with anything, which is especially tedious considering I pointed out arguments against that and pointed them out to you a second time. At what point did Ron Paul begin associating with Alex Jones? Can he be associated with everybody he does an interview or a show with? I certainly wouldn't approve of his associating with Glenn Beck, but from that, I wouldn't conclude that he is hanging out with the wrong crowd and the neighbors aren't going to be pleased about it.
That goes well beyond the support you gave any of your comments in your first or second post- which, you apparently think were benign. However, I will make another attempt at clarification. You said:
They also choose to "ankle Bite" Paul because he surrounds himself around paranoid nut cases. He chooses to correspond with nuts like Alex Jones and his numerous supporters who screwed up his campaign by screaming insane things at rallies like "Stop the NWO." No intellectual will ever take these people seriously; imagine the media!
Now, I never claimed to be an intellectual, nor do I care to be one. I also have no opposition to being what you consider a jerk-off, or a "paranoid nut-case for that matter". My comment to your first comment was :
See Manufactured Attack #3
Why? Because it address you personally. You call Alex Jones a nut (and anybody who says "Stop the NWO") with no foundation for that, which fails to address manufactured attempt #3, as well as the point of the entire article. The point of the entire article you apparently have failed to gather from:
If you have no legitimate argument with Paul, other than the schoolyard name calling, you have no argument. What makes Alex Jones a nut and folks who say random things about the NWO paranoid nut-cases? You, and those responsible for making the same blunders before you, have failed to expound upon this initial assessment. While it is quite ok for you to have that opinion, if you are going to try to influence others with it, you should make some kind of attempt to qualify your remarks. Which leads us to this:
Do you know why parents don't like their children hanging with druggies? It's because they hope to god their children aren't druggies themselves. Even if their children haven't done anything neighbors will still think that these parents have children who are druggies. Get the drift Carter?
Now, a simple definition for a logical fallacy is an error in reason. I outlined what I considered to be your errors in reason above, but I will do it again. Your analogy was quite clear to me, but to be certain, lets go through it again.
The children symbolize Ron Paul here. The parents symbolize Ron Paul supporters. The neighbors symbolize non- Ron Paul supporters or those unaffiliated. The druggies symbolize Alex Jones and people who are paranoid nut-cases. Correct?
What does a druggy look like? Can you identify a druggy at first sight and be completely certain of your accuracy? At what point does a recreational drug user become a druggy? Is the parent who keeps their kid hopped up on government-sponsored medications to be avoided? Is their kid a druggy? If the neighbors make blind accusations that the children are druggies based on the appearance of the childrens friend appearing to be druggies, should this be taken to the neighborhood council without any proof? Should the parents put the neighbors before the children in order to save their image?
The main logical fallacy is this:
A parent's main responsibility is to the children. Ultimately, if it were actually proven that the children were druggies, it is the responsibility of the parents to take care of the children and not be concerned at all about what the neighbors think.
However, we have a case of the neighbors (detracters) throwing stones at the children (Paul) based on accusations that they are hanging out with druggies (Alex Jones & nutty supporters). And the parents (me) are still left leaving the question:
Why are you calling my children (Ron Paul) druggies (nuts) for sitting at the same table in the school cafeteria with druggies (Alex Jones & NWO paranoid nuts)? You apparently haven't even talked with my children and you conclude that they are nuts because they sit at the same table in the school cafeteria with druggies, which, as it turns out, you have only called druggies and never made any attempt to explain why they are druggies.
If I were the parent, I might have to get all Clark Griswold on the neighbors.
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-04-30 07:59:23
My only point was people are bound to view your children as druggies if they hang out with druggies. Sure, the neighbors can be responsible individuals but how many "neighbors" in the world do that?
I never said you were an intellectual. I said these paranoid nutcases won't be taken seriously by intellectuals. I never called you a paranoid nutcase. I called MOST of Pauls supporters paranoid nutcases. I've been to Ron Paul events and god knows the stupid unscientific things a lot of these people had to say.
Intellectuals won't take paranoid nutcases seriously because paranoid nutcases tend to way overstate small details in some situation and develop conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories are just theories, incomplete, with no real bridging evidence. If someone can have their ideas function on no evidence, then what they do is completely disregard the possbility that they are probably wrong. That is always what happens. The 911 conspiracy theories are an example where people don't have any real evidence whatsoever that the US government was involved, yet they continue to tout its possibility not realizing they are probably wrong. Forget the science and physics they are always using to explain the fall of the towers, as if science and physics aren't subject to chance in such a way no scientist can fully explain results. This always happens in science, where some things just can't be explained. The nuts will explain it by another damn conspiracy theory.
"A parent's main responsibility is to the children. Ultimately, if it were actually proven that the children were druggies, it is the responsibility of the parents to take care of the children and not be concerned at all about what the neighbors think."
This doesn't show my comment is a logical fallacy. Parents will question their children's friends. They do it all of the time. They will be suspicious if their children are hanging out with the wrong crowd. Parents always tend to know things from rumours from - or interactions with neighbors. At the end their children may or may not be druggies.
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-04-30 14:49:21
You say that people should be responsible and not engage in guilt by association. I say that guilt by association is bound to happen regardless of how we feel adults should act. That is my response. I don't think that was too out of this world.
Thanks Gary. This was an entertaining debate. My apologies for any rudeness on my part.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Gary R. Carter, all rights reserved.