The World Hopes for Its First President

bellwells

@bellwells said:

You completely missed his point. The Newsweek article is saying we need to elect Obama specifically because he's black, not because of his policies. This is liberal guilt, pure and simple.

No it doesn't! What article are you reading? It says that he EMBODIES change which include the fact that he is of mixed origin but that also including change from the existing trajectory US is on.

LOL...what color is the sky in your world?

bellwells

@solo said:

...I hope after all of this we all can carry on as friends and users regardless of our affiliations and beliefs.

I have every intent on doing so.

chango70

@bellwells said:

@chango70 said:

@bellwells said:

You completely missed his point. The Newsweek article is saying we need to elect Obama specifically because he's black, not because of his policies. This is liberal guilt, pure and simple.

No it doesn't! What article are you reading? It says that he EMBODIES change which include the fact that he is of mixed origin but that also including change from the existing trajectory US is on.

LOL...what color is the sky in your world?

Not the same as yours obviously.

Simon B

Penn. goes blue!

solo

tomsdesk

@rickw said:

...with this petty insinuation and your baiting, condescending comments, but you're making it really difficult...

This would be the pot calling the kettle black IMO.

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Propositional fallacies:
Affirming a disjunct: concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true.
Affirming the consequent: the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true. Has the form if A, then B; B, therefore A
Denying the antecedent: the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B

"I now rest my case and return to my day job," turning as he strolls off stage:

RickW

@solo said:

I must admit that this election has me totally side tracked and distracted, I am sorry if my responses have come across as baiting or even offensive. My intent is driven by passion for a candidate I truly believe in.
I have been on the other side in 2004 and my "loose with dignity" was a calous remark as I know how it felt having Bush elected again.

I hope after all of this we all can carry on as friends and users regardless of our affiliations and beliefs.

Ditto that.

Stinkie

@tomsdesk said:

(...) and my cohorts in these discussions might be appalled) at where I stand on that silly graph line concerning issues like crime/punishment, work-ethic/welfare, citizenship/immigration.

lovingly hammers nails through baseball bat

We all friends again? Btw, youngsters, despite our differences, I'm under the impression that the vast majority of the people here are quite prepared to meet eachother in the middle, when the chips are on the table. Which is good.

Democracy, eh? Throw mud first, compromise later. Maybe not the best of approaches - but certainly not the worst either.

tomsdesk

Rick, it's all good...and, intended as an act of reconciliation, please let me explain myself further: Sorry, but I find this recurring theme
@rickw said:

...it's because you misunderstood something I said...
to be
@rickw said:

...petty insinuation...baiting, condescending...
whether justified (or not ). Thus my
@tomsdesk said:

This would be the pot calling the kettle black IMO.
(BTW this falls nicely into that "confusion" of mine as well:
@rickw said:

So, you're asking for the phrase-by-phrase analysis? ...
)

I do admit, though there probably is no need to do so as obvious as it must be, I am more than a little sensitive about the hyjacking of political discourse using truncated sound bites and dissected partial truths autopsied into grossly inacurate generalizations...especially when classic fallacies of logic and rhetoric are employed. But I meant nothing personal, so if my angst improperly implied such, I do appologize.

As for myself, the only thing said that offended me personally, as opposed to my intellegence , were the names called: the looney "liberal" because of the man I chose to be best for these times; and the flaming "left-winger" because of how I apply my personal ethic and morals to the couple of issues discussed here lately. My guess is the callers of such would surprised (and my cohorts in these discussions might be appalled) at where I stand on that silly graph line concerning issues like crime/punishment, work-ethic/welfare, citizenship/immigration.

Oh well, as I said at the beginning: it's all good!

Though this:
@rickw said:

...Ultimate conclusion: the author advocates electing a candidate based on his race so as to bring about "redemption"...
is still an inaccurate conclusion based on the entire article, and unfounded still by your autopsy of the dissected paragraph. IMO

RickW

@tomsdesk said:

@rickw said:

...with this petty insinuation and your baiting, condescending comments, but you're making it really difficult...

This would be the pot calling the kettle black IMO.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I've noticed, though, that most of the time you think I'm after you, it's because you misunderstood something I said, rather than me being on the attack.

@tomsdesk said:

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Propositional fallacies:
Affirming a disjunct: concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true.
Affirming the consequent: the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true. Has the form if A, then B; B, therefore A
Denying the antecedent: the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B

"I now rest my case and return to my day job," turning as he strolls off stage: [attachment=0:18o7p9hz]nyal1.gif[/attachment:18o7p9hz]

Okay, first off - I'm well aware that the inverse of a statement is not necessarily true, but you missed the point: I was clarifying the author's claim.

With that out of the way, the author wrote, "America...will look all the smaller for having failed to redeem itself..." Conclusion: the author thinks America needs to be redeemed.

The author wrote, "America...failed to redeem itself with the election of a young black man..." Conclusion: America can redeem itself by electing Obama.

Ultimate conclusion: the author advocates electing a candidate based on his race so as to bring about "redemption".

[EDIT: Just found [url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/obama.history/index.html:18o7p9hz]this article[/url:18o7p9hz] reinforcing the notion that electing Obama is about racial redemption]

Since Obama won, I guess that means that (in the author's view) America is now magically "redeemed", there's no more racism, and we can all join hands and chase rainbows as we listen to feel-good canned speeches from our skilled orator-in-chief-elect about how the government will solve all our problems.

I'm just sad that I missed my opportunity to market Obama-branded diapers - talk about the change we need. And the diapers that need change are filled with campaign promises (regardless of party affiliation).

RickW

@bellwells said:

This is liberal guilt, pure and simple.

Absolutely right. The instant an election ceases to be about qualified leadership and becomes an issue of national "redemption" or the "triumph of a...minority" is the moment we trade logic for emotion, reason for folly. Hence, the article's quoted paragraph is sheer stupidity. Just like the prepared argument should Obama lose, that it must be because America harbors secret racism.

By the way, chango70 he considers himself "black", so that's how I framed things. I guess you must also hate it when he refers to himself that way...

@unknownuser said:

I was trying to raise myself to be a black man in America, and beyond the given of my appearance, no one around me seemed to know exactly what that meant.
Dreams from My Father, p58
There are tons of other references he makes in his book about himself being "black" - so I suggest you not take it so seriously.

As for "healing"... well, I doubt it. Those who are racist won't suddenly cease to be, and those who aren't don't need "healing".

RickW

@tomsdesk said:

Rick, it's all good...and, intended as an act of reconciliation, please let me explain myself further: Sorry, but I find this recurring theme
@rickw said:

...it's because you misunderstood something I said...
to be
@rickw said:

...petty insinuation...baiting, condescending...
whether justified (or not ). Thus my
@tomsdesk said:

This would be the pot calling the kettle black IMO.
(BTW this falls nicely into that "confusion" of mine as well:
@rickw said:

So, you're asking for the phrase-by-phrase analysis? ...
)

Regarding the misunderstandings: I wasn't trying to blame, but there have clearly been some disconnects between what I said and what you replied with. Whether it was not clear in my writing, or it was emotion surrounding the issue, or something else, well, it's all water under the bridge. But since that last quote was so offensive, I removed it. I put it in there as an attempt at lighthearted humor both because your response had nothing to do with arguing my analysis and because "affirming the consequent" (which you highlighted) is the converse, not the inverse, of a statement.

Statement: If A, then B (assumed to be true)
Converse: If B, then A ("affirming the consequent")
Inverse: If not A, then not B ("denying the antecedent")
Contrapositive: If not B, then not A

@tomsdesk said:

I do admit, though there probably is no need to do so as obvious as it must be, I am more than a little sensitive about the hyjacking of political discourse using truncated sound bites and dissected partial truths autopsied into grossly inacurate generalizations...especially when classic fallacies of logic and rhetoric are employed. But I meant nothing personal, so if my angst improperly implied such, I do appologize.

One more jab, eh? Fine, but it is a strange "act of reconciliation" to apparently label my expression of a view divergent from yours as "hijacking" and any arguments that trumped yours as "fallacies of logic". I constantly research, reference, and link to articles, not to "sound bites." I also showed how my comment related to the issue at large. You're entitled to your opinion, fallacies and all - but I meant nothing personal, so if it came across that way, I too apologize. You may have the last jab. Or, if we're done with jabs, then by all means explain specifically the fallacy in logic.

@tomsdesk said:

As for myself, the only thing said that offended me personally, as opposed to my intellegence , were the names called: the looney "liberal" because of the man I chose to be best for these times; and the flaming "left-winger" because of how I apply my personal ethic and morals to the couple of issues discussed here lately.

Tom, I don't recall ever calling anyone here any names (though I may have stated my opinion of their actions or statements) - it's just not something I do when discussing issues. If you can point to evidence of me calling you a name, I'll gladly retract and offer my most humble apologies. Or perhaps that wasn't directed at me?

@tomsdesk said:

Though this:
@rickw said:

...Ultimate conclusion: the author advocates electing a candidate based on his race so as to bring about "redemption"...
is still an inaccurate conclusion based on the entire article, and unfounded still by your autopsy of the dissected paragraph. IMO

I never claimed my analysis was about the whole article, or even based on the whole article, and that appears to be another example of misunderstanding. I've said several times that my critique was about the referenced paragraph, and it's an accurate conclusion regardless of the whole article. I didn't say the whole article advocated electing Obama because of race (though there are hints of that in other parts of the article), just commenting how the author slipped that into a story that was ostensibly about the world's interest in the election. Unless you can manage to show that the author doesn't claim America needs "redemption" which can happen by electing a "young black man", the analysis stands.

Of course, as I said in a previous post, it's all moot now. We're redeemed, and it's all lollipops and rainbows from here on out, since Obama will now solve all our problems for us.

Peace,

RickW

@unknownuser said:

Obama had the most resources...simple. To claim it has anything to do with "race" is sour grapes.

On the contrary, I watched several videos & read several comments in the MSM (here's one, or just visit the front page of CNN) about how this was vindication for black people, the culmination of decades (or centuries) of struggle, etc. It still is very much about race for a lot of people, whether or not we want to think it is, or whether or not it should be. Does anyone honestly think there would have been record black voter turnout for Hillary Clinton or John Edwards?

Now, I know full well that many voted for him strictly because he wasn't McCain, and for them, they would have voted for a purple-and-green Joe Stalin had he run as a Democrat (race and philosophy are trumped by party affiliation). Plenty of people vote party line, and that's their prerogative.

As for resources, etc. Yes, he had more resources, he had a more simplistic message that appealed to the emotions of the masses, he had a more polished delivery - in short, he was the better campaigner. I knew before the end of the Dem primary race that if it came down to Obama vs McCain, Obama would have to self-destruct to not win.

EDIT: it occurs to me that my reply didn't express the proper appreciation for your last sentence. I, too, greatly value the freedom we have to express our viewpoints, even when (especially when) we (collectively) disagree with each other.

Peace,

GUNAWAN W

[flash=600,400:3h1kr84f]http://www.youtube.com/v/AIiMa2Fe-ZQ&hl=en&fs=1[/flash:3h1kr84f]