White House Speech Writer Turns Violent After 9/11 Questions

I saw the video, and I don't know why people are jumping on the guy for getting angry? If someone was calling me a murderer and harassing me, I think I would have knocked the guy out. Obviously the guy behind the camera would have never listened to reason, he asked him to leave, and he persisted to harass him. I think the guy behind the camera is the idiot in this case, no matter what you believe. No one here can tell me they wouldn't have done the exact same thing in similar circumstances. If you say you wouldn't you'd be lying, the physical confrontation wasn't even a big deal.

double post

[edit on 1-5-2008 by yellowcard]

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
And people wonder why I claim theres a conspiracy against manhood?
What Man would consider what we saw on that ad "assualt"?

A conspiracy against manhood? You have lost me there.

Originally posted by Shazam The UnbowedI would be ashamed of myself, and my society for charging me wiht assualt for such a weak, innefectual, and impotent "assualt"

I think I understand now. That reminds me of those commercials where they claim to know what constitutes "manhood," for the sake of example, to eat a large steak, to drive a pick-up truck, what beer to drink or other notions or precepts that men should live by to remain men.



Raaaaaaar! Now let's go flip a car and eat some Burgers!

And I can see Frum and Howe now...

"Is that all you've got Frum? I'm still standing!"

"I can still hold the camera now man! Still see you!"

"Alright... good blow..."

"Ok... still conscious here... still conscious."

Men of low morality must resort to such violence. As much as I dislike Frum the more I read about him, I still believe that had he the intellect, he could have made Howe look like a fool on his own video. The one thing that makes that video worthwhile is that Frum lost his composure and assaulted Howe which make acts and thoughts of men like Frum predictable and expected and even dangerous when such a man holds a position of power.

I will add that you make some good points in your conspiracy against manhood thread. There are indeed times were violence becomes necessary as in the defense of self, family, constituent and country.


[edit on 1-5-2008 by Alexi Humi]

reply to post by Alexi Humi


That absolutely cracked me up, Alexi, great stuff! STAR!

Yeah, I agree that the camerman was pushy, and annoying, and "wuss-ish"
but Frum lost his cool, when he should've known better. Especially with
a camera rolling! While I understand Frum's frustration, I don't condone
his counter-productive behavior.

When I went to the slammer for assault, the paramedics were helping the
deserving bully regain consciousness, while I was getting processed; and
I asked why all the fuss, he had it coming? They said: "Assault & Battery
is any touching, whatsoever"; "while ASSAULT is any verbal attack, or
implied threat!" So I shut my mouth, to increase my chances of release!

Originally posted by Alexi Humi
I think I understand now.

You don't.

That reminds me of those commercials where they claim to know what constitutes "manhood," for the sake of example, to eat a large steak, to drive a pick-up truck, what beer to drink or other notions or precepts that men should live by to remain men.

appeal to absurdity, followed by ridicule, dressed in sarcasim. A classic way to avoid a substansial resonse.

Raaaaaaar! Now let's go flip a car and eat some Burgers!

Strawman

Men of low morality must resort to such violence.

Strawman

The one thing that makes that video worthwhile is that Frum lost his composure and assaulted Howe which make acts and thoughts of men like Frum predictable and expected and even dangerous when such a man holds a position of power.

Detachment from reality.

I will add that you make some good points in your conspiracy against manhood thread. There are indeed times were violence becomes necessary as in the defense of self, family, constituent and country.

Last ditch appeal to appear moderate.




Bottom line, you adressed no points, attacked myself and the frum without even engaging eithers arguments, and in general tried to use unwarranted hyperbole and asinine absolutism in your reasoning.

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
appeal to absurdity, followed by ridicule, dressed in sarcasim. A classic way to avoid a substansial resonse.

I prefer an attempt at humor. Ridicule would be against the Terms and Conditions. And I do not believe myself to be clever enough for sarcasm. I am usually a good judge of character and thought you would find at least some of what I posted to be laughable. I apologize for my misconcideration.

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
Strawman

The flip the car and eat a burger comment was more general humor and directed at nothing but the concept of "commercial manhood." One can claim to be offended and call it an attack, or ridicule, or sarcasm, but that can not alter the fact that I intended it as humor and nothing more. I believe that your application of the scarecrow fallacy to be incorrect in this instance.

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
Strawman

I have to believe the second straw-man to be inapplicable as well unless you can explain to me how it applies. Are you limiting my definition of violence here? Thank you for bringing the scarecrow arguments once again to my attention. It has been too long since I read-up on these fallacies.

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
Detachment from reality.

I suppose the employment of imagination can be called a detachment from reality. I must imagine a reality where if Frum were to control his temper that the video would be rather uneventful and that it would not have gained so much attention. And I must also empathize with the feelings of ill-tempered men, which might also be considered another detachment from reality, to think and expect them capable of equally ill-tempered acts. This is why I do not willfully attack others: I first try to consider how what I say will make them feel to prevent such a hostile response.

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
Last ditch appeal to appear moderate.

Actually, it was an attempt to show you that I am neither completely against you, nor completely against your ideas.

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
Bottom line, you adressed no points, attacked myself and the frum without even engaging eithers arguments, and in general tried to use unwarranted hyperbole and asinine absolutism in your reasoning.

The Frum, I like that. Sort of like The Fonz. I am not sure what points I was expected to address here; I do not intentionally attack anyone on Above Top Secret as once again it is against the Terms and Conditions; Frum is fair game to me unless he becomes a member here or he finds out where I live , but know that I would never speak outright hate or endorse violence against the man; neither you nor Frum presented any arguments that I can see, and do you know what the rhetorical hyperbole or the belief of moral absolutism is? If I were an absolutist, I would consider an assault to harm and an assault to defend equally objectionable; but, that is not the case as I have clearly stated:

Originally posted by Alexi Humi
There are indeed times were violence becomes necessary as in the defense of self, family, constituent and country.

I will add that man has free will but he is measured by his constituents according to his deportment.