1
   

A new low...even for liberal anti-war protesters

 
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Aug, 2005 02:16 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Okay, DTOM. I think I've addressed this by now. I've promised to not call it "channeling" because it has a smarmy connotation.

How about this: Sheehan thinks she knows what her dead son is thinking? Will that work for everyone?


hah! no. i'm not gonna let you off that easy.. Laughing

not "because it has a smarmy connotation". because calling her activities "channeling" is inaccurate. ***i've explained the difference to you.

now, repeat after me; "sheehan's spiritual conversation with her son is not channelling because they are two different events. and cindy sheehan has never publicly claimed to channel her dead son."


She has claimed to know what he is thinking. Please tell me how she is able to do this if she isn't "channeling."


Shocked ***

"no soup for you ! three days !!"
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Aug, 2005 03:33 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Deb insists I shouldn't bring it up. Shouldn't talk about the fact that Sheehan thinks she's "channelling" her son. The double standard is the leftists think its fine to criticize the President for saying in private he believes he's been called by God to be President (and I discussed the differences in my view between Bush and Sheehan on this subject in my last post to you)



Hafta go to work, so this is the only bit I can deal with now.

I do hope, at some stage, Tico will stop "channeling" me - cos he does it SO inaccurately.


Show me exactly where I said you shouldn't raise that?


What I AM doing is pointing out a tu quoque - that is, you cannot both slime Cindy for allegedly, (but seemingly this is quite inaccurate anyway?) claiming to channel her son, and at the same time have no concern about a president who believe god calls him to kill thousands. You are caught in a logical inconsistency.


They are both claiming some sort of added authority from imaginary friends.

Both imaginary friends are unsusceptible to rational examination or falsifiability.

You like one of them, not the other.

So?


My dwarfy tells me that Bush's god did NOT tell Bush to be president, or that he would be on Bush's side in killing thousands of Iraqis. Actually, my dwarfy tells me that Bush imagines his god. My dwarfy also tells me that the god that Bush erroneously believes tells him stuff (whether in a still small voice, or a raging bellow) said not to kill, and something about turning other cheeks, and not casting first stones. My dwarfy says that, if Bush's god did exist, he would be quite upset about all these folk claiming he is on their side as they disobey his core commandments - in fact, Dwarfy says, this god, did he exist, would be thinking of leaving the universe. cos all these zealots - Muslims, Jews, Christians, are killing each other in his name. He would be quite disgusted if he existed, Dwarfy says. He would, according to Dwarfy - like all the nuts to leave him out of their killing. Go render unto Ceasar, he says - and stop perverting my word - I gave you free will, so take responsibility for yourselves, don't whine to me about helping ANY of you with your slaughters.

So - now we have three imaginary friends, all saying different things.


You can't slime Cindy without sliming your president.

(And my Dwarfy. Oh, and Dwarfy says that Bush's imaginary god says, too, that, just cos he's had to cut down on salt, don't think he can't get mad and do stuff again. He says he's considering turning some of the leaders of this madness into pillars of pepper. And, he wishes they'd stop bothering him with asking him to be on their side - he's got sparrows to watch.)


Go ahead and slime if you must - but we will continue to call you on your lack of logic and your hypocrisy.



[size=7](Hope Craven doesn't mind me using his Dwarf!)[/size]
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Aug, 2005 03:37 pm
sozobe wrote:
Thanks for the exact quote, I've been curious. That's what you're het up about?? Again, I can easily imagine saying something similar about my husband -- I know him very well, I can easily imagine how he would react to any given situation. I don't believe in the afterlife, so that specific part doesn't apply, but the point is clearly that she thinks that he would approve of what she is doing. As his mother, I think she has some basis for assuming she would know what he'd think.



And, whether she does or doesn't have some basis, it is REALLY stretching it to call such a common, if irrational, belief insanity. If you do - tu quoque.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Sep, 2005 07:50 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Okay, DTOM. I think I've addressed this by now. I've promised to not call it "channeling" because it has a smarmy connotation.

How about this: Sheehan thinks she knows what her dead son is thinking? Will that work for everyone?


And you, tico, have a relationship with a man dead 2000 years who is actually part God and you have some clear notions as regards what He may be thinking even if He's thinking it in Ancient Hebrew. Would that work for you?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Sep, 2005 08:31 am
nimh wrote:
The only thing you then wrote to assert how the thing Sheehan said is different - to assert that when she went, "I can just hear him say", it's not just something "some people say" when they talk of a loved one who passed away, but a sign of something potentially more serious, yeah, proof that she needs therapy, was this:

Quote:
But if Sheehan thinks she is having a conversation with her dead son, I think it's an important point to discuss. Don't you?

Thats it. That was the extent of the "huge distinction" you made.


Are you saying you don't see a distinction between someone claiming to know what their dead son is thinking, and someone who says they feel God is leading them to be President? Someone who thinks God intervenes in their daily lives, versus someone who is promoting a political agenda, and in order to further same, tells the world that she can prognosticate what her deceased child would say about the issue?

You may not see the distinction, you may not think it's "huge," but it is very different IMO.


Quote:
Now the problem with that distinction is that you yourself already negated it already in the very same post: ...


But here is where you really start to not follow along ....

nimh wrote:
Tico wrote:
]Frankly, I don't think she hears her dead son talking to her, and I don't think she believes she heard her dead son it talking to her.

Basically, you DONT believe she has conversations with her dead son, but you want us to discuss it anyway because its an important point to discuss if she does.

You're biting yourself in your tail here.


Not at all. As I've said a number of times now (I know I can count on you to go back and count exactly how many -- that's the anal-retentive part of you -- I don't know if she's nuts or just a liar. Either way it's an important point, IMO.

Apparently you think I ought to be able to know whether she is nuts, or a liar, and take a stand on the issue. But I'm afraid I can't live up to that high standard, because I don't know whether she's lying, or crazy. (Just to clarify: I do believe she's a liar, based on other things she's said. I just don't know whether she's lying about knowing what her dead son thinks.)


Quote:
Summarising, your argument now appears to consist of two planks:

1) If a man says, "God told me to do that", thats just something "some people say", a way of speaking if you're religious. (See this post).


Yes.

Quote:
But if a woman says, "I can just hear Frankie say" and "I just know that when I meet Frankie up in heaven, he's gonna say...", then they're "having conversations with a dead man". Which would only to a parser be different from "channeling" a dead person.


Yes ... either that or they're lying.

Quote:
And someone who says something like that is obviously "ripe for therapy".


As I've said, they could just be lying.

Quote:
Now with the man, if folks like him claim "to hear a small voice that guides them", then obviously, you gotta reflect that you "don't know whether they actually hear a voice at all, or are just being pushed and pulled by their consciences."


Exactly.

Quote:
But when the woman talks of feeling that her son is with the angels and they're on her side, then no such benevolent assumptions of metaphor apply: she must literally mean her son is speaking to her.


I never said anything about being concerned that she thinks angels were on her side. She might very well think angels are on her side. She could be so convicted with her cause and think it's right that she truly believes that. If you're going to be so detailed in your analysis of my argument, nimh, the least you can do is be accurate. If you have any doubts about what I've said or believe, you can ask me questions.

nimh wrote:
There's your double standard.


Nope ... no double standard here. People believe they talk to God all the time, even though I don't. And I don't think they're nuts ... others might. People who think their dead children are talking to them ... those are the folks I'm worried about. If you can't see a distinction, I can't help you.

nimh wrote:
Then, the kicker: 2), the resulting assertion of the woman "having conversations with a dead man" is then presented as "an important point to discuss" even though you dont actually believe it yourself.


I absolutely do think it's an important point to discuss. Let's discuss it. Is she nuts or a liar? You start ....
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Sep, 2005 08:36 am
nimh wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
The double standard is the leftists think its fine to criticize the President for saying in private he believes he's been called by God to be President [..] but chastizes the right for pointing out that Sheehan is claiming to have a conversation with her dead son. You don't find that to be a double standard? Huh?

"Huh?", indeed.

Eh, yes, as a matter of fact I do find that to be a double standard. Thought I already said as much, literally (Well, next time I see "the left" doing that, I'll call it on that too, and all that).

But as I already pointed out, your problem here is that none of the many "leftists" here actually made that point, in any of the 32 pages of this thread. You're the only one who applied said double standard here, the other way round, which was remarked upon.


Ahh, well, bullsh*t, nimh. Stroll through the 32 pages of this thread again, mostly here in the last few days, and find how many leftist's posts are critical of me for pointing out that Sheehan thinks she can talk to or hear from her dead son.

nimh wrote:
Circus of the surreal. Deflecting someone who calls you out on a double standard by indignantly accusing him of not speaking up about an equivalent double standard, which wasnt actually used on the thread and that he had actually already rejected.


The problem with your argument here, nimh, is I'd already deflected the double standard charge with a different argument. By saying this, I'd moved on to a new argument, pointing out the always present hypocrisy of the left. In true leftist fashion, you don't want to address the hypocrisy.

nimh wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Y'all doing an awful lot of spinning. "Channeling's okay," "Channeling's a smarmy word," "Talking to a dead relative is okay," "She didn't really mean she was talking to him."

It might help to distinguish between who said what. Just cause Blatham, say, argued something and I argued something else, doesnt mean we are "doing an awful lot of spinning" - we might just be individually making separate arguments that each may well be fully consistent.


It might help, but I can't tell you folks apart sometimes. You've all been piling on me so hard (except for FD of course, Wink ) because you think you smell blood, that I've lumped you all together as "anti-war, anti-Bush Sheehan supporters." As a group, you're very schizophrenic.

nimh wrote:
I, for one, have been arguing the same line consistently here. I think that what she said is something I can imagine a buncha folks saying like that without meaning they believed they were having a literal conversation with a dead man at all. In fact, I've argued it takes a particular malevolent and tunnel-vision perspective to get that out of what she said at all.


Here's the thing, nimh: a buncha folks might say things like that, without meaning they believed they were having a literal conversation with a dead man, but those folks aren't generally saying it to bolster a political argument. Sheehan was trying to say that her dead son Casey is on her side in this. She was trying to speak for him ... to bring him into the discourse of her cause ... to basically proclaim that "my dead son agrees with me, so you should also."

Okay, you think it's perfectly normal for someone to say what Sheehan said. Fine. Great. Goodie for you. I don't, and I'm not alone. Are you suggesting I shouldn't make my thoughts known on this forum?


nimh wrote:
Tico wrote:
Are you suggesting you would ever try and tell someone, "Well, T. would say __________" as a means of furthering your political argument?

Your problem here: thats not what she said. If yer gonna paraphrase her, use the actual quotes like I did, 'k?


Laughing If I used the actual quote, that wouldn't be "paraphrasing," then, would it?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Sep, 2005 08:40 am
dlowan wrote:
Show me exactly where I said you shouldn't raise that?


You have done so very time you have told me I shouldn't "slime" Ms. Sheehan .... and you consider "that" to be "sliming" her.

Quote:
What I AM doing is pointing out a tu quoque - that is, you cannot both slime Cindy for allegedly, (but seemingly this is quite inaccurate anyway?) claiming to channel her son, and at the same time have no concern about a president who believe god calls him to kill thousands. You are caught in a logical inconsistency.


You have still not shown me the basis of your belief that Bush believes God called him to kill thousands. When I asked you to do so, you backed away from that claim, said you hadn't heard of that, and said Bush only said God wanted him to be President.

And there is no logical inconsistency. I've distinguished between the two. Cindy claims to be able to know what her dead son is thinking, and announces that to the world to further her political agenda. I find that important.

If you think it's important that Bush told someone in private that he thinks God wants him to be President, THEN BY ALL MEANS MAKE A POST ABOUT IT. In the future, watch how quickly I accuse you of "sliming," and remind you of your criticism of me in this thread.

Quote:
They are both claiming some sort of added authority from imaginary friends.

Both imaginary friends are unsusceptible to rational examination or falsifiability.

You like one of them, not the other.

So?


That's right ... and you don't believe in either one. I know you think Bush is kooky ... do you think Sheehan is too? Or do you think she's a liar?


Quote:
So - now we have three imaginary friends, all saying different things.


You go right ahead and talk with your imaginary friend.


Quote:
You can't slime Cindy without sliming your president.


No, I'll leave the sliming of my President to you and your friends.

Quote:
Go ahead and slime if you must - but we will continue to call you on your lack of logic and your hypocrisy.


You do that, because I assure you I'll do the same to you (and your friends).
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Sep, 2005 08:41 am
dlowan wrote:
sozobe wrote:
Thanks for the exact quote, I've been curious. That's what you're het up about?? Again, I can easily imagine saying something similar about my husband -- I know him very well, I can easily imagine how he would react to any given situation. I don't believe in the afterlife, so that specific part doesn't apply, but the point is clearly that she thinks that he would approve of what she is doing. As his mother, I think she has some basis for assuming she would know what he'd think.



And, whether she does or doesn't have some basis, it is REALLY stretching it to call such a common, if irrational, belief insanity. If you do - tu quoque.


I already have said she may not be insane .. she might just be a liar. It appears you're leaning towards that conclusion?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Sep, 2005 08:46 am
blatham wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Okay, DTOM. I think I've addressed this by now. I've promised to not call it "channeling" because it has a smarmy connotation.

How about this: Sheehan thinks she knows what her dead son is thinking? Will that work for everyone?


And you, tico, have a relationship with a man dead 2000 years who is actually part God and you have some clear notions as regards what He may be thinking even if He's thinking it in Ancient Hebrew. Would that work for you?


If you try asking your question again, this time in such a way that it makes sense, I'll try and respond.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Sep, 2005 09:36 am
Why do you guys even bother responding anymore to these posts? Isn't it obvious that if he claimed dogshit was pumpkin pie, and you took a big steaming turd fresh from your own dog's ass and shoved it down his throat, he'd say, "Mmmmm, that's good pumpkin pie! Can I have some more!?"
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Sep, 2005 10:42 am
kickycan wrote:
Why do you guys even bother responding anymore to these posts? Isn't it obvious that if he claimed dogshit was pumpkin pie, and you took a big steaming turd fresh from your own dog's ass and shoved it down his throat, he'd say, "Mmmmm, that's good pumpkin pie! Can I have some more!?"


Naah. I just like pointing out that Cindy Sheehan appears to be a slightly unstable person pushed over the edge by the death of her son, looking for someone to blame, who's morphed into a politically motivated, manipulated, lying tool of the anti-war left, who believes that Israel is the cause of all terrorism in the world, all Islamic terrorists are "freedom fighters," and she doesn't have to pay taxes anymore because her son died. That's all.

I'm not that big a fan of pumpkin pie.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Sep, 2005 10:45 am
Just so I have understood this correctly Tico, are you saying Israel is (NOT) the cause of all terrorism in the world? Ok if that's true what are the other causes of terrorism in the world?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Sep, 2005 12:26 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Just so I have understood this correctly Tico, are you saying Israel is (NOT) the cause of all terrorism in the world? Ok if that's true what are the other causes of terrorism in the world?


Terrorists. They're the cause of ALL terrorism in the world.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Sep, 2005 12:33 pm
Really Tico, I'm just trying to get a clear understanding here, are there, or not, Israeli terrorists?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Sep, 2005 05:18 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Really Tico, I'm just trying to get a clear understanding here, are there, or not, Israeli terrorists?


Yes,there are Israeli terrorists.
Are you suggesting that they are state traioned and sponsored?

There are Egyptian terrorists,French Terrorists,Mexican terrorists,Canadian terrorists,English terrorists,American terrorists,etc.

Every country on earth has terrorists,are you suggesting that they are all state trained and funded?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Sep, 2005 07:47 pm
Ticomaya wrote:

I have said I know she's anti-Israel .. she is therefore anti-Zionism. Because of that I have concluded she's anti-Jewish. You don't agree, and I don't care.


You should grab this as your new signature line, Tico. It so wonderfully encapsulates you and your unique ideas.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Sep, 2005 07:49 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You don't care that your position is logically fallacious?

Cycloptichorn


No, I don't.


I think you've just trumped that last signature line, Tico. Lawyer, are you? Pillar of your community, um?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2005 08:10 am
JTT wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You don't care that your position is logically fallacious?

Cycloptichorn


No, I don't.


I think you've just trumped that last signature line, Tico. Lawyer, are you? Pillar of your community, um?


Back trolling, I see.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2005 06:57 pm
Ticomaya wrote:

Back trolling, I see.


Skimming, Tico, skimming. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/22/2025 at 03:38:28