Who's embarrassed by Joe Biden?

[LorenzoValla]

C
PS: Bush/Cheney killed way more people than Obama.

And by your twisted logic, that means Obama is a good guy and Cheney is forever a villain. Stop sometime and think about the real loss of human lives and stop picking sides to defend or demonize and instead think about the real victims.

 

[The Big Dog]

I think all that overlap is legitimate thread drift. The 50% posting rate on whether one person's drift was a derail or a tu quoque as much as the other person's has been the problem.

I'd say creepiness in politicos is a fair topic. I listed both Dems and Repubs who were embarrassing in their Veep roles. And as I said above, if we try to make it less partisan, some people can admit that people they might cheer for because of the banner they're running under may just have an "ick factor" that embarrasses you or makes you uncomfortable.

Thread drift? The third and fourth posts were thread jacks about Cheney.

Further, if you think that pointing out logical fallacies is a "problem" on Skeptical site, I am not certain that you are going to attract much support for that position.

 

[Upchurch]

I am, even though I have never supported him to be anything other than a side kick for a late night talk show host. Would the media handle things differently if he were a Republican? I think so.

Is there a reason this portion of the OP would be considered off-topic?

 

[WildCat]

It's not a war crime to kill innocent civilians outside of a declared war zone, repeatedly???

Of course you don't think so, which is why the entire notion of a 'war crime' is a farce.

What "declared war zone" are you talking about? And were "innocent civilians" the target or were there military targets that happened to have civilians in them?

 

[Tricky]

now you are just being silly! a tu quoque is an ad hom! (although not all ad homs are tu quoque)

No, actually it's not necessarily. If the topic is what someone did, then saying that someone else also did it is no more an ad hom than the original topic. Still a logical fallacy, but not the one you're calling it.

However, since the original post compared how Biden was being treated versus how Republican vice presidents are being treated (or would be treated), it's really pretty much on topic and not even a tu quoque. The OP is inviting posters to compare and contrast.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Thread drift? The third and fourth posts were thread jacks about Cheney.

Further, if you think that pointing out logical fallacies is a "problem" on Skeptical site, I am not certain that you are going to attract much support for that position.

Yes, "thread drift". See the OP? See where the OP asks if Biden would be treated differently if he were Republican?

How do you propose one answers that without comparing, say, Republican VPs and their treatment in the media (the specific point in the OP) or the rush of partisans to defend a GOP Veep or willingness to overlook his/her embarrassment quotient.

So, yeah. Legitimate Thread Drift.

And pointing out logical fallacies is fine. Inaccurately calling "Ooooh! Logical Fallacy!" because someone disagrees with you is not quite the same thing. Countering with "Is not!" "Is too!" "You're wrong!" "Am not!" is totally non-productive.

 

[Tony Stark]

It's not a war crime to kill innocent civilians outside of a declared war zone, repeatedly??

It is a war crime to intentionally target civilians. Have you got evidence that Obama does this?

Of course you don't think so, which is why the entire notion of a 'war crime' is a farce.

That there is such a thing as war crimes is just a fact; they are defined in both international and national law.

And by your twisted logic, that means Obama is a good guy and Cheney is forever a villain.

At the very least, Cheney is the much worse guy.

Stop sometime and think about the real loss of human lives and stop picking sides to defend or demonize and instead think about the real victims.

It may be an uncomfortable fact for you that Cheney is responsible for more deaths than an perhaps any living person but it is still a fact.

 

[plague311]

I just don't understand why I have to be embarrassed by him. He isn't my father or anything. It's not like I had a choice as to what VP Obama happened to run with, it was kind of a package deal.

Unless...****, have I been missing out on just a VP election?

 

[Foolmewunz]

I just don't understand why I have to be embarrassed by him. He isn't my father or anything. It's not like I had a choice as to what VP Obama happened to run with, it was kind of a package deal.

Unless...****, have I been missing out on just a VP election?

I think "embarrassment" would come from being an unconditional partisan. I've never been particularly devoted to Biden, but he has certain credentials I admire/approve of. But the fact that he acts like that auntie who always smelled of violet scented toilet water and made me kiss her doesn't embarrass me, necessarily, because he's not someone I need to defend or make excuses for. If I was a blatant Democratic Party supporting hack, I might find it embarrassing that my side had a "funny uncle appearing dude" in one of the highest posts in the land. But my expectations for the DP are slightly higher than those for the GOP, but not by much. They're all politicians. When they start voting with the creepiness factor, I'll care. Until then, I'm concerned with what programs they support and don't support.

We do have a couple of unconditional DP supporters on these forums, so maybe they'll weigh in, 'though I doubt it. That's a much more common phenomenon in GOP supporters.

 

[LorenzoValla]

What "declared war zone" are you talking about? And were "innocent civilians" the target or were there military targets that happened to have civilians in them?

You could always read the link I posted.

 

[LorenzoValla]

It is a war crime to intentionally target civilians. Have you got evidence that Obama does this?



That there is such a thing as war crimes is just a fact; they are defined in both international and national law.



At the very least, Cheney is the much worse guy.



It may be an uncomfortable fact for you that Cheney is responsible for more deaths than an perhaps any living person but it is still a fact.

I'm not defending Cheney. You're defending Obama. That's the difference. Cheney supported torture and you go crazy. Obama kills thousands and you complain about Cheney...

And, yes, Obama intentionally killed civilians. Drone strikes are intentional.

 

[Tony Stark]

I'm not defending Cheney. You're defending Obama. That's the difference. Cheney supported torture and you go crazy. Obama kills thousands and you complain about Cheney...

Torture is without doubt a war crime. Both under US and internationl law. Killing your war enemies is not.

And, yes, Obama intentionally killed civilians. Drone strikes are intentional.

If the intended targets are civilians, it is definitely a war crime. Feel free to prove that the intended tragets of Obama drone strikes are civilians.

 

[Upchurch]

And by your twisted logic, that means Obama is a good guy and Cheney is forever a villain. Stop sometime and think about the real loss of human lives and stop picking sides to defend or demonize and instead think about the real victims.

No. Cheney is a villain for many reasons, but primarily because of his past and current advocacy of torture, which has no rational justification save for, perhaps, revenge, and I question whether that is rational or irrational.

 

[varwoche]

It has always amused me that the same people who got the vapors at the notion of Sarah Palin being a heartbeat away from the presidency seem to think Joe Biden is well-qualified.

You've got to be kidding. Biden had a heavy weight resume -- decades in the senate, chairman of foreign relations, chairman of judiciary, etc. Verbal gaffes notwithstanding, he's actually knowledgeable. This is in stark contrast to Palin, who makes Dan Quayle appear to be Mt. Rushmore worthy.

Also, I give Biden credit for being the lone voice in 2008 advocating that Iraq be partitioned.

 

[Wolrab]

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18381961/ns/meet_the_press/t/mtp-transcript-april/#.VO24QS4YEo0

SEN. BIDEN: Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued—they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them, who knows? The real mystery is, if he, if he didn’t have any of them left, why didn’t he say so? Well, a lot of people say if he had said that, he would’ve, you know, emboldened Iran and so on and so forth.

To blame the Bush administration for everything related to inteligence on WMDs is disingenuous at best.

 

[Tricky]

You've got to be kidding. Biden had a heavy weight resume -- decades in the senate, chairman of foreign relations, chairman of judiciary, etc. Verbal gaffes notwithstanding, he's actually knowledgeable. This is in stark contrast to Palin, who makes Dan Quayle appear to be Mt. Rushmore worthy.

Also, I give Biden credit for being the lone voice in 2008 advocating that Iraq be partitioned.

It was also he, not Obama, who suggested that we should stop discriminating against LGBT marriage. That really turned the tide of public opinion.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yes, "thread drift". See the OP? See where the OP asks if Biden would be treated differently if he were Republican?

How do you propose one answers that without comparing, say, Republican VPs and their treatment in the media (the specific point in the OP) or the rush of partisans to defend a GOP Veep or willingness to overlook his/her embarrassment quotient.

So, yeah. Legitimate Thread Drift.

And pointing out logical fallacies is fine. Inaccurately calling "Ooooh! Logical Fallacy!" because someone disagrees with you is not quite the same thing. Countering with "Is not!" "Is too!" "You're wrong!" "Am not!" is totally non-productive.

As long as the thread doesn't drift below the waistline. Same goes for Joe Biden! Queensberry rules apply!

Which reminds me, I need to call into a radio station and dedicate a Radiohead song to Biden. I wonder which one I should pick?

 

[sunmaster14]

It was also he, not Obama, who suggested that we should stop discriminating against LGBT marriage. That really turned the tide of public opinion.

Honestly, I have always thought that that "gaffe" had been pre-planned by the administration. Perhaps I have given them too much credit.

 

[sunmaster14]

Is there a reason this portion of the OP would be considered off-topic?

Discussing what the media treatment of Biden would look like if he had horns and a tail (i.e. was Republican) is certainly on topic, as is discussing media treatment of other Republicans who have made similarly egregious gaffes. I'm not sure that discussing how bad other Republicans have been, without the media context, is on topic, though. It's either off topic, or a tu quoque.

I for one would love to discuss the media treatment of Dan Quayle. I think he was nowhere near as dumb or as inexperienced as the media led the public to believe. Even the "potatoe" incident was hyped beyond belief, and it wasn't even his fault. Even some of his own, self-deprecating jokes about his alleged stupidity became evidence for his own stupidity. He was treated very poorly. In contrast, Biden's gaffes are treated as almost charming.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Discussing what the media treatment of Biden would look like if he had horns and a tail (i.e. was Republican) is certainly on topic, as is discussing media treatment of other Republicans who have made similarly egregious gaffes. I'm not sure that discussing how bad other Republicans have been, without the media context, is on topic, though. It's either off topic, or a tu quoque.

I for one would love to discuss the media treatment of Dan Quayle. I think he was nowhere near as dumb or as inexperienced as the media led the public to believe. Even the "potatoe" incident was hyped beyond belief, and it wasn't even his fault. Even some of his own, self-deprecating jokes about his alleged stupidity became evidence for his own stupidity. He was treated very poorly. In contrast, Biden's gaffes are treated as almost charming.

Thank you for clarification. I will withdraw from the thread as I see no value in further participation.