I'm not sure the McCain campaign is quite slimy enough

[Upchurch]

I am not sure the Obama campaign wants to use this tact...given that Byrd has endorsed Obama, Obama and Biden are both also proud members of this organization, as well as another one with Byrd (Democratic Party), and Biden has been a member of the organization the longest....

I do wish people would use smilies more when they are joking. I can't tell if you are serious or not.

 

[Augustine]

I do wish people would use smilies more when they are joking. I can't tell if you are serious or not.

Sorry, joking as I assume the original poster was. Can't take politics too seriously, we all have to come together at the end of the day....

 

[Ziggurat]

If it is, the answer is, "not close at all". That should have been the end of it.

That's the answer you have concluded. It is not the answer others have arrived at. Why is this disagreement unacceptable?

Without getting into a big discussion of what "terrorism" means, I don't think it has been established that Ayers is a terrorist sympathizer either.

Except that he said in 2001 that he didn't regret setting those bombs.

No, it is not. It so happened that they both chose to do some charity work and wound up on the same board together. That's about as circumstantial as you can get.

That was not the only contact between them.

Did they seek each other out to join this board together?

Ayers rather definitely sought out Obama when he hosted a coffee for Obama's first run for political office.

To me, that paints the picture of a man who still thinks the Vietnam war was a horrible mistake (as I do) and regrets that he couldn't do more to stop it (as I do), but not a man who would now commit terrorist acts.

Why is it that you didn't argue that Ayers is a man who regretted ever having committed terrorism in the past as well? Perhaps because he isn't.

He is a respected and highly honored college professor.

But he shouldn't be. And not just because of his unrepentant terrorist past, but because even today he advocates a version of radical leftist "reform" that seeks to replace education with ideological indoctrination.

Do you think he is a threat to America? Seriously?

I don't think he's a current security threat. But if you think he's not seeking to do harm to America, you aren't paying attention to what he is doing.

 

[Ziggurat]

What I'm doing is comparing associating someone who doesn't share some of my values with associating someone who doesn't share some of Obama's values.

And that comparison is valid because all values are equivalent - if they are not, then the comparison is meaningless.

If you must criticize everything I say, please try to at least understand it before you do so. If you don't understand what I'm trying to get across, just ask. I'd be happy to clarify.

I very much get the logic of your argument. It appears that you do not.

 

[Upchurch]

That's the answer you have concluded. It is not the answer others have arrived at.

Sorry, but what others?

Except that he said in 2001 that he didn't regret setting those bombs.

That would have been from this article.

Four days after that article was published, Ayers wrote this:

Just as clearly Dinitia Smith was interested in her journalistic angle and not the truth. This is not a question of being misunderstood or “taken out of context,” but of deliberate distortion.

So, did he say he didn't regret setting those bombs?

 

[Upchurch]

I very much get the logic of your argument. It appears that you do not.

So, you understand what I'm saying, but I don't? The thing I say I'm saying is not what I'm saying?

Is that correct?

 

[Augustine]

Four days after that article was published, Ayers wrote this:

So, did he say he didn't regret setting those bombs?

Where does he say he regrets setting bombs?

I wrote about Vietnamese lives as a personal American responsibility, then, and the hypocrisy of claiming an American innocence as we constructed and stoked an intricate and hideous chamber of death in Asia. Clearly I wrote and spoke about the export of violence and the government’s love affair with bombs. Just as clearly Dinitia Smith was interested in her journalistic angle and not the truth. This is not a question of being misunderstood or “taken out of context,” but of deliberate distortion.
Some readers apparently responded to her piece, published on the same day as the vicious terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, by associating my book with them. This is absurd. My memoir is from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism, of the indiscriminate murder of human beings, whether driven by fanaticism or official policy. It begins literally in the shadow of Hiroshima and comes of age in the killing fields of Southeast Asia. My book criticizes the American obsession with a clean and distanced violence, and the culture of thoughtlessness and carelessness that results from it. We are now witnessing crimes against humanity in our own land on an unthinkable scale, and I fear that we might soon see innocent people in other parts of the world as well as in the U.S. dying and suffering in response.

It seems like he has a lot to say condemning US actions in Vietnam, and that "bombing", but I don't see anything in that letter where he expresses regret for HIS bombing activities as a Weatherman. Please point me to the passage where you think he does that.

(And again, just to emphasize: when Ayers condemns terrorism, he is not condemning his past actions, because he has said that he does not consider himself a terrorist.)

 

[Upchurch]

Where does he say he regrets setting bombs?

I dunno. My question wasn't whether he said he regrets setting bombs. My question was did he say he didn't regret setting those bombs.

Zig seems to think he did, I'm guessing, based on the NY Times article. Ayers himself says the piece was a deliberate distortion. Who do we believe?

 

[Morrigan]

What do you mean, "even if"? Are you trying to deny that that's exactly what you just did?

Except, he already denied it:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4110764#post4110764

You need a sense of humour.

 

[Ziggurat]

So, you understand what I'm saying, but I don't?

Your comparison requires that Christians view atheism the same way that most of us regard terrorism, otherwise it makes no sense. So either you think that such disagreements are equivalent, or you do not think so but are willing to put forward dishonest arguments, or you simply don't have much of a clue about the logical requirements of the argument you put forward. I have concluded that the third option is correct. I concede that I may be wrong on that point, either of the other two options is entirely possible.

 

[Augustine]

I dunno. My question wasn't whether he said he regrets setting bombs. My question was did he say he didn't regret setting those bombs.

Zig seems to think he did, I'm guessing, based on the NY Times article. Ayers himself says the piece was a deliberate distortion. Who do we believe?

Well, in addition to the NYT piece, there was the article "No Regrets" in Chicago magazine which came out in August 2001:

This—violence, death, and white-hot rhetoric—is his past and Ayers insists he has no regrets. "I acted appropriately in the context of those times," he says.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/

Who do you believe? Do you think William Ayers regrets his actions, and what is the foundation of that belief? (And if you believe he does, why do journalists deliberately distort him on this?)

 

[Ziggurat]

I dunno. My question wasn't whether he said he regrets setting bombs. My question was did he say he didn't regret setting those bombs.

Perhaps he did not. Funny thing, though: even in his response to supposedly correct this false NYT article, he can't bring himself to say that he does regret his terrorism. So he's denying the NYT portrayal, but he doesn't actually contradict it. That's what is sometimes referred to as a "non-denial denial".

In fact, reading what he wrote, it's easy to come away with the impression that he does NOT regret his actions. He decries far-off ad impersonalized violence as being soul-destroying, but says nothing about immediate and tangible violence he supported. He decries the 9/11 attacks but hopes that they transform society in the exact same way that he tried to transform society through violence in the 1960's. He says, "My memoir is from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism, of the indiscriminate murder of human beings," but of course, his terrorist actions weren't indiscriminate. Rather, he says, "in light of the indiscriminate murder of millions of Vietnamese, we showed remarkable restraint". About the closest he gets to describing his own actions is to characterize them as "the complex, sometimes extreme and despairing choices I made in those terrible times." Nothing about regrets, and nothing about those choices actually being wrong.

I stand by my charge that he is unrepentant.

 

[Upchurch]

Your comparison requires that Christians view atheism the same way that most of us regard terrorism, otherwise it makes no sense.

Whether my comparison requires it or not is debatable.

Do you doubt that there are Christians or, specifically, St. Louis Catholics who consider atheists to be threatening?

So either you think that such disagreements are equivalent,

What do you mean by equivalent?

Do I think they exactly the same in form and degree in all ways? No, obviously not or else I wouldn't have used a metaphor. I would have simply described the situation because that is the only thing the exactly equivalent. Anything else would not have been equvalent.

I used a metaphor that was similar in some respect to illustrate the point I was making. That's what metaphors are, after all. Since you understand the logic of my argument, perhaps you can tell me what the point I was trying to illustrate with that particular metaphor?

 

[DavidJames]

McCain and his supporters realize they have failed. McCain is unable to generate enough enthusiasm for his policies so he is trying to drag down Obama. We should not be surprised that his supporters are equally shallow and cynical.

This should not be about Ayers, but when your quiver is empty, scruples and honesty are the casualties.

 

[a_unique_person]

So, you understand what I'm saying, but I don't? The thing I say I'm saying is not what I'm saying?

Is that correct?

Happens here from time to time.

 

[Upchurch]

He says, "My memoir is from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism, of the indiscriminate murder of human beings," but of course, his terrorist actions weren't indiscriminate.

Really? Where did he say that?

About the closest he gets to describing his own actions is to characterize them as "the complex, sometimes extreme and despairing choices I made in those terrible times." Nothing about regrets, and nothing about those choices actually being wrong.

I'm not sure how "despairing" does not suggest "regret", but actually he did talk about regrets:

I said I had a thousand regrets, but no regrets for opposing the war with every ounce of my strength.

It seems to me that he believes in his cause and has no regrets about that. The rest he doesn't specify. He mentions choices he despaired over and a thousand regrets. Those may include the bombings. That he eventually turned himself in suggests that it might.

I stand by my charge that he is unrepentant.

Based on what? Has he continued to bomb domestic targets? Has he counciled others to do so?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Say, what about Ms. Palin traipsing, cavorting, and (gosh darn it) sleeping with a person who associated with a group which advocated seceding from the Union? Or is that apples and orangutans?

 

[Ziggurat]

Really? Where did he say that?

He didn't explicitly say that, but read what he did write, see what he talks about when he talks about "indiscriminate" killing by the US military, and you'll see that his own actions don't fit the description.

I'm not sure how "despairing" does not suggest "regret", but actually he did talk about regrets:

No, he mentions that he has regrets. He doesn't say what they are, nor that his terrorist actions are among those regrets.

He mentions choices he despaired over and a thousand regrets. Those may include the bombings.

They might. But it's curious that in a letter supposedly sent to correct the impression given by the NYT article, he doesn't explicitly say so, since that would be a direct refutation of the NYT article.

Based on what?

On the fact that he hasn't repented. Hence, unrepentant.

 

[Ziggurat]

Say, what about Ms. Palin traipsing, cavorting, and (gosh darn it) sleeping with a person who associated with a group which advocated seceding from the Union? Or is that apples and orangutans?

Did they advocate doing so via the ballot box, or via armed insurrection? I believe it was the former, which does indeed make it an apples and oragutans comparison. Having stupid beliefs is not equivalent to having evil beliefs.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do I think they exactly the same in form and degree in all ways? No, obviously not or else I wouldn't have used a metaphor.

Um... you didn't use a metaphor. That was an analogy. No wonder you couldn't figure out its logic.

I used a metaphor that was similar in some respect to illustrate the point I was making.

Analogies (not metaphors) don't work merely because they're similar in some respect. They need to be similar in the important and relevant respect. And the analogy you made is not, because Christians do not view atheism the way most of us view terrorism.