Not that funny, but I agree.lowing wrote:
LMAO!! Foxnews is racist. .
Gunna have to point out where I said I want to remove MLK's contributions from the civil rights movement.Pug wrote:
Umm...you arguing to remove his contribution based on his indiscretions? Aka changing history no?
In fact my argument has been his actions have nothing to do with the civil rights movement. It is true however, that his actions reflect his character, and that character does not relect well as the leader of a noble cause such as the civil rights movement or as a preacher. Your contention that his character as the leader of such a movement is irrelevant. I disagree, and not just for MLK but for any leader of any cause. Credibilty is paramount and although his character does nothing to render that just cause as wrong, it surely would have been a destraction to that effort if this news had broken while he was in the middle of that struggle..As I said and you ignore, if he was a muderer, he still would be a murderer regardless if he ushered in civil rights or not.
Last edited by lowing (2010-07-27 17:40:59)
Then maybe you could can elaborate on what I posted then. Not that I expected an sort of rational response, (and I see I was right) but please give it a shot.13/f/taiwan wrote:
Not that funny, but I agree.lowing wrote:
LMAO!! Foxnews is racist. .
I understand what you are saying, but I'm not giving the guy a free pass. It's a matter of whether the good outweighs the bad.lowing wrote:
Gunna have to point out where I said I want to remove MLK's contributions from the civil rights movement.Pug wrote:
Umm...you arguing to remove his contribution based on his indiscretions? Aka changing history no?
In fact my argument has been his actions have nothing to do with the civil rights movement. It is true however, that his actions reflect his character, and that character does not relect well as the leader of a noble cause such as the civil rights movement or as a preacher. Your contention that his character as the leader of such a movement is irrelevant. I disagree, and not just for MLK but for any leader of any cause. Credibilty is paramount and although his character does nothing to render that just cause as wrong, it surely would have been a destraction to that effort if this news had broken while he was in the middle of that struggle..As I said and you ignore, if he was a muderer, he still would be a murderer regardless if he ushered in civil rights or not.
A public figure is someone who has very little left in terms of a private life. Aka, the problems aren't buried, they are part of public record.
My focus is this:
...a person BECOMES a public figure by holding office or becoming pervasively involved in public affairs.
Aka, being pervasively involved in public affairs becomes an integral part of the person. If you want to argue that his civil rights activity should be a separately judged, then MLK is NO LONGER a public figure.
So then the question is whether the good stuff outweighs the bad. Which is why it is impossible for you to win this debate.
The second part of the equation is whether the authority exists to change the dynamic (or history). The authority doesn't exist at the current time to change anything for MLK...so it's not a double standard because of the above regarding the inability to separate a public figure into "the good" and "the bad"...you have to judge "the whole".
I'm still not quite getting why you care...it does little good. So I apologize if I think its because you want his work to be shit. I don't think you can get any closer than actually stating it. You might be self righteous, but I tend to believe its a bad idea to use the same argument the Klan makes...whether your intention is race related or not.
Aka, why perpetuate an argument most racists make if your intention isn't racist?
Last edited by Pug (2010-07-28 08:00:23)
lol huh?Pug wrote:
I understand what you are saying, but I'm not giving the guy a free pass. It's a matter of whether the good outweighs the bad.lowing wrote:
Gunna have to point out where I said I want to remove MLK's contributions from the civil rights movement.Pug wrote:
Umm...you arguing to remove his contribution based on his indiscretions? Aka changing history no?
In fact my argument has been his actions have nothing to do with the civil rights movement. It is true however, that his actions reflect his character, and that character does not reflect well as the leader of a noble cause such as the civil rights movement or as a preacher. Your contention that his character as the leader of such a movement is irrelevant. I disagree, and not just for MLK but for any leader of any cause. Credibility is paramount and although his character does nothing to render that just cause as wrong, it surely would have been a distraction to that effort if this news had broken while he was in the middle of that struggle..As I said and you ignore, if he was a murderer, he still would be a murderer regardless if he ushered in civil rights or not.
A public figure is someone who has very little left in terms of a private life. Aka, the problems aren't buried, they are part of public record.
My focus is this:
...a person BECOMES a public figure by holding office or becoming pervasively involved in public affairs.
Aka, being pervasively involved in public affairs becomes an integral part of the person. If you want to argue that his civil rights activity should be a separately judged, then MLK is NO LONGER a public figure.
So then the question is whether the good stuff outweighs the bad. Which is why it is impossible for you to win this debate.
The second part of the equation is whether the authority exists to change the dynamic (or history). The authority doesn't exist at the current time to change anything for MLK...so it's not a double standard because of the above regarding the inability to separate a public figure into "the good" and "the bad"...you have to judge "the whole".
I'm still not quite getting why you care...it does little good. So I apologize if I think its because you want his work to be shit. I don't think you can get any closer than actually stating it. You might be self righteous, but I tend to believe its a bad idea to use the same argument the Klan makes...whether your intention is race related or not.
Aka, why perpetuate an argument most racists make if your intention isn't racist?
bottom line.......The civil rights movement is a noble cause. no argument
MLK is a piece of shit, he is a cheater a liar, a thief, a womanizer and an adulterer.
Just because he worked in a noble cause does not automatically make the man noble.
My argument started when Dilbert asserted MLK is a private citizen ( he was not) and should be left alone. I then quoted a contradictory post he made about another public figure ( it just so happened to be Sarah Palin). So naturally those that choose to ignore this contradiction did so by focusing on some bullshit accomplishment comparison between MLK and Palin This has never been the case or the argument.
My intention is not racist, my intention is to call out racial double standards and have them explained with a certain amount of logic. Something I am still waiting for by the way.
To be called a racist for pointing out these double standards does nothing except prove my point that it can not be argued against rationally or reasonably, therefore the race card must be played to throw the debate into a smoke screeded redirected trajectory away from the real issue.
Something you all are masters at doing
You want to judge MLK separate from his civil rights activity.
You cannot because it is an integral part of who he is.
How hard is that to understand?
You cannot because it is an integral part of who he is.
How hard is that to understand?
Gotta disagree, since he was a liar, and adulterer, a thief, a cheat, a womanizer, and a plagiarizer, BEFORE the civil rights movement, as well as DURING the civil rights movement, It is then an easy assumption that his character was well defined prior to the civil rights movement.Pug wrote:
You want to judge MLK separate from his civil rights activity.
You cannot because it is an integral part of who he is.
How hard is that to understand?
What you speak of is his image, and not his character, and that image has been proven to be a lie, regardless if anyone chooses to accept it or not.
Okay, I'm repeating this so perhaps you'll understand:
If you remove the activity which made MLK a public figure, he ceases to be a public figure. Which means as a private citizen he is afforded certain rights which include the right to privacy. BUT you are arguing the division AND no right to privacy, coupled with "why isn't he treated the same"? Well, it's because you specifically have made MLK a special treatment case. This is why you fail.
The second option is you include the facts within the whole of the individual's life which made them a public figure. The question is whether the indiscretions are major enough to ruin the work. I have absolutely no idea where you are getting the "wah wah wah special treatment" from this concept.
Good luck.
If you remove the activity which made MLK a public figure, he ceases to be a public figure. Which means as a private citizen he is afforded certain rights which include the right to privacy. BUT you are arguing the division AND no right to privacy, coupled with "why isn't he treated the same"? Well, it's because you specifically have made MLK a special treatment case. This is why you fail.
The second option is you include the facts within the whole of the individual's life which made them a public figure. The question is whether the indiscretions are major enough to ruin the work. I have absolutely no idea where you are getting the "wah wah wah special treatment" from this concept.
Good luck.
Ok I am repeating my self so you understand....MLK is a piece of shit based on his character, NOT his image. He became a publid figure when he stsrted preaching to the public, the only difference is how big the public was at the time.Pug wrote:
Okay, I'm repeating this so perhaps you'll understand:
If you remove the activity which made MLK a public figure, he ceases to be a public figure. Which means as a private citizen he is afforded certain rights which include the right to privacy. BUT you are arguing the division AND no right to privacy, coupled with "why isn't he treated the same"? Well, it's because you specifically have made MLK a special treatment case. This is why you fail.
The second option is you include the facts within the whole of the individual's life which made them a public figure. The question is whether the indiscretions are major enough to ruin the work. I have absolutely no idea where you are getting the "wah wah wah special treatment" from this concept.
Good luck.
If a preacher today did the same exact thing and got caught, he gets national attention, he then is a public figure nationally and not just locally.
His image is what you are speaking of when you speak of the civil rights movement. It is a false image since as stated before his character has already been defined. If hte civil the civli rights movement had never happened MLK would be a piece of shit, since it had happened, nothing has changed he is still a piece of shit.
You are confusing image with character. His image is a lie, his character had long been established.
Actually preachers are not public figures until they have a large following. I've taught a class at school...am I a public figure? Nice try
As far as "if a preacher today did the same exact thing and got caught" - rewriting history again. Nice try. Yet IT IS part of his legacy...and what is happening again? Oh...nothing. I'm telling you why nothing is happening.
If the civil rights movement never happened...he wouldn't be a public figure and rewriting history again. Nice try
I am not confusing image with character. The definition of a public figure is image and character are the same. Aka all personal traits of a public figure are the public domain, there is no privacy. Therefore character is part of the image of a public figure and vice versa.
As far as "if a preacher today did the same exact thing and got caught" - rewriting history again. Nice try. Yet IT IS part of his legacy...and what is happening again? Oh...nothing. I'm telling you why nothing is happening.
If the civil rights movement never happened...he wouldn't be a public figure and rewriting history again. Nice try
I am not confusing image with character. The definition of a public figure is image and character are the same. Aka all personal traits of a public figure are the public domain, there is no privacy. Therefore character is part of the image of a public figure and vice versa.
Bullshit...(nice try).Pug wrote:
Actually preachers are not public figures until they have a large following. I've taught a class at school...am I a public figure? Nice try
As far as "if a preacher today did the same exact thing and got caught" - rewriting history again. Nice try. Yet IT IS part of his legacy...and what is happening again? Oh...nothing. I'm telling you why nothing is happening.
If the civil rights movement never happened...he wouldn't be a public figure and rewriting history again. Nice try
I am not confusing image with character. The definition of a public figure is image and character are the same. Aka all personal traits of a public figure are the public domain, there is no privacy. Therefore character is part of the image of a public figure and vice versa.
Image is how he is viewed by others, and it is a false image.
character is who he actually is.......and he was proven to actually be a piece of shit.
and yes, if you are a school teacher you have a public image. Try testing that positive image against any scandal that befalls you, and see if it does not affect your employment.
Try getting caught up in a scandal and it is all over your community see if your teaching career moves forward I in that community anyway). See if your local preacher can survive a scandal. Your reputation is as important to your career as a teacher, as your character, if you are a teacher yhere is no way you do not believe that. If your job is to huide and the public, you are a public figure. the only question is how well are you known.
Seems like I'm always having to link crap that shows you what I'm talking about...
No, a teacher is not a public figure.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/public-figure
"A person who is famous or notorious or who has willingly become involved with a public issue or controversy,"
So by this definition, if I am a teacher have I become willingly involved with a public issue or controversy? FUCK NO
This is helpful too (right to privacy for public figures):
http://www.legal-definitions.com/civil- … igures.htm
"With respect to certain privacy rights, public figures – such as the President of the United States or Tom Cruise – have virtually no legal right to privacy. What the media may know about a celebrity or politician is fair game for publication, no matter how dastardly the information may be."
"However, if you are an average person with no public figure status, the media doesn’t have a legal right to go printing and airing your dirty laundry. Why? Because it is not particularly newsworthy, and thus, your right to privacy outweighs the newsworthiness of the information."
So here's my argument:
Civil rights activism made him a public figure. If you want to set aside his activism, then he is NO LONGER a public figure...and "the media doesn’t have a legal right to go printing and airing your dirty laundry."
But that's impossible...you can't split it apart to segments. So you have to include the whole of the person...so what's left is whether the bad stuff outweighs the good stuff. Aka, his image includes BOTH the good and the bad.
It must be tough for you living in denial....
No, a teacher is not a public figure.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/public-figure
"A person who is famous or notorious or who has willingly become involved with a public issue or controversy,"
So by this definition, if I am a teacher have I become willingly involved with a public issue or controversy? FUCK NO
This is helpful too (right to privacy for public figures):
http://www.legal-definitions.com/civil- … igures.htm
"With respect to certain privacy rights, public figures – such as the President of the United States or Tom Cruise – have virtually no legal right to privacy. What the media may know about a celebrity or politician is fair game for publication, no matter how dastardly the information may be."
"However, if you are an average person with no public figure status, the media doesn’t have a legal right to go printing and airing your dirty laundry. Why? Because it is not particularly newsworthy, and thus, your right to privacy outweighs the newsworthiness of the information."
So here's my argument:
Civil rights activism made him a public figure. If you want to set aside his activism, then he is NO LONGER a public figure...and "the media doesn’t have a legal right to go printing and airing your dirty laundry."
But that's impossible...you can't split it apart to segments. So you have to include the whole of the person...so what's left is whether the bad stuff outweighs the good stuff. Aka, his image includes BOTH the good and the bad.
It must be tough for you living in denial....
But the argument from Dilbert, and you have not denied it, is he has a right to privacy because he is NOT a public figure and Palin is open game.Pug wrote:
Seems like I'm always having to link crap that shows you what I'm talking about...
No, a teacher is not a public figure.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/public-figure
"A person who is famous or notorious or who has willingly become involved with a public issue or controversy,"
So by this definition, if I am a teacher have I become willingly involved with a public issue or controversy? FUCK NO
This is helpful too (right to privacy for public figures):
http://www.legal-definitions.com/civil- … igures.htm
"With respect to certain privacy rights, public figures – such as the President of the United States or Tom Cruise – have virtually no legal right to privacy. What the media may know about a celebrity or politician is fair game for publication, no matter how dastardly the information may be."
"However, if you are an average person with no public figure status, the media doesn’t have a legal right to go printing and airing your dirty laundry. Why? Because it is not particularly newsworthy, and thus, your right to privacy outweighs the newsworthiness of the information."
So here's my argument:
Civil rights activism made him a public figure. If you want to set aside his activism, then he is NO LONGER a public figure...and "the media doesn’t have a legal right to go printing and airing your dirty laundry."
But that's impossible...you can't split it apart to segments. So you have to include the whole of the person...so what's left is whether the bad stuff outweighs the good stuff. Aka, his image includes BOTH the good and the bad.
It must be tough for you living in denial....
Glad we agree, they are both public figures, now explain the double standard of which I speak that started this whole conversation.
lol regarding your denial claim. I was kinda thinking the same about you, after showing MLK's character was defined before the civili rights movement, and his cheating continued DURING that same movement, leaves me to ponder one question.
Why would MLK wish to be judged by his character then, and not by his civil rights activities? You want to judge him by his civil rights involvement. I want to judge him by his actions against his words. ya know, his character. The same as all public figures.
Last edited by lowing (2010-07-29 16:03:59)
"Why would MLK wish to be judged by his character then...."
....I'm telling you there's a special distinction with public figures...their character and activities become the same. You can't separate them.
"But the argument from Dilbert, and you have not denied it, is he has a right to privacy because he is NOT a public figure and Palin is open game."
I'm a little off from that argument. My argument is not that MLK is private...nothing is being held back in MLK's case...it's just that no one gives a shit. Why? Its because the magnitude of the action makes this indiscretion ridiculously small.
For Palin...wtf has she done? If I take whatever she's accused of and add in her accomplishments...lets just say the scale isn't going to be moving much even if she has no dirty laundry to air. Now there even is a smoking gun (well, sort of): why would someone quit in the middle of their appointment?
How's this for perspective when comparing accomplishments: For Palin: America will forget about her in five years. For MLK: I feel people will continue to debate this for oh...two hundred more years?
It seems like its a double standard, but the truth is MLK's problems have to be MUCH larger to put a dent in the man.
....I'm telling you there's a special distinction with public figures...their character and activities become the same. You can't separate them.
"But the argument from Dilbert, and you have not denied it, is he has a right to privacy because he is NOT a public figure and Palin is open game."
I'm a little off from that argument. My argument is not that MLK is private...nothing is being held back in MLK's case...it's just that no one gives a shit. Why? Its because the magnitude of the action makes this indiscretion ridiculously small.
For Palin...wtf has she done? If I take whatever she's accused of and add in her accomplishments...lets just say the scale isn't going to be moving much even if she has no dirty laundry to air. Now there even is a smoking gun (well, sort of): why would someone quit in the middle of their appointment?
How's this for perspective when comparing accomplishments: For Palin: America will forget about her in five years. For MLK: I feel people will continue to debate this for oh...two hundred more years?
It seems like its a double standard, but the truth is MLK's problems have to be MUCH larger to put a dent in the man.
I am not comparing accomplishments, nor am I comparing Palin to MLK, it just so happend ot be that Palin was used by Dilbert as the public figure that was not deserving of privacy.Pug wrote:
"Why would MLK wish to be judged by his character then...."
....I'm telling you there's a special distinction with public figures...their character and activities become the same. You can't separate them.
"But the argument from Dilbert, and you have not denied it, is he has a right to privacy because he is NOT a public figure and Palin is open game."
I'm a little off from that argument. My argument is not that MLK is private...nothing is being held back in MLK's case...it's just that no one gives a shit. Why? Its because the magnitude of the action makes this indiscretion ridiculously small.
For Palin...wtf has she done? If I take whatever she's accused of and add in her accomplishments...lets just say the scale isn't going to be moving much even if she has no dirty laundry to air. Now there even is a smoking gun (well, sort of): why would someone quit in the middle of their appointment?
How's this for perspective when comparing accomplishments: For Palin: America will forget about her in five years. For MLK: I feel people will continue to debate this for oh...two hundred more years?
It seems like its a double standard, but the truth is MLK's problems have to be MUCH larger to put a dent in the man.
But if you really wanna compare. Lets compare. Palin gives speeches, was a governor, a mayor, a public servant, and a author and a vice presdential candidate. Oh and is a leader in a movement who has 100's of thousands of people rallying around her.
MLK, was a preacher, gave speeches, I believe he was dean ( was he not) organized protests and had 100s ofthousands of people rallying around him.
One did all of this without lying, cheating, stealing, womanizing, or plagerizing. The other couldn't seem to manage not to. Now aside from your political leanings toward hating Palin, how is it you dismiss her accomplishments, and wrap your loving arms around MLK's. Bottom line both are leaders of movements, even though you disagree with Palin does that mean she did not accomplish anything?
Also if Palin was found to have committed any or all of those infractions, can you really sit there and tell me with a straight face that it doesa not matter? That it is her accomplishments that count? THat her character is made up of accomplishments and her theft is no big deal?
Really?
More double standard.
Where have I EVER said it doesn't matter?
What I mean there, just in case, is there are REASONS why it seems there is a double standard.
ummm, "no one gives a shit", "it is irrelevant", it is nothing compared to his "accomplishments"... The implied intent is obvious, not cut the semantics and respond to what was posted.Pug wrote:
Where have I EVER said it doesn't matter?
Lowing, for the umpteenth time:
His issues are being weighted against his accomplishments. Whether the person is "overall good" or "overall bad".
That is exactly what I've been telling you. It's not a double standard.
And apparently if we use an example...instead of Palin, perhaps we use Clinton? Liar, cheater, etc. What happened to him?
Is it a double standard or is the infraction large enough to get his ass out of office? Apparently not.
His issues are being weighted against his accomplishments. Whether the person is "overall good" or "overall bad".
That is exactly what I've been telling you. It's not a double standard.
And apparently if we use an example...instead of Palin, perhaps we use Clinton? Liar, cheater, etc. What happened to him?
Is it a double standard or is the infraction large enough to get his ass out of office? Apparently not.
and I have been telling you, his accomplishments have been wrought with lies, cheating and plagiarism.Pug wrote:
Lowing, for the umpteenth time:
His issues are being weighted against his accomplishments. Whether the person is "overall good" or "overall bad".
That is exactly what I've been telling you. It's not a double standard.
And apparently if we use an example...instead of Palin, perhaps we use Clinton? Liar, cheater, etc. What happened to him?
Is it a double standard or is the infraction large enough to get his ass out of office? Apparently not.
"What happened to him"? Clinton was impeached for his infractions.
You speak of MLK's accomplishments, I have shown you that Palin has accomplished the same shit if not more, and did so without lying cheating or stealing, yet you dismiss Palins accomplishments. Your assertion that MLK is accomplished, while Palin is not is rediculous if not down right stupid and yes Pug, shows you have a double standard.
Last edited by lowing (2010-07-30 14:02:48)
But, you see...I believe that dirt on Palin is true.
Last edited by Pug (2010-07-30 14:20:27)
LMAO!! no kiddin' You mean you believe dirt on Palin is true, before any is even presented? Neh...I don't see anything wrong with that.Pug wrote:
But, you see...I believe that dirt on Palin is true.
Why would someone quit in the middle of their term?
Something is there....
Something is there....
Well, in the mean time you can explain how her accomplishments, which have been shown to amount to more of that than MLK's is insignificant while MLK's is beyond reproach.Pug wrote:
Why would someone quit in the middle of their term?
Something is there....
They have?lowing wrote:
Well, in the mean time you can explain how her accomplishments, which have been shown to amount to more of that than MLK's is insignificant while MLK's is beyond reproach.Pug wrote:
Why would someone quit in the middle of their term?
Something is there....