Are "Parkland Survivors" Unquestionable and Irreproachable?

[Gondwanaland]

One can see the tussle between Laura Ingraham and David Hogg...who pushed a boycott because she apparently personally dissed him, according to some.

But other things to observe...

Brian Stelter of CNN admitted he's allowed Hogg to say things he knew to be false on his program without correcting him...

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...-admits-he-let-david-hogg-get-away-lies-about

S.E. CUPP: Brian, we as a business have been giving these kids a lot of coverage. All the networks have in some way or another. And as I was mentioning in the last segment with Connie Mack, gun policy is boring, right, so it doesn't get a lot of TV coverage. It shouldn't, it is boring, I understand that. But the policies is the tough part. Do you think in showing these kids so often, as often as we all do, we're doing actually them a disservice because the policy is actually what's going to change this? The passion, I fear, will just sound like noise after a while and people will tune it out.

BRIAN STELTER: A disservice is a strong word, but when I was interviewing David Hogg only ten days after the massacre, there were a few times I wanted to jump in and say let's correct that fact.

CUPP: That's so interesting, let me stop you. Did you?

STELTER: And at one of the times I did and other times I did not. There's always that balance, how many times you’re going to interrupt.

A recent New Yorker piece compared Emma Gonzalez with Joan of Arc... ummm......because, reasons.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-passion-of-emma-gonzalez

Really among the "leaders" Hogg has to compete the most against Gonzalez since she's actually the preferred image the media likes. One wonders if he tends to be so over the top to just keep himself relevant to the eyes of the press since Gonzalez doesn't have to do the same really.

it's pretty clear the majority of the press is in the tank for these people, and defend them. The endgame is either a continuing cult of personality (honestly it currently reminds me of how Trumpsters react when someone even slightly looks like they might be criticizing the Orange Stain) or they get discarded like Cindy Sheehan when the next shiny object appears.

Anyways...there were 2000 people at the school. The way "survivor" is being used all of them are "survivors". "Survivor" doesn't as defined right now bey mean someone who was injured or in a direct line of danger from the assailant, it seems. (that new definition includes the activist leaders such as Hogg, Gonzalez)

Are they are all unquestionable and irreproachable? Perhaps only the kids from the school who disagree with Hogg's and Gonzalez's faction can be (as we've seen) questioned/criticized.

I'd also point out that while "Parkland survivors" are presented as children...Gonzalez for instance is 18. So she is in fact, an adult. As is Hogg, I believe.

 

[Acadia]

Brian Stetler, too afraid or cowed to correct Hogg or even ask follow-up questions. Pathetic.

 

[Goshin]

No, they aren't. They are human, therefore not beyond question or reproach.


Some people think victimhood is somehow equivalent to sainthood... it isn't. It is just having been a victim.


They are simply human, therefore fallible, therefore they can be questioned and their assertions disputed.

Furthermore they are very young. Their experience in life is limited, therefore their views will, in many cases, be based on shallow understanding and emotional content rather than logic and mature reason.


To act as if they are a holy priesthood whose words are sacred, whose character is unassailable, is utter nonsense.


And when you step into the ring of politics demanding others' rights be curtailed... well, you've entered Thunderdome, be prepared to fight.

 

[Acadia]

Some people also think being a "victim" confers expertise.
It doesn't.

 

[PLizzy]

If you want to criticize his arguments, then so be it. That's what debate is all about.

However, if you're going to do the Dinesh D'Souza, Ted Nugent, Laura Ingraham thing, and throw out ad hominem attacks that have nothing do with gun ownership, then you should expect for people to hit back ... hard.

 

[Truckstop]

If you want to criticize his arguments, then so be it. That what debate is all about.

However, if you're going to do the Dinesh D'Souza, Ted Nugent, Laura Ingraham thing, and throw out ad hominem attacks that have nothing do with gun ownership, then you should expect for people to hit back ... hard.

How ****ing hard is it for trumpians to understand something this simple.

 

[VanceMack]

Thats the narrative. But the reality is the anti-gun leftists have propped these people up and are using them (willfully...no victims there) as their face to promote their anti gun tirades. The evidence is seen in the composition of the last march. it was no 'grass roots' event is was bought and paid for by Anytown, Giffords, Soros, Bloomberg, A few dozen other anti-Trump outfits and a whole lot of rich celebrities. The crowd wasnt a gathering of kids but rather just another anti GOP get out the vote rally.

And when you DO stand up against the foolish, nonsensical and outright incorrect arguments, then the media and the leftist express horror that you are bullying the 'children' THEY are hiding behind. The only true cowards and ******s in this whole dance are the anti-gun leftists.

 

[trixare4kids]

One can see the tussle between Laura Ingraham and David Hogg...who pushed a boycott because she apparently personally dissed him, according to some.

But other things to observe...

Brian Stelter of CNN admitted he's allowed Hogg to say things he knew to be false on his program without correcting him...

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...-admits-he-let-david-hogg-get-away-lies-about

A recent New Yorker piece compared Emma Gonzalez with Joan of Arc... ummm......because, reasons.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-passion-of-emma-gonzalez

Really among the "leaders" Hogg has to compete the most against Gonzalez since she's actually the preferred image the media likes. One wonders if he tends to be so over the top to just keep himself relevant to the eyes of the press since Gonzalez doesn't have to do the same really.

it's pretty clear the majority of the press is in the tank for these people, and defend them. The endgame is either a continuing cult of personality (honestly it currently reminds me of how Trumpsters react when someone even slightly looks like they might be criticizing the Orange Stain) or they get discarded like Cindy Sheehan when the next shiny object appears.

Anyways...there were 2000 people at the school. The way "survivor" is being used all of them are "survivors". "Survivor" doesn't as defined right now bey mean someone who was injured or in a direct line of danger from the assailant, it seems. (that new definition includes the activist leaders such as Hogg, Gonzalez)

Are they are all unquestionable and irreproachable? Perhaps only the kids from the school who disagree with Hogg's and Gonzalez's faction can be (as we've seen) questioned/criticized.

I'd also point out that while "Parkland survivors" are presented as children...Gonzalez for instance is 18. So she is in fact, an adult. As is Hogg, I believe.

I'm going to get right to the point. Political correctness, aka handling David Hogg with kid gloves because he's some 18 year old big mouth with a political ax to grind against the NRA and law abiding gun owners is one of the reasons Trump beat Hillary. She played the same game as Hogg and his stupid handlers are too far gone to realize they are doing it too. How'd that all work out for them in 2016? How's that all going to work out for them in 2020? Why would it be any different than 2016? The Democrats are lost, they have no message, and are intent on playing the same old games. Playing another card, same ****, another day.

 

[Praxas]

One can see the tussle between Laura Ingraham and David Hogg...who pushed a boycott because she apparently personally dissed him, according to some.

But other things to observe...

Brian Stelter of CNN admitted he's allowed Hogg to say things he knew to be false on his program without correcting him...

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...-admits-he-let-david-hogg-get-away-lies-about

A recent New Yorker piece compared Emma Gonzalez with Joan of Arc... ummm......because, reasons.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-passion-of-emma-gonzalez

Really among the "leaders" Hogg has to compete the most against Gonzalez since she's actually the preferred image the media likes. One wonders if he tends to be so over the top to just keep himself relevant to the eyes of the press since Gonzalez doesn't have to do the same really.

it's pretty clear the majority of the press is in the tank for these people, and defend them. The endgame is either a continuing cult of personality (honestly it currently reminds me of how Trumpsters react when someone even slightly looks like they might be criticizing the Orange Stain) or they get discarded like Cindy Sheehan when the next shiny object appears.

Anyways...there were 2000 people at the school. The way "survivor" is being used all of them are "survivors". "Survivor" doesn't as defined right now bey mean someone who was injured or in a direct line of danger from the assailant, it seems. (that new definition includes the activist leaders such as Hogg, Gonzalez)

Are they are all unquestionable and irreproachable? Perhaps only the kids from the school who disagree with Hogg's and Gonzalez's faction can be (as we've seen) questioned/criticized.

I'd also point out that while "Parkland survivors" are presented as children...Gonzalez for instance is 18. So she is in fact, an adult. As is Hogg, I believe.

They aren't above anything, but come one, do you think the proper action for a commenter is to dig on a survivor (who happens to have an anti-gun stance) by making fun of him just because he couldn't get into his college choices? What purpose does that serve?

No, I don't think their anti-gun stance is something to not be questions, but the commenter when way too far.

 

[Gondwanaland]

They aren't above anything, but come one, do you think the proper action for a commenter is to dig on a supporter because he couldn't get into his college choices?

A supporter who called me, her, and millions of others murderers for supporting the second amendment? If he can't take the heat, maybe he should get out of the fire.

What purpose does that serve?

No, I don't think their anti-gun stance is something to not be questions, but the commenter when way too far.

I disagree. Nowhere near how far Hogg himself has gone. Hers was a mere jab at his complaints, especially when his complaints seemed to imply that by rejecting him, those colleges were failing to support the "movement"

 

[ttwtt78640]

If you want to criticize his arguments, then so be it. That what debate is all about.

However, if you're going to do the Dinesh D'Souza, Ted Nugent, Laura Ingraham thing, and throw out ad hominem attacks that have nothing do with gun ownership, then you should expect for people to hit back ... hard.

Policy debate is also about specific problem definition and proposed policies to address that problem. Allowing known to be very dangerous folks to roam freely among us and placing their names on "no gun" lists is not a wise public safety policy.

 

[PLizzy]

No, they aren't. They are human, therefore not beyond question or reproach.


Some people think victimhood is somehow equivalent to sainthood... it isn't. It is just having been a victim.


They are simply human, therefore fallible, therefore they can be questioned and their assertions disputed.

Furthermore they are very young. Their experience in life is limited, therefore their views will, in many cases, be based on shallow understanding and emotional content rather than logic and mature reason.


To act as if they are a holy priesthood whose words are sacred, whose character is unassailable, is utter nonsense.


And when you step into the ring of politics demanding others' rights be curtailed... well, you've entered Thunderdome, be prepared to fight.

I agree that being a victim of a crime does not make one's policy solutions any more credibility than the next guy, it's a logically fallacious line of reasoning.

But you also fell into the kind of fallacious reasoning yourself, by resorting to an ad hominem attack regarding their youth, which has zero to do with their arguments. Age has a little relation to wisdom -- just look at this forum.

 

[X Factor]

They’re not and they shouldn’t be.

 

[VanceMack]

Are "Parkland Survivors" Unquestionable and Irreproachable?

I'm going to get right to the point. Political correctness, aka handling David Hogg with kid gloves because he's some 18 year old big mouth with a political ax to grind against the NRA and law abiding gun owners is one of the reasons Trump beat Hillary. She played the same game as Hogg and his stupid handlers. How'd that all work out for them? How's that all going to work out for them in 2020? Why would it be any different than 2016? The Democrats are lost, have no message, and are intent on playing the same old games. Playing another card, same ****, another day.

I think this is exactly correct. His message and delivery plays to a handful of the already committed extremist left. I do t know a single reasonable liberal that has said, yeah...he is really inspirational. I’ve heard people say things like well...I guess I understand where they are coming from...but.....

The really have a few problems. 1-Other than delivery, much of their information is just silly and outright wrong, and 2-for all the caterwauling about the NRA, the fact is that the NRA has delivered 3.84 million in campaign donations to...democrats. And while they may be loathe to admit it, there are MANY democrats that have no interest or will (with or without NRA funding) to back AR bans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gondwanaland]

If you want to criticize his arguments, then so be it. That what debate is all about.

However, if you're going to do the Dinesh D'Souza, Ted Nugent, Laura Ingraham thing, and throw out ad hominem attacks that have nothing do with gun ownership, then you should expect for people to hit back ... hard.

Perhaps you should brush up on your logical fallacies. Because nothing Ingraham did qualifies as an ad hominem.

 

[Acadia]

I think this is exactly correct. His message and delivery plays to a handful of the already committed extremist left. I do t know a single reasonable liberal that has said, yeah...he is really inspirational. I’ve heard people say things like well...I guess I understand where they are coming from...but.....

The really have a few problems. 1-Other than delivery, much of their information is just sill and outright wrong, and 2-for all the caterwauling about the NRA, the fact is that the NRA has delivered 3.84 million in campaign donations to...democrats. And while they may be loathe to admit it, there are MANY democrats that have no interest or will (with or without NRA funding) to back AR bans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well now, that certainly is interesting. Funny how these little factoids remain unspoken.

 

[X Factor]

If you want to criticize his arguments, then so be it. That what debate is all about.

However, if you're going to do the Dinesh D'Souza, Ted Nugent, Laura Ingraham thing, and throw out ad hominem attacks that have nothing do with gun ownership, then you should expect for people to hit back ... hard.

Same is true for Hogg. If he makes it personal, he has nothing to complain about it’s brought right back to him.

 

[PLizzy]

Look, a post from a conservative user. Maybe they'll have a grievance that actually gets to the heart of the issue at hand, with a sensible analysis to consider.

I'm going to get right to the point. Political correctness, aka handling David Hogg with kid gloves because he's some 18 year old big mouth with a political ax to grind against the NRA and law abiding gun owners is one of the reasons Trump beat Hillary. She played the same game as Hogg and his stupid handlers are too far gone to realize they are doing it too.

 

[Lutherf]

One can see the tussle between Laura Ingraham and David Hogg...who pushed a boycott because she apparently personally dissed him, according to some.

But other things to observe...

Brian Stelter of CNN admitted he's allowed Hogg to say things he knew to be false on his program without correcting him...

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...-admits-he-let-david-hogg-get-away-lies-about

A recent New Yorker piece compared Emma Gonzalez with Joan of Arc... ummm......because, reasons.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-passion-of-emma-gonzalez

Really among the "leaders" Hogg has to compete the most against Gonzalez since she's actually the preferred image the media likes. One wonders if he tends to be so over the top to just keep himself relevant to the eyes of the press since Gonzalez doesn't have to do the same really.

it's pretty clear the majority of the press is in the tank for these people, and defend them. The endgame is either a continuing cult of personality (honestly it currently reminds me of how Trumpsters react when someone even slightly looks like they might be criticizing the Orange Stain) or they get discarded like Cindy Sheehan when the next shiny object appears.

Anyways...there were 2000 people at the school. The way "survivor" is being used all of them are "survivors". "Survivor" doesn't as defined right now bey mean someone who was injured or in a direct line of danger from the assailant, it seems. (that new definition includes the activist leaders such as Hogg, Gonzalez)

Are they are all unquestionable and irreproachable? Perhaps only the kids from the school who disagree with Hogg's and Gonzalez's faction can be (as we've seen) questioned/criticized.

I'd also point out that while "Parkland survivors" are presented as children...Gonzalez for instance is 18. So she is in fact, an adult. As is Hogg, I believe.

The coverage is a ratings game. Kids spouting social justice stuff makes good copy because it appeals to the emotions of the viewers. The relevance of the discussion to anything in reality can't be given too much consideration because viewers are always going to react to the emotion rather than the facts. Television is an outlet for escape from reality and networks that don't play to that escape don't survive.

Frankly, politics is now so heavily reliant on television and social media that it too must play to the emotional component rather than the rational component or it too won't survive. Bottom line, that's how Trump beat Hillary. He pushed the emotional angle so much that it made Hillary, who was pushing an opposite emotional angle, look like she was playing the "reason" game. We are headed for a national emotional meltdown when people begin to realize that all these appeals to emotion can't actually survive in a rational, real life world. The result could well be a national (or international) temper tantrum like we haven't seen before.

 

[Hawkeye10]

If you want to criticize his arguments, then so be it. That what debate is all about.

However, if you're going to do the Dinesh D'Souza, Ted Nugent, Laura Ingraham thing, and throw out ad hominem attacks that have nothing do with gun ownership, then you should expect for people to hit back ... hard.

You lose that argument with how easy it is to earn the death penalty by upsetting the victims and their minders.

This is neither justice nor the work of smart people.

 

[trixare4kids]

I think this is exactly correct. His message and delivery plays to a handful of the already committed extremist left. I do t know a single reasonable liberal that has said, yeah...he is really inspirational. I’ve heard people say things like well...I guess I understand where they are coming from...but.....

The really have a few problems. 1-Other than delivery, much of their information is just sill and outright wrong, and 2-for all the caterwauling about the NRA, the fact is that the NRA has delivered 3.84 million in campaign donations to...democrats. And while they may be loathe to admit it, there are MANY democrats that have no interest or will (with or without NRA funding) to back AR bans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you.

You're right! The extreme left with most of the vocal power in this country LOVE him without thinking what this is doing to the Democrats at large. Did they not learn from Hillary yet that you do not attack millions of the electorate who are law abiding responsible gun owners?
This little punk is making it easier for Trump to win another term...
Who will they blame then?

 

[PLizzy]

Perhaps you should brush up on your logical fallacies. Because nothing Ingraham did qualifies as an ad hominem.

Either make your case, or don't bother quoting me and filling up my notification box.

 

[PLizzy]

Policy debate is also about specific problem definition and proposed policies to address that problem. Allowing known to be very dangerous folks to roam freely among us and placing their names on "no gun" lists is not a wise public safety policy.

1. What does that have to do with this?
2. We already discussed this, and mostly agreed on each others points. Why bother revisiting it?

 

[Gondwanaland]

Either make your case, or don't bother quoting me and filling up my notification box.

You claimed she did an ad hominem attack on Hogg. Nowhere in any of her tweets did she say anything that meets the definition of that term.

 

[jnug]

The coverage is a ratings game. Kids spouting social justice stuff makes good copy because it appeals to the emotions of the viewers. The relevance of the discussion to anything in reality can't be given too much consideration because viewers are always going to react to the emotion rather than the facts. Television is an outlet for escape from reality and networks that don't play to that escape don't survive.

Frankly, politics is now so heavily reliant on television and social media that it too must play to the emotional component rather than the rational component or it too won't survive. Bottom line, that's how Trump beat Hillary. He pushed the emotional angle so much that it made Hillary, who was pushing an opposite emotional angle, look like she was playing the "reason" game. We are headed for a national emotional meltdown when people begin to realize that all these appeals to emotion can't actually survive in a rational, real life world. The result could well be a national (or international) temper tantrum like we haven't seen before.

Very true. She simply did not calculate what her advertisers were willing to take while she was trying to trip the nerve endings of her audience. Media stars are owned by advertisers and you better know what they are willing to take or somebody will remind you of that eventually.