Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican, left a message for Obama supporters on his door: heal thyself or at least find a doctor elsewhere.
Cassell posted a sign reading “If you voted for Obama…seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years.” Personally, I am not sure I want a proctological exam with a guy who is really pissed off at Democrats and liberals. Hint: when you visit Dr. Cassell bring a copy of Rush Limbaugh on tape, the exam goes much smoother.
Curiously, Cassell insists that telling Obama supporters to “seek urologic care elsewhere” is not denying them care: “I’m not turning anybody away — that would be unethical. But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it.”
This raises an interesting question. It would seem unethical to deny care based on political beliefs but state law only addresses race, religion,
gender, sexual preference or disability. However, as an ethical matter, it would seem rather clear but I am but a juris doctor.
To further his unique combination of politics and proctology, Cassell supplies copies of a health-care timeline produced by Republicans and added a sign that reads “This is what the morons in Washington have done to your health care. Take one, read it and vote out anyone who voted for it.”
For the full story, click here.
Fallacy of division without a basis in group psychology.
The truism “one bad apple can spoil the barrel” is true for a reason as is the Russian adage, “the fish rots from the head”. The problem isn’t the racists within the tea bagger movement but the tolerance of their actions by those who would co-opt their misdirected anger for their own political ends, namely the Neocon wing of the RNC.
Tolerance of racists, and therefor tacit endorsement, is not a composition fallacy of any sort but rather an observation based on group dynamics.
There were probably lots of Germans who said, “Yeah, only some of the Nazis hate Jews. Me, personally? I think they’re okay.”
Letting hatred based ideology flourish in an organization leads to bad behavior no matter the organization. And intolerance of the intolerant isn’t a vice, but a virtue. We’re all still stuck on this one planet.
“While you’re claiming that the Tea Partiers consist of a large number of racists, why don’t you also claim that a large number of dogs think they can fly? ”
Well I say they’re all racists, or at least supporters of racists.
Whether you want to get into their heads is your business, I’m only looking at what they do. And what they do is stand alongside of racists carrying racist signs and chanting racist slogans. So whether a particular member of the Tea Party is racist is pretty much moot because they support racists by standing alongside them, adding strength in numbers and legitimacy to their cause. That makes them either racists too, or at least supporters of racism.
If you stood with the brownshirts in the Berlin beer halls and didn’t possess all of their individual ideologies, but stood alongside them adding strength to their numbers and legitimacy to their cause then it doesn’t matter what you thought at the time. What you did would have been all that mattered.
Gyges,
The Hillaryin44 and the Daily Kos are representative of why the ideals of the few should not be attributed to the many. The ratinalization eminating from many comments here could just as easily be used to label all those who supported Hillary Clinton. I can’t find one place where the Hillary Campaign denounced the statements made in the articles or the comments left by regulars. Ergo, Hillary Clinton supporters must all be racists. Unfortunately, just because I’m not stupid enough to label a group based on the actions of a few that doesn’t mean those who need a reason to label the many on the actions of a few won’t do it. They will and they have.
Come on, duh.
Let’s have some more “nanny nanny boo boo”.
It goes great with crackers.
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Ooo. So now I’m both a propagandist and an idiot, eh duh? Nice try, Rove. Tsk, tsk, tsk! That’s violating the one rule, sport. But I do ask that the Prof not delete it for it serves an illustrative point:
Play #1 from the Neocon propagandist playbook is smear others with your own crimes and faults to distract from your own inadequacies.
Monday Night is Amateur Night.
hmmmm …
http://vodpod.com/watch/3353608-hannity-calls-tea-partiers-tim-mcveigh-wannabees
Free,
To clarify: The postings in question were the Hillary44 and Daily Kos postings.
Buddhro,
Watching you flatulate is actually quite entertaining, and I’m sure it is the intent of the Professor’s Blawg, but your “prove me wrong” challenge is exactly the kind of logic that you consistently employ. According to you, any claim you make is based on fact until someone can prove you wrong wreaks of “Slartiism”.
While you’re claiming that the Tea Partiers consist of a large number of racists, why don’t you also claim that a large number of dogs think they can fly? Then you can issue a challenge to prove you wrong. The only thing you have proven is that idiotic challenges are generally presented by idiots.
You are most welcome, anon nurse. It’s one of my favorites.
Free,
You do know I was aware you were trying to lead me to the “you’re racist for thinking these are racist” trap right? As it turns out, people who hold similar view points often use similar language, iconography, and reasoning. Recognizing the pattern and sources of a group’s shared language doesn’t automatically include one as a member of that group. I’m no more a racist for recognizing racist iconography than I would be an Objectivist for recognizing that somebodies philosophy was inspired by Ayn Rand. I’m also no Classical Era German composer, but I know Sturm und Drang when I hear it.
If faulty “gotcha” debate tactics and false equivocation are the best you can do to argue your point, I suggest you find another discussion, that kind of thing usually just gets ignored here.
About the mugging. I said that it fit in the violent black man stereotype (which is mentioned in Wikipedia by the way). It does. Go reread my comment about proving the picture is racist.
I say good for those individuals who spoke out against the racism and bigotry. I don’t put any partisan hacks who claim “although, they were asking for it” in that category, but everyone else has my respect for speaking out.
Now unless you have a point other than “let’s see if I can’t trick this dirty liberal into looking bad” perhaps you’d like to address why it is that you felt severely misrepresenting those two postings earlier was o.k. Are you dishonest or could you just not be bothered to actually read them?
Byron,
Show me where I’ve said tea-baggers were all racist. I came into this conversation after you said “show me racist signs” with a series of signs that were racist. Now I know you personally are disgusted by that sort of thing, as evidenced by your discussion with Athena.
Now you’re right that I disagree with quite a bit of the Teabagger rhetoric, and would be willing to discuss any of it you’d like, but since I haven’t you have no idea if my arguments would be empty or not.
Thanks for sharing the koan, Buddha.
And I’ve already explained why it’s not confirmation bias, duh, but rather logic combined with the dynamics of group psychology.
As to evidence, this thread is full of evidence tea baggers are harboring, tolerating and therefor condoning racists.
You keep on yipping though.
I’m bored and you’re funny. In a sad kind of way.
Ooooo. Fantasy.
You really do grasp at straws, duh.
To paraphrase Sean Connery, “Isn’t that just like a racist apologist? Brings a knife to a gun fight.”
You prove me wrong, with logic. Because if you don’t/won’t/can’t?
You’ve already lost.
Again.
“The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities…It is best to win without fighting.” – Sun Tzu. But the next best thing is to trick your opponent into defeating themselves.
Your pattern is you’ll keep on yipping.
Keep it up. It’s funny.
And ripping you to shreds, while not a challenge, is good entertainment and a perfect illustration for why people with logic and sense should be both wary and dismissive of tea baggers. Do not mistake that my words are aimed at you, lil’ dog. You cannot contain the damage I’ve done to your position, such as it is. Chewing you up and spitting you out IS the lesson, but you – in your fortress of platitudes and illogic – are a proven loss for potential illumination. There is a famous Zen koan that applies to you, duh.
Nan-in, a Japanese Zen master, had a guest. A professor who came to inquire about Zen. Nan-in served tea to his guest as is the custom. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring until it was overflowing.
The professor watched until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”
Nan-in said, “Like this cup, you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”
You are full of divisive hatred, duh. The same that can be said about Zen can be said about enlightenment in general. I cannot empty your cup for you. But I can make you an object lesson for others.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1fGM9pm6js&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Byron,
Wouldn’t you say that claiming the Tea Partiers consisted of “a large number of racists” to be unsupported by any facts, and must therefore be considered to be nothing more than a propogandist’s tool?
goneville-n-keys,
You’ve demonstrated good sense and logic so you feel free to jump into the middle of a conversation whenever you like. I am not logic proof, but I am logic insistent. I readily admit when I am wrong. I just require logical proof. As to my methods? I am an agent provocateur by inclination.
“This trick consists in making your opponent angry; for when he is angry he is incapable of judging aright, and perceiving where his advantage lies. You can make him angry by doing him repeated injustice, or practising some kind of chicanery, and being generally insolent.” – Arthur Schopenhauer
Sun Tzu gave similar advice.
Byron,
Make sure you read this over and over.
Buddha said “your argument that an organization is not racist although it contains a large number of racist members”.
A conclusion based on fantasy is what Buddha considers to be logic. Your argument was never based on the organization having a large number of racist members. What Buddha refers to as logic is nothing more than confirmation bias. He fails because he cannot support his argument with facts. Then he pleads for you to accept his fantasy as being based on logic in hopes that acceptance by the collective is your ultimate goal.
And for the record, a label isn’t an insult when it’s accurate. It’s simply accurate.
Awww. Did I hurt your lil’ white elitist tea bagger feelings, duh?
You’d be shocked at my indifference to that outcome. In fact, your reaction to logic says it all about your “arguments”. The opinions about me from an illogical racist apologist mean less than zero.
Logic is logic. It has rules. I follow them. You can’t or, more to the point, won’t. You spout propaganda, can’t refute logic and then act all hurt like you’ve been attacked.
Boo hoo, troll.
Go to your imaginary land and tell it the Beave, sport.
Byron,
I’ve stated my case with logic. Bare-bones raw logic at that. That the logic ends in a place you don’t agree with is beside the points of the logic. And a better argument against tea baggers? I hazard to say there are different arguments against them, but when one logic is so damning (and so far not refuted), there is no need to duplicate the work when the line leads to the same end. Faulty and wrong is faulty and wrong but the choice of path, as long and it is rational and logical, is irrelevant.
As to changing definitions, your argument that an organization is not racist although it contains a large number of racist members acting in blatantly racist ways is semantics at best.
“Ask of each and everything what is it in itself.” – Marcus Aurelius
You equivocate on definitions supposing this to be a fallacy of composition when it is in fact not. If the tea baggers are serious? They’d kick the racists and racist apologists to the curb. We aren’t talking about a formalist error of composition like:
All phones are beige.
All UFOs are beige.
Therefore all phones are UFOs.
We are talking about a volatile human emotion based in hatred. Emotional logic and formal logic are often divergent as humans can be and are often inherently irrational. That, my friend, is the art of politics and manipulation. But there is no “controlling” divisive hatred. It’s organizational poison. Did you know that the internal management structure of the SS was based on the internal structure of the Jesuit order? Yes, very effective. I can vouch for that as product of Jesuit education. But to what end is the question? Education and “spreading the Word” ala the Jesuits or does this Pink Floyd lyric go more to the point of the tea baggers:
“Waiting to cut out the deadwood.
Waiting to clean up the city.
Waiting to follow the worms.
Waiting to put on a black shirt.
Waiting to weed out the weaklings.
Waiting to smash in their windows
And kick in their doors.
Waiting for the final solution
To strengthen the strain.
Waiting to follow the worms.
Waiting to turn on the showers
And fire the ovens.
Waiting for the queens and the coons
and the reds and the jews.
Waiting to follow the worms.
Would you like to see Britannia
Rule again, my friend?
All you have to do is follow the worms.
Would you like to send our colored cousins
Home again, my friend?”
The tea baggers play with fire by tolerating such base behavior as racism. Institutionally condoned and fostered racism led directly to the death of 6 million people. This wasn’t ancient history. This was withing living people’s life time.
“It is easy to hate and it is difficult to love. This is how the whole scheme of things works. All good things are difficult to achieve; and bad things are very easy to get.” – René Descartes.
Or more to the point . . .
“Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
Organized politics is a team sport. Would you want to play ball with a bunch of guys who are easily prompted to racial hatred which history has demonstrated leads to violence? No. But by tolerating open racists and racist apologists like duh, the tea baggers are doing exactly that.
The Neocon end game is martial law.
Who is more likely to give the Feds (and the Neocon operatives inside it) an excuse? Tea baggers or progressives?
There is only one right answer to that question and you know it.