01 Apr 2015

Ed Schultz Does Not Respect Argumentation Norms

All Posts 13 Comments

13 Responses to “Ed Schultz Does Not Respect Argumentation Norms”

  1. aby says:

    I think argumentation ethics does not apply here because no human being would want Ed Schultz´s body anyway so there will never be a conflict ; )

  2. The Pen is Mightier says:

    Schultz is a clown.

  3. Mike M says:

    From Merriam-Webster
    ARGUMENTATION: ‘the act or process of forming reasons and of drawing conclusions and applying them to a case in discussion”

    2a (1): the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : intelligence (2): proper exercise of the mind (3): sanity
    b: the sum of the intellectual powers

    Accordingly Schultz is incapable of argumentation

  4. Scott Lazarowitz says:

    Yes, Schultz is a buffoon. But could Col. Klink have done any better?

  5. David R. Henderson says:

    I thought Ryan Anderson handled the situation impressively. I didn’t know who he was, but now I will watch out for things he writes and says.

  6. Josiah says:

    “The rights of you far exceed that of a corporation… cut his mic.”

  7. Grane Peer says:

    I do not understand why people pay for cable.

  8. Tel says:

    Peter Schiff covers it pretty well.


    End Shultz giving advice on courtesy… does he also offer ballet classes?

  9. Harold says:

    Peter Schiff says catagorically that this law allows discrimination against homosexuals (18:01). Ed: (1:26) This law opens the door to blatant discrimination. Ryan: Thats not true.

    Is Peter right or is Ryan? Peter thinks the fact that it allows discrimination is the whole point, and that is why it is a good thing (because we should be allowed to discriminate if we want). Ryan denies that it opens the door.

    • Tel says:

      The new law provides a slightly stronger defence against civil suits; thus weakening the ability for a gay couple to scan down the phonebook searching for a business that might refuse them service and then starting a civil case to collect money from that business.

      If you want to see that as opening the door to blatant discrimination that’s your point of view.

      As Tom Woods pointed out, it does not provide a rock-solid defence against civil suits (the wording is vague and the judge can interpret it), and it’s modelled on a similar Federal law that has already provided the same defence for Federal cases. Quite a number of other states already have this.

      In my opinion we should be allowed to discriminate (non violently) on whatever basis we want, people do regularly discriminate for all sorts of reasons… as Schiff points out, try suing a girl for no dating you because she thinks you’re ugly. This is not “opening the door” to discrimination, actually we all discriminate in one way or another, based on behaviour or politics or attitude or just how other people dress. It’s everywhere, and it’s normal. The right to not-work for someone should be absolute.

      You want people to accept you? Don’t point a gun at their head.

      Put simply, Ed is trying to be controversial and claiming that because of this new law, a whole bunch of new discrimination is going to happen that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. That’s crap. What this new law does is discourage a bunch of divisive court cases that were designed as Christian bashing by activist groups using “discrimination” as their rallying cry.

      • Harold says:

        ” because of this new law, a whole bunch of new discrimination is going to happen that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. That’s crap”

        Discrimination has two meanings
        1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
        2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

        Lets be clear we are only talking about the first here.

        “Opening the door to” means creating an opportunity for, allow something new to start.
        Surely it will permit discrimination that wouldn’t have been permitted otherwise. Otherwise what would be the point?

        One effect will be make it harder to scan down the phonebook, as you say. Another is that it opens the door to some discrimination. This is the mechanism by which it achieves the first objective.

        Blatant means done openly and unashamedly. As I understand it, this would describe the discrimination that would now be permitted.

        If Peter Schiff were asked the same question, from his podcast I get the impression he would say “Sure, and that’s a good thing!” rather than “that’s not true”

        • Ben B says:

          Why are the examples of discrimination you provided unjust? Perhaps they are based on ignorance, but how are they unjust?

          If a woman refuses to date me because I’m ugly, then why couldn’t I claim that she is being ignorant or prejudicial? It seems to me that she is ignorant and doesn’t realize that a person’s physical attractiveness is not the only characteristic that can create psychic revenue for others.

          Perhaps we should make her date ugly men until this ignorance is removed. Ah…if I were King for a day…

  10. Tel says:

    Another interview, conducted more politely.


    Tammy is making exactly the point I tried to make years ago on the whole gay marriage thing, and it’s going exactly the way I said it would go, and people flipped out about how you just aren’t allowed to say this.

Leave a Reply