Neo

Too delicious … the “book banning” accusation in a thread addressing truth, reasoning and logic. Ethos (Credibility) Labeling conservatives “book banners” equates ordinary parents and school boards with regimes that outlaw entire ideas. In reality, these citizens are participating in the long-standing democratic practice of selecting age-appropriate material for publicly funded schools. This is stewardship, not censorship. Pathos (Emotion) The phrase “book banning” summons images of locked libraries and government purges. That framing is emotionally powerful but misleading. The books in question remain available in public libraries, online, and in stores. Conservatives appeal to a different emotion—protectiveness—arguing for developmental suitability, not for erasing ideas from society. Logos (Reasoning and False Equivalency) Removing a book from a school library is not banning a book. A ban prohibits all access under penalty of law; a removal is a curation decision about one venue. Public schools must choose what they stock, and communities have a right to set standards for minors. Equating selection with censorship is a classic false equivalency—it mistakes a limited, age-based decision for universal suppression. Conclusion (Avoiding Sophistry) Using “book banning” as a blanket label substitutes rhetorical force for accurate reasoning—what Aristotle (and Plato before him) would call sophistry. It obscures the genuine question of how schools choose materials suited to children. By separating emotion from logic, we see the accusation collapses under scrutiny. The real debate should focus on age-appropriate education, not caricatures of censorship.

When outrage replaces argument … Life’s funny, sometimes. I’m in Santorini celebrating forty years with Mrs. Neo. Three days ago I was in Athens and visited the Lyceum and the Ancient Agora Marketplace. Inspired by Aristotle and Plato, and by Kirk, I seek the clash of ideas and offer the following. You wrote that Charlie Kirk “thought women (AND girls) should be legally forced to carry a fetus to birth in cases of rape and *****.” and called this view “psychotic.”. You went on to dismiss Kirk’s commentary on motherhood and career as “completely worthless.” The post wrapped up with a personal anecdote about a mother who successfully combined engineering work with raising three children. The post was emotionally powerful, but as an argument it fails. It misstates Kirk’s position, assumes away the core moral dispute, and trades careful reasoning for insult. In Aristotle’s terms, it relies almost entirely on pathos—emotional appeal—while neglecting logos (reasoning)and ethos (credibility). First, accuracy. Charlie Kirk did support laws banning abortion, even in cases of rape and *****. That is a position many Americans oppose, but it’s not the same as “wanting to force” women. Laws against abortion prohibit a procedure; they do not create squads to conscript women into pregnancy. Kirk’s stated rationale was protecting unborn life, not punishing or controlling women. He frequently spoke of fostering a culture of family, faith, and mutual support in which abortion would be unthinkable. You can reject his vision, but at least represent it honestly. You miss the forrest for the trees and avoid the crucial clash of ideas. Second, the post assumes what it needs to prove. It declares “it is up to an individual woman and no one else to decide,” which is a coherent moral principle—but only if you deny the fetus has rights of its own. Kirk’s view, shared by many pro-lifers, is that abortion ends a human life. Unless that premise is confronted head-on, simply invoking autonomy is circular. Third, the anecdote about a working mother, while inspiring, is irrelevant to the abortion question. A single personal story cannot settle broad sociological or moral debates. Nor does disagreement on abortion automatically disqualify someone from offering insights about work–family balance. That’s a non sequitur. Finally, calling a moral opponent “psychotic” is not argument. It may satisfy the already-convinced, but it alienates anyone on the fence and undermines the your credibility. If the goal is persuasion, not catharsis, the better path is to acknowledge Kirk’s sincerity and then show—using evidence and empathy—why his position produces unjust outcomes. America’s deepest disagreements can’t be resolved by caricature. We should want debates in which competing visions of life, liberty, and responsibility are tested against one another’s strongest arguments, not their weakest stereotypes. When outrage replaces argument, nobody learns, and nobody moves. Aristotle taught that persuasion requires credibility, logic, and measured emotion. That remains true, even—or especially—on questions as morally charged as abortion. I promised Plato. Plato wouldn’t dismiss you, he was always careful to distinguish between the interlocutor and the argument—but he would classify the argumentative style as sophistic: persuasive but not concerned with the underlying reality. In his view, such rhetoric corrupts the civic dialogue because it prizes winning over wisdom. Tomorrow, wine country and the blue domes of Oia.

Interesting to me. For years, I had business with several of its leaders and was on campus from time to time. It’s as progressive as college campus as I have experienced. Now, it’s also traditionally liberal, as that word had meaning before it was used to describe an ironically un-liberal political philosophy. I’d like to think that what we’re seeing, here, is what we’re so very sadly not seeing in many other places. That is, amongst a group of people most would find themselves sitting on the opposite side of the table from, Kirk’s views are respected. On a cautionary note. The Florida replaced much of New College’s Board of Trustees two years ago. Progressives were out, and conservatives were in. The climate may be different and, in this case, the statue’s reception will be interesting to watch. The students can certainly debate. Fun Fact … New College isn’t very well known, even in Florida. Some twenty years, or so, ago, the New York TImes was investigating undergraduate college programs that disproportionately placed students in the country’s most prestigious graduate schools. This “New College” in Florida showed up as the school with the highest, per capita, placement in the country. The Times had no idea who New College’s was and picked up the phone, called the school, and asked “who are you?”. It is an awesome school. Fun Fact number 2 … when I was working with the college, Donal O’Shea was President. Learning I was from Buffalo, O’Shea talked to me about his youth. He was a Calasanctius Preparatory School graduate. Old timers will remember that school as a place for the gifted and a champion of the liberal arts.

week 15

If the Bills drafted backwards, taking their last pick first, their second last second, and so on …. Beane would be considered draft day wizard.

The only thing better than catching the ball when you (and everyone else) is covered, is catching the ball when you’ve made yourself uncovered. Cook isn’t doing what he was drafted to do, either, which was to play situationally as a pass receiving back out of the backfield. Allen was drafted to be a franchise quarterbAck and he’s entered the conversation as among the best to play his position. I’m none too happy with Hawes, who was drafted to be a blocking tight end. Don’t even get me started on Brown, Benford and Bernard.

Ha! I just finished editing my post to capture this.

Well, I will consider this thread developmental for you. I addressed two of the three absurdities you wrongly attributed to Kirk earlier in this thread and you’ve dropped them from your diatribe. Progress. You've retained the “black women do not have ….” absurdity and added quotation marks. This makes me happy. Using quotations means you’re aware of the original material. Can you point me to it? I ask a second time. Now, I don’t expect an answer. You have no answer. What you have is a willingness to say flap doodle with the utmost of confidence. We all encounter people so constituted from time to time. It’s always annoying. When it’s done relative to an assassination, of both a man and his character, it’s also despicable. What I’m noticing in the wake of Kirk’s murder is that there’s a large number of people unencumbered by reason, grace and honesty, especially when they see an opportunity to anonymously inflame on the web. The number is larger than I thought. Hundreds of years from now, anthropologists will describe the birth of the internet and point to its role as a Petri dish nourishing and nurturing the dumb and evil among us. Tell me, loud and proud friend, the source of your quotation. If you do, I’ll fundamentally change my view of Kirk. Until you do, I’ll continue to believe your posts tell us everything we need to know about brain power, but not the brain power you’re referencing. Edit to add: I found the original material. Kirk, referring to certain specific black women, called them DEI hires who took jobs from white women who were smarter. This is what affirmative action and DEI do, where smarts are an element of selection, support it or not. One of the women, later in the clip, then calls herself an affirmative action beneficiary, confirming Kirk in her own words. He didn’t say what you quoted. He said nothing about black women as a class. No sentient person could conclude he said what you quoted. Kirk’s crime? He used words close to one another that someone could re-arrange in a way, modify in a way, to besmirch his character.

I raised four rabid Bills fans in Tampa. They’re representing in four different cities across the country later today. You’re a good dad getting her involved from Colorado Springs. You’ll share Sundays with her for fifty years! Dads and daughters. Nothing like it on the planet.

The Bills last won their last playoff game in 1965.

Buffalo goal, number 14, Rene Robert. Assists, number 7 Richard Martin and number 24, Billy Hajt. Robert, from Martin and Hajt. Time of the goal, 13:36.

For your consideration. You may want to sample more of the media before describing those who avail themselves of the media.

Unless it’s a political online message board.

I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re reading inaccurate reports of what he said. The benefit goes further to assume you never watched the original videos, or that you weren’t paying close attention. If you watched and didn’t get it, you’re on your own and good luck to you. Kirk never said anything close to two of those things (I’ve watched). I’ve not seen the third, but would bet my left leg against a bologna sandwich he didn’t say that one, either. Kirk asked if you want your pilots selected because they’re black or because they’re excellent. He chose excellent, regardless of race or gender. I do, too. I suspect we all do. In the past year, I had open heart surgery that three doctors attended to. One was a white male, one was a black male and one was a Pakistani woman. I’m grateful to all, as Charlie would have been. Stephen King posted on X that Kirk had advocated for the stoning of gay people. King, however, took Kirk's Biblical reference out of context (his words) and presented it as an endorsement of violence. I’ve watched it. Following immediate backlash, King deleted his post and issued an apology on September 12, 2025. King admitted he was wrong and regretted posting without fact-checking. A google search or visit to King’s X account will clear this up for you. I don’t know the brain power reference. I’m happy to let you point me to it. In conclusion, none of us knows everything anyone else ever said. That should be enough to discourage all of us from saying sh***y things about people before we’ve made sure we’re correct. Gorillas flinging poo in a cage aren’t dangerous. That is, until others decide to join in.

Irony is a wonderful rhetorical device, when intended. it’s quite a different thing when unintended. Charlie did love the good, the bad and the ugly. He loved the “cheating sexually assaulting traitor” you reference. That’s who he was. You just demonstrated, unintentionally, the admirable essence of the man. Loving sinners is a fundamental characteristic of Christianity, aspirational or not, person to person. You also just demonstrated, again unintentionally, that Kirk practiced what he preached. Now, I am unburdened by the desire to sh** on people when they’re dead or mourning. I don’t know you from Adam, but you may want to give your two subjects, Kirk and Christianity, a few hours of quiet reflection.

I agree, completely. Far too often posters offer opinions without having looked through the thread to see if the opinion’s already in play. A site’s value is diminished when it becomes a series of entries each essentially representing the same point of view expressed by different people. I try to make sure my words add value and aren’t merely echoes of those written previously by others and I’ll thumb’s up a poster for affirmation. My grandma taught me that if I didn’t have something new to say, sit silently. In any event, grateful for Scott and team.

I was unaware of the word “yeet.”. I dig it.

By the way … I don’t need to see Tyler Bass ever again.

I’m just tired. Other than the remarkable development of Josh Allen, this franchise has been in neutral for seven years. It’s the same issues, over and over. Can’t get off the field, mediocre receivers, poor in game decisions, poor premium drafting, modest FA production …. we are five or so years away from having wasted a generational talent. Over reaction to one game? No. Summary of five years? Yes.

I am willing to try not allowing McDermott in the stadium on game days.

No. I’ve read here that they’re much too important.

I would give a kidney to see an open wide receiver.

This team is just disadvantaged in all the little things that win games at the highest level ….

Saving Grace … stay close, and Lamar will give you a gift.

Mitch Trubisky could run this offense.