sunnyFair, 93.0°

William Cummings

Comment history

BillCummings (William Cummings) says...

Again you prove my point by posting yet more claims that are supportive of your cause, but which do not resemble the truth,

"Today support for unrestricted abortion rights is viewed as necessary to membership in the Progressive, feminist movement and the Democrat Party" Please note that Senator Joe Manchin, Senator Joe Donnelly and Senator Bob Casey are all pro life, and all Democrats. As well, there is a vibrant community of pro life Democrats called the Democrats for Life https://www.democratsforlife.org/ Accordingly, your statement is patently false.

"I choose to challenge the suggestion that anyone opposed to unfettered abortion is supporting a War-on-Women." I do not know what it is that you are insinuating with this, but I for one have not made any assertion about a "war on women". It appears that you are working off of a stereotype that everyone who happens to support the right of a person to access to abortion services universally supports that the right should be without regulation, and that they universally make the "war on women" argument. Those are broad, unproven stereotypes which are fertile ground for propaganda.

On Opinion: They brought it on themselves

Posted 12 June 2018, 12:53 p.m. Suggest removal

BillCummings (William Cummings) says...

Stussie does not seem to grasp that he only proves the power of propaganda. He re posts this material without source or evidence of truth, and expects readers to believe it like he does.

Stacking the deck is a powerful tool. Just put something out there, evidence of truth or not, and see how many people believe it. When someone challenges the evidence, attack the person making the challenge, ranter than dealing with the evidence.

BillCummings (William Cummings) says...

So the best you can do is make something up, and try to spin it into a whataboutism?

Thanks for proving that you have no real argument.

BillCummings (William Cummings) says...


In the specific PragerU video presented by another person commenting, we first find the propaganda techniques of “testimonial” and “stacking the deck..” At best, the video is the opinion of one person, devoid of any objective research, and strewn with unverifiable anecdotes of her perceptions of the thoughts of others.

Additionally, the narrator of the video consistently “stacks the deck” by attempting to get the viewer to consider factors which support her agenda, and ignore other more compelling arguments that are available. For example, in her argument against abortion rights the narrator attempts to make the case that abortion rights somehow empowers men because it increases their access to “consequence free sex.” Her argument is laughable on the surface. The fact is that women seek abortion for many reasons, including rape, incest, and a plethora of underlying issues that can and have been identified by competent research that the narrator chooses to ignore. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...

On Opinion: They brought it on themselves

Posted 11 June 2018, 10:41 a.m. Suggest removal

BillCummings (William Cummings) says...

Another person commenting on this forum regularly extols the virtues of Prager University, more commonly known as “PragerU”

Prior to deciding how much credibility to assign to PragerU, the reader is urged to clarify their understanding of what propaganda is and how it works.

In 1939, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis presented a simplified summary of common propaganda tools. This summary is helpful to a reader in the interest of sharpening critical thinking skills. A slightly modernized summary of the seven basic tools of propaganda, along with some timely examples, is located at
https://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/Pr...

[See also Alfred McClung Lee & Elizabeth Briant Lee (1939) The Fine Art of Propaganda: a study of Father Coughlin’s speeches, Harcourt, Brace and Company ]

PragerU material is objectively propaganda. In considering PragerU material, the reader is invited to start with the PragerU name which includes the word “University”. In the context of “PragerU” the word “University” is a “glittering generality” or “virtue word” used to conjure up an image of knowledge, authority, and credibility. The reader should be skeptical of the manner in which this term is being used by PragerU. As defined by Merriam-Webster, A university is”an institution of higher learning providing facilities for teaching and research and authorized to grant academic degrees; specifically : one made up of an undergraduate division which confers bachelor's degrees and a graduate division which comprises a graduate school and professional schools each of which may confer master's degrees and doctorates.”

The reader will note that PragerU has none of these characteristics. PragerU is nothing more than a collection of 5 minute video recordings geared to influencing the viewer to accept as truth a narrow ideological position.

On close examination of specific videos, the reader will observe that PragerU videos are rarely supported by any credible sources or empirical research. On those rare occasions when research is cited, the viewer is hard pressed to establish any credibility of the cited ”research,” either through peer review or other generally accepted processes designed to eliminate bias.

More to follow in a separate post.

On Opinion: They brought it on themselves

Posted 11 June 2018, 10:40 a.m. Suggest removal

BillCummings (William Cummings) says...

In most cases the cyclist can use a sidewalk if they wish to do so. In most cases, it is not safe for cyclist or pedestrian. Most sidewalks are too narrow, and as you mentioned, too poorly maintained. Additionally, the cyclist incurs a great deal of risk anywhere the sidewalk is crossed by a driveway or street. The cyclist is typically carrying more speed and momentum than a pedestrian, and will not be seen by a motorist at such a crossing. Even controlled crossings are dangerous because motorists will often not stop short of the crosswalk, particularly if the motorist is anticipating a "right turn on red." The cyclist is moving too quickly for the motorist to spot.

There are some shared use paths that are wider, and which have fewer uncontrolled crossings which help mitigate these risks. An example is Clinton Parkway west of 23rd street. Another example is Kasold north of 23rd up to Bob Billings Parkway.

Unless consistently traveling at a low speed. the cyclist has better odds in the street. When approaching an intersection, the cyclist can move closer to the center of the lane making him or herself more visible to the motorist on the cross street.

BillCummings (William Cummings) says...

There you go Bob, denying what is in plain sight, and on top of it continuing with your name calling, the very issue that you were sniveling about that started this thread.

BillCummings (William Cummings) says...

Hate speech?

On May 30, you posted the comment "Organic speed bumps" a fairly thinly veiled reference to running over protesters with a motor vehicle, an apparent support of the tactics of self admitted racist Nazi murderer James Fields.

If you want some civility, try practicing what you preach.

BillCummings (William Cummings) says...

You have now admitted that you engage in name calling, and that you now want to pretend that you are somehow less offensive than others, thus making you a victim. How very special.

And who could forget your "Organic speed bumps" comment of May 30, a fairly thinly veiled reference to running over protesters with a motor vehicle, an apparent support of the tactics of self admitted racist Nazi murderer James Fields. If you do not see advocating running over protesters with a motor vehicle as being hateful, then you are truly blind.

Quit trying to pretend that you are a victim.

BillCummings (William Cummings) says...

Bryan: your assessment is correct. It would be incredibly dangerous for someone to attempt to ride a bicycle against the flow of traffic, especially on a busy street like 6th. Also, riding a bicycle on a sidewalk which is not designed as a shared use path is quite dangerous, as a sidewalk is too narrow, and has too many intersections with driveways, alleys, streets and the like. The cyclist is safer in the street without specific design features that address the aforementioned issues. Richard is just plain off base on this one.

Full LJWorld.com site