Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bill H on March 20, 2012 at 11:00pm

Ah… I made no mention of Rush or Fox News or corporate media. Just an answer.

Ha ha… are you claiming that Rush Limbaugh isn't "hate talk" and Fox News is "fair and balanced" and corporate media doesn't disinform? Just a question.

Yes I know it didn’t create the article. It picks the articles that support its agenda and publishes them.

Again, the website didn't create the article. I see now, sorry, do you actually think attacking a source instead of content is a valid argument? 

 

So, is that the entirety of your thesis here on this thread, liberal cooties?

Liberal cooties? No. What I was saying is the website publishes bias articles that promote a pro-liberal agenda. I don’t see that as an objective source.

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on March 21, 2012 at 8:14am

"Ah… I made no mention of Rush or Fox News or corporate media. Just an answer."

But, …the content you specifically quoted and repudiated as "invalid", was:

...a unique model of journalism to confront the failures of corporate media[3], as well as the vitriol and disinformation of right wing media[2], especially “hate talk” media[1].

See: 

1. Rush
2. Fox News
3. …corporate media

"Yes I know it didn’t create the article. It picks the articles that support its agenda and publishes them."

This is still as irrelevant as the first time you mentioned it. The author of the article is employed by Business Week and previous to that Barron's as well as a contributor to; Forbes and NY Times.

The counter-argument of "…liberal agenda" here, is not really much more than a red herring. It addresses nothing but your own prejudice and confirmation bias.

You may as well be saying that if articles claiming 2+2=4 and "the sky is blue" were published at AlterNet, …they couldn't be true.

"Liberal cooties? No."

Sorry, I think we're lost in metaphor here, I'll try the direct approach.

What definition of "liberal" do you mean?

Dictionary ones[4], or the oft muttered right-wing-Christian "culture war" cooties pejorative[5]?

• [4]: 

liberal  (ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl)
— adj
	1. relating to or having social and political views that favor progress and reform 2. relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom 3. giving and generous in temperament or behaviour 4. tolerant of other people 5. abundant; lavish: a liberal helping of cream 6. not strict; free: a liberal translation 7. of or relating to an education that aims to develop generalcultural interests and intellectual ability — n 8. aperson who has liberal ideas or opinions

Or, do you mean...

• [5] Liberal (noun);

1. The playground mentality taunt uttered by; anti-feminist, anti-science, anti-egalitarian, anti-intellectual, anti-humanist, Fundamentalist Christian, anti-government (unless they're in charge), anti-social, right-wing culture war pundits; i.e. Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc.

? ? ? ? ?

"What I was saying is the website publishes bias articles that promote a pro-liberal agenda. I don’t see that as an objective source."

So, your only refutation of the subject of this thread is a non sequitur? Specifically a genetic fallacy (red herring)? 

Permalink Reply by Bill H on March 21, 2012 at 9:05am

Liberal is a very broad term, so an accurate definition of a liberal in the US would be a social liberal. Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. Social Justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.

Permalink Reply by Bill H on March 21, 2012 at 5:58am

 

why would you join the Objectivists forum if you weren't so inclined? Just curious… Is this one of those psycho-epistemic "truths"?

 

Because you can't post there unless you join for one. Another reason is to escape the liberal agenda in atleast one forum.

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on March 21, 2012 at 8:26am

Wonderful, have fun!

Still, it's curious you would be unfamiliar with the term, "Randian", y'know …considering context and all?

Not to mention what was explicit in "*so inclined":

* laissez-faire capitalism (a decidedly liberal economic theory, in this context):

*...the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on March 21, 2012 at 12:11am

Bill H yes, I write and think from the progressive, liberal point of view. I have a reason for my thoughts and actions and clearly we disagree. Yes, Ayn Rand "makes a great target for their group- think socialist agenda." That is because she has earned the right to be a target. Her basic philosophy is as immature as I have ever heard. A person who thinks he or she is the only one to take into consideration when making a personal decision does not realize the connectedness of all things. If a man and woman create a child together, which one of the three have dominion over the other two? Is it a battle of who wins and who loses? Does the father have the right to have his needs, wants, and desires met as others suffer under his boots? 

I don't know what your intent is to come to a group who has clear goals and values that differ so greatly from yours. I suppose I could go over to the site you enjoy and spread my love and joy all over the place, and I would surely not be welcome. I/we are not in the exploitation business. 

Every single human being on this planet has a birthright. I know, you are going to get out the violins and make fun of the claim. Just do what makes you happy and see if that is what makes the world a safer, happier, healthier place. None the less, I intend to pay attention to what human beings do to each other and will stand up and make one bunch of noise when I see greed and stupidity, and dishonesty, and ignorance, and delusion, and distortion, and simplistic thinking get in the way of well-being. 

Permalink Reply by Bill H on March 21, 2012 at 8:15am

“I have a reason for my thoughts and actions”

 

Doesn’t everybody?

 

“Her basic philosophy is as immature as I have ever heard.”

 

I disagree.

 

“If a man and woman create a child together, which one of the three have dominion over the other two?”

 

Both parents have control over the child until adulthood.

 

“Is it a battle of who wins and who loses?“

 

No, they should be equal partners. That’s the way married couples are supposed to be. I’m sorry that your personal situation wasn’t like this, and nothing I say can change that aspect.

 

“Does the father have the right to have his needs, wants, and desires met as others suffer under his boots?”

 

No, see my previous answer.

 

“I don't know what your intent is to come to a group who has clear goals and values that differ so greatly from yours. I suppose I could go over to the site you enjoy and spread my love and joy all over the place, and I would surely not be welcome. I/we are not in the exploitation business.”

 

My intent was to have a dialog between people to share ideas. Its called communication. If we both only go to site that totally agree with what we believe, how will we ever change or evolve as a species? Only through debate and understanding can we solve the problems of our world, if not it’s just verbal masturbation with no purpose.

 

You assume that any site I frequent you wouldn’t be welcome at. I can’t answer that because everybody has their own opinions as you have stated. You also assume that I want to exploit somebody or something, which is wrong. I don't.

 

“Every single human being on this planet has a birthright.”

 

I agree with this point.

 

“Just do what makes you happy and see if that is what makes the world a safer, happier, healthier place.”

 

Rational self-interest is a term Ayn Rand uses a lot and your statement says the same thing. Rational – reasonable and sensible. Self-interest - the placing of your own needs or desires before those of others.

 

I intend to pay attention to what human beings do to each other and will stand up and make one bunch of noise when I see greed (Subjective) and stupidity (Subjective), and dishonesty (I agree), and ignorance (Subjective), and delusion (Subjective), and distortion (I agree), and simplistic thinking (Subjective) get in the way of well-being (I agree)

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on March 21, 2012 at 8:29am

"My intent was to have a dialog between people to share ideas. Its called communication. If we both only go to site that totally agree with what we believe, how will we ever change or evolve as a species? Only through debate and understanding can we solve the problems of our world, if not it’s just verbal masturbation with no purpose."

So, then what do you call ignoring the subject of discussion in favor of dropping red herrings into the mix? You have yet to address the topic yet?

Permalink Reply by Bill H on March 21, 2012 at 9:08am

Did we not have a discussion about Ayn Rand? Isn't that in the subject line?

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on March 21, 2012 at 9:30am

Ahhh… I see, maybe, did you stop reading before the "and" in the title[1]?

 

[1]"And" denotes that the context is to follow, re: "and oligarchs/ Koch Bros, BB and T, Wall St…"

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on March 21, 2012 at 9:09am

Back to the topic, "It's one thing keeping the bible out of government policy, it's another keeping equally irrational non-religious nonsense out, …strange bedfellows indeed."

Permalink Reply by Bill H on March 21, 2012 at 9:24am

No.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page