From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sat Jan 22 2005 - 17:23:08 GMT
Platt,
Some snowy morning thoughts...
> Arlo:
> > If a million conservatives do it, you'll look the other way. If one liberal
> > does it, it proves it is a "leftist argument" technique. Is that it?
>
> Do you think a million nobodies on the Internet have as much influence as
> the power structure represented by the mainstream media and members of the
> U.S. senate? Let's get real.
The point was about "ad hominem" being a "leftist argument". Change the topic
all you want, the truth stands: both conservatives and liberals and any other
labelled-person you want to throw in use "ad hominem" arguments equally.
You mentioned in a previous post that my intention was to imply "Platt the
stupid conservative", and while it was not, if there is one thing that does
come across as "stupid" to me is this "pure good/conservatives versus pure
evil/liberals" that seems to come across in nearly every political
conversation.
In this case, your reference to "ad hominem" as "leftist" paints this same
dichotomy (I was trying not use this word :-)). I have certainly admitted that
"liberals" do it, and was challeging your contention that it was a "leftist"
argumentative technique.
Despite showing this, you seem more desirous to change the point that to concede
that the lable of "ad hominem" as "leftist" is meaningless slander. Condemn "ad
hominem" attacks as useless argumentative techniques all you want, but to
condemn them as "leftist" only shows an inability to think critically or rise
above "evil leftist/good rightist" dichotomies.
> The Condi Rice confirmation case illustrates leftist media bias because
> the former KKK member senator Robert Byrd (known to his friends as
> "Sheets") was one of three Democratic senators who used a parliamentary
> maneuver to delay a full vote on the nomination of Rice. Not a peep out of
> the press. Can you imagine what the same press would do if a black female
> Democrat were blocked from taking a high cabinet post by say, Trent Lott?
> Rather, Jennings, Blitzer, Woodruff and company would go berserk.
Oddly, when Bush lied about WMDs, and his staff have said from the beginning
that Bush wanted to "pin the blame on Iraq", the press was silent. Oh, it was
reported, but when Clinton lied about getting oral sex, or bad business
dealings twenty years previously, he had an independant counsel making
headlines for years. We had stained dresses drug into the national forum. But
lying about the reasons for war, "s'alright".
Imagine if rather than lie about a blowjob, Clinton had been the one who lied
about WMDs and rushed to war with Iraq? Dear lord the conservative media would
have him hanged by now. Bush, on the other hand, gets a free pass.
Bush has a $40 million dollar inauguration while soldiers are dying and victims
of the tsunamis are suffering. Imagine if Clinton did this. And yet the only
media reference I heard pointing out the idiocy of this was The Daily Show
(which, by the way, had a presidential historian on, who pointed out that Lydon
Johnson sent all of the money for his inauguration to families of Vietnam
soldiers who had been killed.).
Once again, this works both ways.
> > I would vote for her if the alternative was worse. If the alternative was
> > better, I'd vote that. The trouble with this two party system is that both
> > sides through up people I find personally repugnant. But, to be a good
> > American, I vote for the lesser of two evils.
>
> How about Ralph Nader? Or the Libertarian candidate? Or a write in vote?
Well, in every election except the last two, I have voted nearly straight Green
and Libertarian (you may think this an odd combination, but my voting depends
on the person and the office). I voted for republicans in state seats, one
local election, and for local judges. Just the same, I've voted for democrats
in these positions as well. It all boiled down to the election, not the
political party. I've supported local "conservatives" who were NRA supporters
because I support hunting (although I personally do not do it). I also support
candidates who wish to ban assault weapons, and so have voted against the NRA
as well (Just as with politics, I don't support any "blank" unilaterally).
Write-ins, I've not done this on the national scale because I've learned that
one must vote for the lesser of the evils lest one inadvertantly vote for the
greater evil (a vote for Nader was really a vote for Bush).
> That word "patriotic" really bugs you doesn't it? I wonder why you find it
> so powerful. Could it be your subconscious is telling you that supporting
> America's laws protecting intellectual value rights is a good thing?
Not at all, I consider myself very patriotic. When I use it in quotes, it is
because I am angered at how the conservative media manipulated its use to mean
"blind obedience to government". To me, my patriotism is vigilence against
deception regardless of "party affiliation" and dissent against any policy, by
any administration, I find immoral. **That** is patriotism, "blind obedience"
is "patriotism" only to lapdogs.
> Speaking of Fox News, it's primetime coverage in numbers of viewers is up
> 57% over 2001 while CNN dropped 14% and MSNBC went down 47%. I think you
> should ask yourself, "Why?" (How large do you suppose is the audience for
> the Guerrilla News?)
Because the right-wing is winning the propaganda war.
I don't rely soley on Guerrilla News, but I value its perspective. But nowhere
on Guerrilla News does one find deceptive slogans like "fair and balanced".
They are honest in who they are, ask yourself "why" Fox isn't? Maybe because if
they actually came out and said "Fox News: We Report, what Rove Decides", your
57% jump would somewhat disappear.
> > Certainly, BECAUSE they were stopping the "jew bias". Goebbels speeches and
> > writings against the german media are well documented on the web.
>
> Where?
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm
> > Well, you see, I have this organization called "Objective Media Analysis",
> > and they've determined it to be true. If you dispute their objective
> > findings, it is only because you are conservatively biased. Since I'm a
> > "liberal", I accept everything they tell me as fact, because liberals don't
> > lie, or would ever stretch the truth to serve political ends, only
> > conservatives do these things.
>
> Just as I thought. You have no source.
Why is my source less credible than the MRC? You conservatives always want to
dismiss anything that isn't "rightist".
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 22 2005 - 17:26:23 GMT