| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Gary Childress" |
| Date: |
20 Nov 2007 05:16:03 PM |
| Object: |
Debate: Bill O'Reilly |
I've seen only a relatively little bit of the O'Reilly Factor,
however...
It is apparently a very, very popular show. He does bring absurdities
into focus (somewhat but not quite like a 60 minutes for the
"Right"). I do get the impression that he takes absurdities and tries
to frame them as the norm for the "Left" (perhaps 60 minutes did much
the same thing to the "Right"?).
The following is an interesting Wiki article on him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_O'Reilly_Factor
Let's also take O'Reilly's book "Culture Warior".
Another interesting Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular-progressives
Judging by the article (I haven't read the book), It seems to me
O'Reilly apparently takes the standpoint that "Traditionalists" are/
were an under-represented group in the US and that he is acting as
their spokesman. On the other hand, the article doesn't seem to state
whether O'Rielly believes that one or the other is objectively
better. Rather only that O'Reilly thinks the "Traditionalists" are
under-represented and could use a boost. Perhaps this makes him an
ideologue.
Merriam Websters-Ideologue: "an often blindly partisan advocate or
adherent of a particular ideology."
Source: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/idealogue
Conversely, instead of trying to determine who is under-represented
and who is not, perhaps it ought to be determined who has the best
idea of how things ought to be. Granted that will also raise many
questions: Does the end justify the means? If there is a society that
is somehow "better" than another type of society, then would a violent
revolution be justified to get to that preferred destiny? Would great
tolls of human misery be justified to reach that goal-if there were a
preferrable society and if we did not currently possess that society
and if indeed there would be much human suffering in radical change?
Or would radical change not involve great suffering at all (Again,
assuming we do not currently possess an "ideal" society)?
Anyway, to me this issue is, perhaps, like a hydra with many heads and
many tenticles leading in many different directions. Perhaps there
are others who have a better grasp on the situation who would like to
share their reactions, interpretations, etc. of Bill O'Reilly.
.
|
|
| User: "tooly" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Bill O'Reilly |
20 Nov 2007 05:32:19 PM |
|
|
Conversely, instead of trying to determine who is under-represented
and who is not, perhaps it ought to be determined who has the best
idea of how things ought to be.
ha...you do realize this is the base premise of facism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Childress" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Bill O'Reilly |
20 Nov 2007 06:06:50 PM |
|
|
On Nov 20, 6:32 pm, "tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Conversely, instead of trying to determine who is under-represented
and who is not, perhaps it ought to be determined who has the best
idea of how things ought to be.
ha...you do realize this is the base premise of facism.
Well, we certainly want to stay away from fascism, if it is indeed
fascist to believe that there is a way things ought to be and given
that fascism ALWAYS results in Nazi Germanies.
Does this therefore mean that there is no way things ought to be and/
or that no one just happens to know (nor can know) how things really
ought to be?
.
|
|
|
| User: "tooly" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Bill O'Reilly |
21 Nov 2007 05:36:03 PM |
|
|
"Gary Childress" <grchildrss@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0d8ef7df-dc3e-4765-acff-5561ff24ec1a@b32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 6:32 pm, "tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Conversely, instead of trying to determine who is under-represented
and who is not, perhaps it ought to be determined who has the best
idea of how things ought to be.
ha...you do realize this is the base premise of facism.
Well, we certainly want to stay away from fascism, if it is indeed
fascist to believe that there is a way things ought to be and given
that fascism ALWAYS results in Nazi Germanies.
Does this therefore mean that there is no way things ought to be and/
or that no one just happens to know (nor can know) how things really
ought to be?
Mussolini fascism declared that government should be left to those better
equipped to govern, as much as baking bread should be left to bakers, making
candles to candlestickmakers etc. In a human world where socialization has
followed 'specialization' for millenia now, the idea has arguable merit.
And if one really studies the new world philosophical lean, we are losing
all 'substantiation' to moral consciousness, whereupon we are left more and
more with jungle law where 'the strong rule the weak, and the clever rule
the strong' as our only justification.
In such a world, Fascism is the only logical philosophical conclusion [here
meaning the powerful ruling over the non-powerful as the prime
justification]. [BTW, the ultimate outcome IMO, of redefining our thought
structures today as oppression of past dead white men].
The question about what 'ought' to be is really 'who decides'?
Do away with the wolves, and the deer over-populate, eating the grasses,
leaving the entire fauna dying off in winter. There are many who see what
'ought' to be from an emotional point of view, whereupon, saving deer might
seem like a noble cause...something that 'ought' to be done. Few would
argue from an enobling perspective to save wolves [or to allow peaceable
deer to be savaged].
The BIG PICTURE of what 'ought to be' might work in the opposite direction
of those who only work off emotion. Marxism surely tries to define what
'ought to be'. I mean, ruling classes based upon ownership of capital where
lower classes are made to live in impoverishment and 'lesser humanity'
surely seems like what 'NOT ought to be'. Yet, under marxist idealism, we
saw how instead of raising all classes of individuals to higher standards of
living, communism brought everyone down in shrinking economies [not to
mention the loss of incentives under totalitarian rule].
Yet, if one speaks about capitalism, they are really referring to 'wild
nature', where predators eat prey, and there are big winners and big losers
in laizez faire interaction. Sounds like a 'not what ought to be'. Yet,
under 'free markets' left to their 'wilder nature', we find much more
efficient use of resource where output increases raising all people and
classes [though, yes, the demarcation between the wealthy and poor remains
stark]. But even the dispossessed poor end up having a worthwhile life
under capitalism.
So, again, 'what ought to be'?
Though not perfect, democracy is probably the best we've come up with to
allow 'what ought to be', be decided by the people 'en-masse'. But it's
great weakness is that it plays to the 'popular' point of view. Popularity
can be easily manipulated...and so the new world power mongers have turned
their attentions to things like news media, television, the classroom, and
now the internet...to assuage the human mind 'en masse'.
In a way, it is a new world fascism taking place under these campaigns to
'change the world' so to speak [by a relative few activated elitists].
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Childress" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Bill O'Reilly |
21 Nov 2007 10:14:05 PM |
|
|
On Nov 21, 6:36 pm, "tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Gary Childress" <grchild...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0d8ef7df-dc3e-4765-acff-5561ff24ec1a@b32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 6:32 pm, "tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Conversely, instead of trying to determine who is under-represented
and who is not, perhaps it ought to be determined who has the best
idea of how things ought to be.
ha...you do realize this is the base premise of facism.
Well, we certainly want to stay away from fascism, if it is indeed
fascist to believe that there is a way things ought to be and given
that fascism ALWAYS results in Nazi Germanies.
Does this therefore mean that there is no way things ought to be and/
or that no one just happens to know (nor can know) how things really
ought to be?
The question about what 'ought' to be is really 'who decides'?
Well, right now many people seem to have decided that we ought to
leave things the way they are (which benefits some and not others) and
NOT go with, for example, Communism (which would benefit some and not
others) or Pure Capitalism (which would benefit some and not others).
So someone has decided something about the way things are currently
that this is the best way. Every law on the books was made by someone
or many who think they know how things ought to be.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "brian fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Bill O'Reilly |
21 Nov 2007 07:41:59 AM |
|
|
"Gary Childress" <grchildrss@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0d8ef7df-dc3e-4765-acff-5561ff24ec1a@b32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 6:32 pm, "tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Conversely, instead of trying to determine who is under-represented
and who is not, perhaps it ought to be determined who has the best
idea of how things ought to be.
ha...you do realize this is the base premise of facism.
Well, we certainly want to stay away from fascism, if it is indeed
fascist to believe that there is a way things ought to be and given
that fascism ALWAYS results in Nazi Germanies.
Does this therefore mean that there is no way things ought to be and/
or that no one just happens to know (nor can know) how things really
ought to be?
No !
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Bill O'Reilly |
20 Nov 2007 08:33:35 PM |
|
|
On Nov 20, 3:16 pm, Gary Childress <grchild...@aol.com> wrote:
I've seen only a relatively little bit of the O'Reilly Factor,
however...
....the idea that editorial commentary is news is clearly a mistake
which the media plays upon. I leafed through the book below at the
library and it picks apard actual documented transcripts and shows the
bias;
Fair and Balanced, My *****!: An Unbridled Look at the Bizarre Reality
of Fox News (Paperback)
by Joseph Minton Amann (Author), Tom Breuer (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Balanced-My-*****-Unbridled/dp/1568583478/
It is apparently a very, very popular show. He does bring absurdities
into focus (somewhat but not quite like a 60 minutes for the
"Right"). I do get the impression that he takes absurdities and tries
to frame them as the norm for the "Left" (perhaps 60 minutes did much
the same thing to the "Right"?).
The following is an interesting Wiki article on him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_O'Reilly_Factor
Let's also take O'Reilly's book "Culture Warior".
Another interesting Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular-progressives
Judging by the article (I haven't read the book), It seems to me
O'Reilly apparently takes the standpoint that "Traditionalists" are/
were an under-represented group in the US and that he is acting as
their spokesman. On the other hand, the article doesn't seem to state
whether O'Rielly believes that one or the other is objectively
better. Rather only that O'Reilly thinks the "Traditionalists" are
under-represented and could use a boost. Perhaps this makes him an
ideologue.
Merriam Websters-Ideologue: "an often blindly partisan advocate or
adherent of a particular ideology."
Source:http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/idealogue
Conversely, instead of trying to determine who is under-represented
and who is not, perhaps it ought to be determined who has the best
idea of how things ought to be. Granted that will also raise many
questions: Does the end justify the means? If there is a society that
is somehow "better" than another type of society, then would a violent
revolution be justified to get to that preferred destiny? Would great
tolls of human misery be justified to reach that goal-if there were a
preferrable society and if we did not currently possess that society
and if indeed there would be much human suffering in radical change?
Or would radical change not involve great suffering at all (Again,
assuming we do not currently possess an "ideal" society)?
Anyway, to me this issue is, perhaps, like a hydra with many heads and
many tenticles leading in many different directions. Perhaps there
are others who have a better grasp on the situation who would like to
share their reactions, interpretations, etc. of Bill O'Reilly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Childress" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Bill O'Reilly |
21 Nov 2007 01:10:19 AM |
|
|
On Nov 20, 9:33 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 20, 3:16 pm, Gary Childress <grchild...@aol.com> wrote:
I've seen only a relatively little bit of the O'Reilly Factor,
however...
...the idea that editorial commentary is news is clearly a mistake
which the media plays upon. I leafed through the book below at the
library and it picks apard actual documented transcripts and shows the
bias;
Fair and Balanced, My *****!: An Unbridled Look at the Bizarre Reality
of Fox News (Paperback)
by Joseph Minton Amann (Author), Tom Breuer (Author)http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Balanced-My-*****-Unbridled/dp/1568583478/
So what should the media do? Shut down a popular show that many
people seem to like? How could that be done in an uncontroversial
manner? I mean, O'Reilly would no doubt shout "Liberal bias!" at the
top of his lungs if such a thing happened.
Granted the masses flock to shows about Alien abductions and Elvis
sightings. They seem to want those things to be true so they will
financially support those who will bring them the sort of truth that
they seek. Who can stop the masses from virtualizing their own
fantasies anymore than one can stop an organized religion from
spreading? People flock to churches based upon what? What evidence
do they have of God's existence? The same will happen for those who
want to believe that there is a liberal conspiracy to prevent
nationalism form spreading in the US. If they have the money then
nothing can stop them from buying someone who will tell them what they
want to hear.
What can be done?
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Bill O'Reilly |
21 Nov 2007 07:44:46 AM |
|
|
"Gary Childress" <grchildrss@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e752308c-b018-4d2c-8012-ec20572e0229@f13g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 9:33 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 20, 3:16 pm, Gary Childress <grchild...@aol.com> wrote:
I've seen only a relatively little bit of the O'Reilly Factor,
however...
...the idea that editorial commentary is news is clearly a mistake
which the media plays upon. I leafed through the book below at the
library and it picks apard actual documented transcripts and shows the
bias;
Fair and Balanced, My *****!: An Unbridled Look at the Bizarre Reality
of Fox News (Paperback)
by Joseph Minton Amann (Author), Tom Breuer
(Author)http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Balanced-My-*****-Unbridled/dp/1568583478/
So what should the media do? Shut down a popular show that many
people seem to like? How could that be done in an uncontroversial
manner? I mean, O'Reilly would no doubt shout "Liberal bias!" at the
top of his lungs if such a thing happened.
Granted the masses flock to shows about Alien abductions and Elvis
sightings. They seem to want those things to be true so they will
financially support those who will bring them the sort of truth that
they seek. Who can stop the masses from virtualizing their own
fantasies anymore than one can stop an organized religion from
spreading? People flock to churches based upon what? What evidence
do they have of God's existence? The same will happen for those who
want to believe that there is a liberal conspiracy to prevent
nationalism form spreading in the US. If they have the money then
nothing can stop them from buying someone who will tell them what they
want to hear.
What can be done?
Go fishing!
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "zinnic" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Bill O'Reilly |
21 Nov 2007 11:08:19 AM |
|
|
On Nov 21, 1:10 am, Gary Childress <grchild...@aol.com> wrote:
On Nov 20, 9:33 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 20, 3:16 pm, Gary Childress <grchild...@aol.com> wrote:
I've seen only a relatively little bit of the O'Reilly Factor,
however...
...the idea that editorial commentary is news is clearly a mistake
which the media plays upon. I leafed through the book below at the
library and it picks apard actual documented transcripts and shows the
bias;
Fair and Balanced, My *****!: An Unbridled Look at the Bizarre Reality
of Fox News (Paperback)
by Joseph Minton Amann (Author), Tom Breuer (Author)http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Balanced-My-*****-Unbridled/dp/1568583478/
So what should the media do? Shut down a popular show that many
people seem to like? How could that be done in an uncontroversial
manner? I mean, O'Reilly would no doubt shout "Liberal bias!" at the
top of his lungs if such a thing happened.
Granted the masses flock to shows about Alien abductions and Elvis
sightings. They seem to want those things to be true so they will
financially support those who will bring them the sort of truth that
they seek. Who can stop the masses from virtualizing their own
fantasies anymore than one can stop an organized religion from
spreading? People flock to churches based upon what? What evidence
do they have of God's existence? The same will happen for those who
want to believe that there is a liberal conspiracy to prevent
nationalism form spreading in the US. If they have the money then
nothing can stop them from buying someone who will tell them what they
want to hear.
What can be done?
Well a start would be a definition of the "masses".
IMO it would be fair and balanced to admit that, for each one of us,
the "masses' are those who do not act and think exactly the way each
of us think they should.
It is such an ego trip to set one's self apart from the hoi polloi. We
know so much better than do they!
Zinnic
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Childress" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Bill O'Reilly |
21 Nov 2007 08:22:28 PM |
|
|
On Nov 21, 12:08 pm, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
On Nov 21, 1:10 am, Gary Childress <grchild...@aol.com> wrote:
On Nov 20, 9:33 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 20, 3:16 pm, Gary Childress <grchild...@aol.com> wrote:
I've seen only a relatively little bit of the O'Reilly Factor,
however...
...the idea that editorial commentary is news is clearly a mistake
which the media plays upon. I leafed through the book below at the
library and it picks apard actual documented transcripts and shows the
bias;
Fair and Balanced, My *****!: An Unbridled Look at the Bizarre Reality
of Fox News (Paperback)
by Joseph Minton Amann (Author), Tom Breuer (Author)http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Balanced-My-*****-Unbridled/dp/1568583478/
So what should the media do? Shut down a popular show that many
people seem to like? How could that be done in an uncontroversial
manner? I mean, O'Reilly would no doubt shout "Liberal bias!" at the
top of his lungs if such a thing happened.
Granted the masses flock to shows about Alien abductions and Elvis
sightings. They seem to want those things to be true so they will
financially support those who will bring them the sort of truth that
they seek. Who can stop the masses from virtualizing their own
fantasies anymore than one can stop an organized religion from
spreading? People flock to churches based upon what? What evidence
do they have of God's existence? The same will happen for those who
want to believe that there is a liberal conspiracy to prevent
nationalism form spreading in the US. If they have the money then
nothing can stop them from buying someone who will tell them what they
want to hear.
What can be done?
Well a start would be a definition of the "masses".
IMO it would be fair and balanced to admit that, for each one of us,
the "masses' are those who do not act and think exactly the way each
of us think they should.
It is such an ego trip to set one's self apart from the hoi polloi. We
know so much better than do they!
Zinnic- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So, to get back to the point at hand, what could be done to diminish
the apparent popularity of such a slanted, one-sided, opinionated and
inaccurate show like the O'Reilly Factor?
Or...conversely, is the O'Reilly Factor a good show and deserves the
popular support which it gets?
.
|
|
|
| User: "zinnic" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Bill O'Reilly |
22 Nov 2007 11:09:51 AM |
|
|
On Nov 21, 8:22 pm, Gary Childress <grchild...@aol.com> wrote:
On Nov 21, 12:08 pm, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
On Nov 21, 1:10 am, Gary Childress <grchild...@aol.com> wrote:
On Nov 20, 9:33 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 20, 3:16 pm, Gary Childress <grchild...@aol.com> wrote:
I've seen only a relatively little bit of the O'Reilly Factor,
however...
...the idea that editorial commentary is news is clearly a mistake
which the media plays upon. I leafed through the book below at the
library and it picks apard actual documented transcripts and shows the
bias;
Fair and Balanced, My *****!: An Unbridled Look at the Bizarre Reality
of Fox News (Paperback)
by Joseph Minton Amann (Author), Tom Breuer (Author)http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Balanced-My-*****-Unbridled/dp/1568583478/
So what should the media do? Shut down a popular show that many
people seem to like? How could that be done in an uncontroversial
manner? I mean, O'Reilly would no doubt shout "Liberal bias!" at the
top of his lungs if such a thing happened.
Granted the masses flock to shows about Alien abductions and Elvis
sightings. They seem to want those things to be true so they will
financially support those who will bring them the sort of truth that
they seek. Who can stop the masses from virtualizing their own
fantasies anymore than one can stop an organized religion from
spreading? People flock to churches based upon what? What evidence
do they have of God's existence? The same will happen for those who
want to believe that there is a liberal conspiracy to prevent
nationalism form spreading in the US. If they have the money then
nothing can stop them from buying someone who will tell them what they
want to hear.
What can be done?
Well a start would be a definition of the "masses".
IMO it would be fair and balanced to admit that, for each one of us,
the "masses' are those who do not act and think exactly the way each
of us think they should.
It is such an ego trip to set one's self apart from the hoi polloi. We
know so much better than do they!
Zinnic- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So, to get back to the point at hand, what could be done to diminish
the apparent popularity of such a slanted, one-sided, opinionated and
inaccurate show like the O'Reilly Factor?
Or...conversely, is the O'Reilly Factor a good show and deserves the
popular support which it gets?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nothing should be done. Let it stand on its own 'merits'. Nothing
wrong with being "slanted, one-sided, opinionated". I certainly am and
my 'slant' is that most posters to this NG are also.
I watch the show regularly and find it entertaining even when I
strongly disagree with O'Reilly's views. It is obvious that he is
preaching to his choir but at times I find myself 'humming along' with
the chorus.
If indeed O'Reilly is consistently "innaccurate" (not my experience),
his show will lose popular support and he will be replaced by a choir
master who will introduce and 'accurately' conduct the favorite songs
of a different choir.
Zinnic
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
