VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]
Subject: Re: P.S.


Author:
Kylopod
 		[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 20:10:32 10/07/07 Sun
Author Host/IP: pool-71-246-76-93.bltmmd.east.verizon.net/71.246.76.93
In reply to: Jimmy 's message, "Re: P.S." on 20:28:49 10/06/07 Sat
 >You make a good point while at the same time being
>very broad with it. Let's take O'Reilly though as he
>is definitely one of the biggest voices against the
>ACLU.

Just about all the prominent conservatives in the media have taken shots at the ACLU.

I'm not saying that there's any inherent contradiction between civil libertarianism and conservatism. On the contrary, in theory libertarians are almost by definition also civil libertarians. (In practice I'm not sure that's always the case.) But there is tension between the mainline conservatives in the Republican Party today and the more libertarian type of conservatives.

>Take the war on Christmas. I was raised in a community
>that was outraged by the fact that the Nativity scene
>was no longer going to be in front of our city hall.
>They sold the land to a private group and it so it
>still stands.

The so-called "war on Christmas" is little more than a bogus wedge issue that Republicans have used to make it sound like they're fighting censorship, when virtually the opposite is the case.

>Plus, "The Hebrew Hammer" is quite hilarious

I never got a chance to finish watching it. Some of it was quite funny, though I had soon had enough of Andy Dick.

>At any rate. Are you saying those that don't want to
>censor extremists are also, therefore, extreme
>themselves?

No. I'm on the side of those who don't want to censor extremists.

>">There were many ways in which the ancients knew that
>>the earth was round, long before the advent of
>>science. They could see a ship's mast in the distance
>>without seeing the ship's body (which was below the
>>horizon)."
>
>Smoke and mirrors. No. But the fact that the mast was
>below the horizon is simply because the mast is below
>the horizon.

And because the earth isn't flat.

>Science, in its dogma which I accept,
>says that is because the earth is round.

This inference came way before the advent of science.

>"Or they could notice the earth's curved
>>shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse. A Greek
>>philosopher named Eratosthenes calculated Earth's
>>circumference and diameter to an astonishing level of
>>accuracy (compared to modern measurements)."
>
>Dude, what the fuck? Am I from the South. Back off.
>You're hurting my feelings. You 'are' pedantic.

Well, you asked for it.

>" The second is that it
>>would serve no good purpose. If there were televised
>>debates between flat earth theorists and mainstream
>>geologists, I guarantee you that the membership of the
>>Flat Earth Society would increase."
>
>LOL!!! And that's why Colbert is cool. He gives an
>outlet for those ideas while at the same time
>lampooning them.

That's more or less what the skeptic organizations do, though they'd be a lot less willing to admit their stuff is entertainment.

>" Not because they
>>have any good arguments, but because there will always
>>be people out there drawn to such things as long as
>>they are aware of them."
>
>So what do we do about THAT!!! Will there ever be a
>day where the masses will receive the same education
>as the Prep School set? No. So what is your solution
>for the unwashed? I'm listening because that's the
>crux of the whole dilemna. But there is no solution.
>Clinton had 8 years to do something about education in
>this country. What did he do!? NOTHING!!! There is
>nothing you can do. So will always have a credulous
>populace and therefore we have to filter what they can
>watch. BUT THAT BRINGS US BACK TO WHOSE DOING THE
>FILTERING!!!! And worse the developed filtering
>procedures can get into the wrong hands.

But I'm still not clear on what you'd prefer to this situation. You say you're offering complaints, not solutions. If that's the case, then we're probably more in agreement than we realize. My point is that the "filtering" of news is inevitable, like it or not. Somebody is going to be filtering it for the masses, because we wouldn't have the time for a free-for-all. The beauty of the Internet is that it has given voice to non-mainstream ideas--for better or worse. In the net (not "Internet"), I think that's a good thing.

>Begrudgingly, I agree. You know what a good idea for a
>movie would be? A black kid raised by two gay white
>men.

It's only around the corner, for sure.
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
Subject Author Date
Re: P.S.Jimmy06:56:38 10/08/07 Mon

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-14
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.