No recent topics.
About the so called liberal media myth
General Topics • Oct 14, 2003 11:28 PM
**Ok I finally stopped laughing. Once again perception proves to be reality.** Laughing? Did I say something funny? I have to say I'm disappointed. I thought we had an honorable debate going. I present facts, you consider them then shoot some facts at me. Back and forth like that. I expected more. Eric Zay
Preacher of hate: Giving Christianity a bad name
General Topics • Oct 10, 2003 10:34 AM
Well I don't see that there is really anywhere else to go on this except to simply agree to dissagree. I'm glad to hear that you will not be punching me or shooting me in the face any time soon. And you may rest assured that if I see you drop your wallet, I'll return it to you no matter how much money it contains. Eric Zay
Preacher of hate: Giving Christianity a bad name
General Topics • Oct 9, 2003 9:46 PM
***I could even try and justify it by saying any one of these often-repeated excuses for intellectual property theft. · Everybody else is doing it · The artists have plenty of money anyway · The music industry has way too much money already · It doesn't really hurt anyone · No one will ever know about it anyway · I really want this one song but not the rest of it · CD's cost way to much Every single one of those excuses may be true but if I download property that is not mine or that I do not purchase I am still a thief. Who cares what my motives are or whether someone can afford the loss. Neither should be an argument for doing wrong. *** This is not what I mean. I'm not talking about rationalizing theft for personal gain. What I'm talking about is the kind of difficult choices that life sometimes throws in your way. Situations where you are not happy with any of the options before you but you must do something. Like hypothetically, would you steel something if it was the only way to save a life. Would you steel a loaf of bread to feed your starving child. As a rule, I don't aprove of theft and I would not steel music from the company in your example. But to me there is a very definite difference in the relative importance of a loaf of bread vs the life of the child. I might even risk my own safety and possible imprisonment to do it. I would not be happy about it, but theft is not as bad as allowing a child to waist away and die of hunger. If were my own life on the line, I would, if I had to, steel to stay alive before I would kill to stay alive. ***I see the world in black and white with very few shades of gray*** The problem here is that the world (quite inconsiderately) is not only composed of shades of gray...it's in living technicolor! If a personal philosophy does not recognize that, then it is ill equipped to help you deal with real life. ***but let me use your example to see if I can expand on this subject. Example 1: I walk up to you and punch you in the face = Wrong, Example 2: I walk up to you and shoot you in the face = Wrong. Both acts are wrong. In my mind there is no MORAL differences between the two.*** Noooo moral difference eh? I'm afraid I'm still no closer to understanding that. To me the two offences can not possible be equal in severity as the level of damage done to the victim is certainly not equal. But as you see no moral difference then I have a request to make, a favor if you will. If I should ever say anything that really makes you mad, I mean if I ever say or do anything that just pushes you over the edge and you come to a choice of either punching me or shooting me in the face...well seeing as how it's all the same to you, I would ask that you to punch me. I can recover a lot faster from that then I can from having my head blown off. Thanks in advance. :-) Eric Zay
About the so called liberal media myth
General Topics • Oct 8, 2003 4:51 PM
***I made an off handed remark about a new liberal media. Another poster made the point that the idea of a "liberal media" is a myth and used it's treatment of Bush in the 2000 election to make the point...I said in that post that it must depend on perspective because I remember the exact opposite from the same media for the same event. I guess I am not alone.*** This poll doesn't surprise me, and I don't argue against the fact there is a perception of liberal bias. Obviously a myth needs believers. If someone shouts loudly enough, and often enough, that the media is overly liberal in it's leanings (as the Coulters and Limbaughs so often do) then that will effect public perception regardless of what the facts may be. Americans overwhelmingly believed in the existence of a vast arsenal of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (Ohhhh I'm so sick of hearing that phrase) and chemical weapons that could be mobilized within 45 minutes of Saddam's orders. But obviously perception does not always equal fact. For myself, I'm more interested in the facts of what the media actually did in it's coverage of the candidates. If the mainstream media is indeed overly liberal in it's leanings, then I would expect it to have been generally nicer to Gore than to Bush. That is, it should have shown Gore (the more liberal candidate) in a more positive light that Bush, and taken every chance to elevate him over his opponent. At least this seems reasonable to me. I would not have expected it to take a comment from Gore about how he and a few other visionaries in congress "took the initiative in creating the Internet" and blown it so utterly out of proportion. This quote originally came from an interview that Gore gave Wolf Blitzer in 1999. What Gore was referring to was something that he actually did do during his service in congress. He actively (and from what I know, quite tirelessly) championed the cause of getting funding for what was then only an emergency military computer network. Gore and others in congress saw the potential of the Arpanet, and fought hard to have it developed. Because of their support, you and I are now communicating on this medium. Not just because of Gore's support, but the significance of that support should not be discounted. What Gore NEVER claimed was that he had done any of this alone, nor did he say that he "invented the Internet." That particular phrase first came into the media's use from a Republican press release. The "liberal" media then grabbed it and ran with it with the all the enthusiasm of a drunkard in winery. From what I read in the papers and saw on CNN, you would think that Gore believed that he personally did everything from inventing the microchip to writing the PASCAL code for packet switching. So, as a result of this "liberal" media slanting, rather than being praised for his insight, Gore was made to look like an exaggurating fool with delusions of grandeur. I guess the latter sells more papers than the former. Whether it was true or not did not seem to matter. A media with a genuinely liberal bias should have portrayed Gore's statement more in his favor, rather than beating him to death with it. It was only after the election that I saw news stories that admitted that Gore had not actually said anything that wasn't true. This is not the only example, but it's a good one. Eric Zay
Preacher of hate: Giving Christianity a bad name
General Topics • Oct 8, 2003 2:35 PM
***Whether you believe homosexuality is a sin (or wrong in your words) or not is really not the point, is it?*** I wasn't saying that it was. You made point of saying that you consider homosexuality a sin. I just made a point of saying that I do not. However that was not the main point of my response. You seemed concerned that Phelps' actions cast a bad light on Christians in general. I thought you might take some comfort from a non-Christian saying that he does not see all Christians in that same light. That is all. ***The point is that the behavior of Mr. Phelps as described above is wrong (or a sin in my words) and in the Christianity I know there are no degrees of sin. A sin is a sin is a sin.*** Well since you bring this up, I have a hard time wraping my mind around this. You really don't see any degrees of wrongness? If someone who had a bad day were to walk up to a stranger and punch them in the face, I think we could agree that this action would be wrong. But if he were to shoot him in the face...well it seems self evident to me that this is quite a bit worse. Wouldn't you? Eric Zay