avansc wrote:
All i can say is wow.
Firstly, NPR is the most boring radio station known to man, its the reason aliens haven't come to earth. BUT, its one of my presets on my radio, and i refuse to listen to the filth of howard stern.
and im disgusted that in your opinion these people that you list are "gutter", on what basis, by what definition? just because they do not preach your politics? says a lot about your character. other than these people obviously not sharing your ideals and political ideas, give me examples of why these people are 1. polarizing, 2. not reasonable and 3. not rational.
Wow, it's like you're giving me the barrel, full of fish, and handing me a loaded shotgun.
1. It's irrelevant how exciting or boring NPR is. (Edit: You are illustrating precisely why stations like Fox and MSNBC are the way they are, and helping support my point.) I also find it dull at times, but this is part of the price you pay for programming whose primary goal is not entertainment.
2. The gutter isn't limited to these commentators; it's also the countless stories about Tiger Woods' love life, celebrity drama and other such nonsense that's inconsequential to my life (but entertaining to many in a soap-opera style).
3. Regarding the commentators, you've presented a common cart-before-the-horse form of argumentation that I will take this opportunity to address, even if it's not what you're specifically claiming. I often hear people say things like: "You only think they're wrong because they disagree with your politics." or "because they're on the opposite side", as though I stubbornly adhere to a side, and there's no sound basis for being on "a side" (if you'll call it that). When in fact, the reason they're on the "other side" is because they disagree with sound arguments that I can put forward to defend my side. So, essentially, the argument: "You only think they're wrong because they're on the other side" is akin to a tautology.
But in fairness, you were addressing the term "gutter" specifically, which I'll address. You're making a false inference that my opposition to the likes of commentators on Fox News translates to opposition to anyone on the opposite side of the political spectrum. From this shaky premise you make assumptions about my "character". See how dangerous false assumptions can be? I will gladly give you examples of why these people are these things. Do you require a laundry list of examples, or just a few? Because The Google is your friend if you want plenty of examples of the foolishness of these people. For example, Ann Coulter has a famous quote in which she claimed, of 9-11 widows: "I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much." Or when she spoke of homegrown terrorists being "all liberals". Or when she claimed that she didn't consider the murder of an abortion doctor "a murder, but rather a termination in the 203rd trimester". If these are not polarizing comments (i.e., comments which pull one group of people strongly on her side while driving an entire population of people far away), I don't know what are. As evidence for irrationality, virtually all of these people have claimed that it takes much more evidence to be atheist than theist, and have even employed Pascal's Wager to defend belief in a deity. (I will gladly dig for quotes at your request.) Others have insinuated that you have no moral foundation if you don't believe in God, or that the Ten Commandments are a foundation of morality, that God is referenced in our constitution, or that schools should teach Intelligent Design (do you detect a trend?). O'Reilly claimed that a YouTube video of a child speaking out against religion (obviously influenced by their parents) is "child abuse", whereas children speaking out against abortion (under similar parental influence) is A-OK. And here's a video of Sean Hannity offended by (quite benign) atheist ads in New York subways, and claiming that there's somehow a double-standard despite the overwhelming imbalance of Christian ads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od049AQL ... r_embedded.
I can really dig up many, many more examples, and you could too. Hell, we could both spend all day doing it. I didn't even mention the "War on Christmas" fiasco. Is this what you require? Is it really even necessary?
I'm still completely bewildered that it's in any way controversial to claim that the commentators I named are "polarizing". The fact that there are large groups on either side who either love or hate these figures should be sufficient evidence, should it not? Don't get me wrong, I'd say the same for commentators on MSNBC, though I don't think their commentary is as uninformed (again, you may claim it's simply because "I agree with them", which leads to the same tautology as before.)
