|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:22 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| How about a yes or no answer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| How about a yes or no answer to my very simple question? No point in stalling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Olivencia
Joined: 08 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes Foxy I understand it but that doesn't mean I agree with it. This is why I previously wrote and you wouldn't answer:
You can now explain to us how it is that you were engaging in a rhetorical device by your incorrect statement.
No point in stalling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Olivencia wrote: |
| Yes Foxy I understand it but that doesn't mean I agree with it. |
If you understand it, then you understand that these statements are in no way incorrect. You made a statement about conservative vs liberal entertainment programming. Specifically, you said liberal entertainment programming was lacking in in-depth analysis and critical thinking.
Now, any basic practicioner of the English language would understand that saying liberal entertainment programming lacks these things implies that, in contrast, conservative entertainment programming possesses these things. Otherwise there's no point in saying it. So, in order to demonstrate the absurdity of your claim, I gave examples of the types of things we can regularly see on conservative entertainment programming; things even someone like you would have a hard time characterizing as in-depth analysis or based in critical thinking.
My use of your name was a convenient rhetorical device; anyone who understands such devices (as you yourself claim to) would understand that you personally don't actually need to actually behave exactly as I describe for my point to be meaningful; the point I was making was about the caliber of the shows, not about you as a person. I could have used the names of any of the people participating in this thread who claim to be conservatives, or even just used "person X." I used you because you made the claim in question, and for no other reason. Thus, your claim that these statements are incorrect because you assert you never watch Limbaugh or Beck is just wrong; it's irrelevent to the point I'm making whether you personally actually watch them.
Now, you can either demonstrate you never really understood -- and still don't understand -- by continuing to whine about how you don't watch Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, or you can advance some argument that actually defends the idea that shows like Beck's and Limbaugh's somehow possess more in-depth analysis and critical thinking than Colbert's and Stewart's. Given every time you've tried to make an argument of any variety ever on this forum you've been absolutely crushed, though, I don't think any valid argument is forthcoming. Rather, I suspect we can expect more pointless whining about how you feel victimized with more smarmy sarcasm about liberals, perhaps peppered with some hatful remarks towards homosexuals. 맞지? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Olivencia
Joined: 08 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Too long to even bother to read ...I saw how your "logic" went when discussing the New Testament in another thread so Im not gonna waste my time to bother to read even one word of your response.
Liberals...say alot but its just alot of hot air.
later |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Olivencia wrote: |
| Too long to even bother to read ...I saw how your "logic" went when discussing the New Testament in another thread ... |
You mean with pretty much every independent observer agreeing I was right and you were wrong with regards to your attempt to justify your hatred of homosexuals using Christianity? Yes, I suppose that would give you solid justification to bow out.
Yeah, heard this before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| When I read Fox's posts, I'm reminded of just why Air America failed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| When I read Fox's posts, I'm reminded of just why Air America failed. |
Given I described in this thread precisely why Air America did fail, that's a good thing, pkang. It means you're at least marginally literate, and can extract meaning from basic sentences. Congratulations, this is a proud day for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I used to try to listen to Franken's show and a few of the others a handful of years ago, but it was extremely painful to listen to. Every single thing they said sounded like a wild, wild conspiracy theory; it was like Glenn Beck but without the blackboard and other props (and thus much less entertaining). In fact, if it weren't for Mr. Beck and his surprising success, I would've written that off as the reason for their demise.
| Fox wrote: |
| This failed because liberals are no where near as interested in this kind of thing as conservatives are. It's really that simple. Just compare the ratings of guys like Keith Olbermann (the closest the left really has to a Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck), and you'll see this is true. |
I highly doubt that's true. My guess is it has more to do with the kaleidoscopic nature of the Democratic party. That the party is made up of so many easily isolated elements that have little to do with another (environmental protection, minority rights, homosexual rights, pro-choice, etc) and lacks anything other than a party name to tie them all together makes it difficult to build a profitable radio base. The Republican coalition manages to tie their disparate parts together much better (they've managed to link almost everything to Christianity), and so people like Limbaugh and O'Reilly are able to cultivate a strong and loyal following.
| Fox wrote: |
| Liberals are more inclined towards witty satire than the angry ranting that seemingly draws conservative attention so easily. That's why programs like the Daily Show and Colbert Report do so well, while lacking any real conservative analogue. We have our "political entertainment," and you have yours. Enjoy it, because we are. |
Do you really consider the Colbert Report to be liberal? I've heard that Stephen Colbert is much more liberal than Jon Stewart is in his personal life, but I've always found that his show is very much middle-of-the-road. I know he's parodying The O'Reilly Factor directly, but the commentary itself is fairly independent. The Daily Show? Well, that smells more and more like a donkey every episode.
| RufusW wrote: |
| But my favourite spin-off is The Young Turks, who used to do the morning show. You can watch their streaming webcast here - http://www.theyoungturks.com/. Cenq (the host) is very funny and they're real progressives. |
Oh no no no... That guy is yet another Glenn-Beck-gone-liberal clone. That show somehow manages to repeatedly tie humor and logic together and chunk em off the side of a cliff, never to be seen again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| This failed because liberals are no where near as interested in this kind of thing as conservatives are. It's really that simple. Just compare the ratings of guys like Keith Olbermann (the closest the left really has to a Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck), and you'll see this is true. |
I highly doubt that's true. My guess is it has more to do with the kaleidosc | | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
