The Many Faces of US Politics...

[omaghjoe]

Fair point J70  it is a little pointless, but sure is is not great criac discussing things that there is no right or wrong or even any answer to? Anyway I think at least this little exercise demonstrates that anything and everything is possible, we just ultimately don't have a clue. In fact the reality is we probably arent capable of understanding our reality. Do you think a suck cow is capable of thinking all this that we do? Course not, so are why we so arrogant to belief that we can understand why we are here and what here really is?

But moving on a little yes we do need a starting point for building a society that we can all springboard everything else from. So is the physical realm really a good place to start considering that society isn't really a physical thing in itself? Morals and Principles are surely the base point of any society, so these are what we should use. Tradition has been the distributor. but then what should the morals and principles be and more importantly who should be their keeper? Religion in practically every society in history has been the traditional keeper of these, however in modern society this would offend secularists. Constitutions and laws attempt to do something similar, but they dont govern how we think, feel and communicate with each other which is really where society is acted out, so who should hold these standards? Of late the press has by default been moving in on this territory as we have demonstrated in the past few pages, and we have pretty much agreed that this is a bad thing. So if not religion and if not the press, should it be Politicians? Lawyers? And if none of these then who? Who or what should be the keeper and driver of societies principles?

However I suspect we probably dont have an answer to that either, so lets move on and assume that our ultimate goal is society that is at peace and happy then the only way to achieve this is by working together and understanding our fellow man, not opposing and vilifying his belief system whether it be theist our naturalist rather we should be finding the common ground.

[omaghjoe]

Stephen Hawkings writes:
"Provided the universe has evolved in a regular way, we might expect that the reasoning abilities that natural selection has given us would be valid....and so would not lead us to the wrong conclusions"

Purely on materialistic grounds, this argument and yours J70 is entirely circular. In a naturalist universe in which nothing exists but matter, our minds would reducible to brain chemistry. Our thoughts, ideas even our reasoning would be reducible to deterministic physical processes. So when Hawkings (surely regarded as one of the greats of naturalism) appeals to the theory of evolution, random mutation and natural selection to explain our ability to think, reason and draw accurate conclusions, he appeals o a theory that is itself the result of physical processes How can you or Hawkings or any naturalist know that your ideas are true??

If our ideas are just the biological product of deterministic material laws and natural processes, biochemical excretions and whatnot, why does anything you have to say about anything have any meaning? Or any truth?

If you are really a firm naturalist surely you agree?

Hah didnt get a proper chance to read that till now Iceman. Basically what you are trrying to say is "nobody knows nawhin, they only think they know something"

On a side note I used to go to a quiz in Belfast in which there would be rather "colourful" team names one week there was a clinker:

"If Stephen Hawking is so f**king smart, why doesn't he get up and walk"

[Keyser soze]

Stephen Hawkings writes:
"Provided the universe has evolved in a regular way, we might expect that the reasoning abilities that natural selection has given us would be valid....and so would not lead us to the wrong conclusions"

Purely on materialistic grounds, this argument and yours J70 is entirely circular. In a naturalist universe in which nothing exists but matter, our minds would reducible to brain chemistry. Our thoughts, ideas even our reasoning would be reducible to deterministic physical processes. So when Hawkings (surely regarded as one of the greats of naturalism) appeals to the theory of evolution, random mutation and natural selection to explain our ability to think, reason and draw accurate conclusions, he appeals o a theory that is itself the result of physical processes How can you or Hawkings or any naturalist know that your ideas are true??

If our ideas are just the biological product of deterministic material laws and natural processes, biochemical excretions and whatnot, why does anything you have to say about anything have any meaning? Or any truth?

If you are really a firm naturalist surely you agree?

Hah didnt get a proper chance to read that till now Iceman. Basically what you are trrying to say is "nobody knows nawhin, they only think they know something"

On a side note I used to go to a quiz in Belfast in which there would be rather "colourful" team names one week there was a clinker:

"If Stephen Hawking is so f**king smart, why doesn't he get up and walk"

Is that a clinker as in a peurile/offensive/unfunny/disturbing kind of clinker?

[whitey]

SHOCKED........"non partisan" PBS selectively edits "documentary" to protect liberal mouthpiece, Ben Affleck.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/business/media/citing-ben-afflecks-improper-influence-pbs-suspends-finding-your-roots.html?_r=0

First off..whos getting worked up? I find it both sad and ironic.

Secondly, weve been having a civil discourse about where people get their information from and the fact that every news source tends to have some degree of bias.

Do you not find it amazing and bewildering that they would let a high profile liberal like Ben Affleck essentially cherry pick what he wanted excluded?  PBS actually does....theyve suspended the show

[J70]

SHOCKED........"non partisan" PBS selectively edits "documentary" to protect liberal mouthpiece, Ben Affleck.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/business/media/citing-ben-afflecks-improper-influence-pbs-suspends-finding-your-roots.html?_r=0

I don't get why this is this a big deal? Are you saying that PBS would not have done the same for, say, Bruce Willis? It's not a political show in any shape or form.

Affleck agreed to be a subject for the documentary. Surely he, and any other subject, should have some say over the final product? It's not his fault one of his ancestors owned slaves, but I can understand his discomfort with it. You have little to be getting worked up over.

On a personal note, the wife will be disappointed if it's off the air.  She is big into genealogy and is an avid watcher of this show.

[J70]

And besides,  if your issue is with PBS itself, have they not taken sufficient measures for your taste to prevent it happening again?

If you are trying to claim that PBS is not "non-partisan", you are going to need a hell of a lot more than one incident where a genealogy show agreed to save someone a little embarrassment over an ancestor.

Not sure why Affleck was embarrassed anyway. It's not his fault and no one cares.

[dec]

The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the insurance subsidies that are a keyy part of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/supreme-court-affordable-care-act-health-subsidies.html

They are also due to issue a ruling on gay marriage that should be announced tomorrow or Monday.

[J70]

The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the insurance subsidies that are a keyy part of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/supreme-court-affordable-care-act-health-subsidies.html

They are also due to issue a ruling on gay marriage that should be announced tomorrow or Monday.

Excellent news!!

[whitey]

SHOCKED........"non partisan" PBS selectively edits "documentary" to protect liberal mouthpiece, Ben Affleck.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/business/media/citing-ben-afflecks-improper-influence-pbs-suspends-finding-your-roots.html?_r=0

I don't get why this is this a big deal? Are you saying that PBS would not have done the same for, say, Bruce Willis? It's not a political show in any shape or form.

Affleck agreed to be a subject for the documentary. Surely he, and any other subject, should have some say over the final product? It's not his fault one of his ancestors owned slaves, but I can understand his discomfort with it. You have little to be getting worked up over.

On a personal note, the wife will be disappointed if it's off the air.  She is big into genealogy and is an avid watcher of this show.
[/q

First off..whos getting worked up? I find it both sad and ironic that a great station such as PBS could get maniopulated in this way

Secondly, weve been having a civil discourse about where people get their information from and the fact that every news source tends to have some degree of bias.

Do you not find it amazing and bewildering that they would let a high profile liberal like Ben Affleck essentially cherry pick what he wanted excluded? 

PBS actually does....theyve suspended the show

[whitey]

The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the insurance subsidies that are a keyy part of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/supreme-court-affordable-care-act-health-subsidies.html

They are also due to issue a ruling on gay marriage that should be announced tomorrow or Monday.

Excellent news!!

Not sure if its excellent news, but its not unexpected.

Lets see how it all works out next year or the year after when most of the provisions kick in.....I will reserve my judgement until thenn

[J70]

SHOCKED........"non partisan" PBS selectively edits "documentary" to protect liberal mouthpiece, Ben Affleck.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/business/media/citing-ben-afflecks-improper-influence-pbs-suspends-finding-your-roots.html?_r=0

I don't get why this is this a big deal? Are you saying that PBS would not have done the same for, say, Bruce Willis? It's not a political show in any shape or form.

Affleck agreed to be a subject for the documentary. Surely he, and any other subject, should have some say over the final product? It's not his fault one of his ancestors owned slaves, but I can understand his discomfort with it. You have little to be getting worked up over.

On a personal note, the wife will be disappointed if it's off the air.  She is big into genealogy and is an avid watcher of this show.

First off..whos getting worked up? I find it both sad and ironic that a great station such as PBS could get maniopulated in this way

Secondly, weve been having a civil discourse about where people get their information from and the fact that every news source tends to have some degree of bias.

Do you not find it amazing and bewildering that they would let a high profile liberal like Ben Affleck essentially cherry pick what he wanted excluded? 

PBS actually does....theyve suspended the show

This is not some newspaper or cable channel hiding or trumping up some political charge or scandal or crime.

It's a show about genealogy where a subject found out something embarrassing about their ancestry and requested it be withheld. The host,  I guess feeling some compassion for him, pulled some strings. Which broke the organizations rules. Which they have now addressed. And that's it! Evidence of liberal bias it is not. Had the same people at the same time refused to do it for Bruce Willis or Clint Eastwood or Dennis Miller, you might have something to complain about.

[J70]

The confederate flag, Obamacare,  gay marriage to come... Should be a good week for Fox News and talk radio!   

[omaghjoe]

Stephen Hawkings writes:
"Provided the universe has evolved in a regular way, we might expect that the reasoning abilities that natural selection has given us would be valid....and so would not lead us to the wrong conclusions"
Purely on materialistic grounds, this argument and yours J70 is entirely circular. In a naturalist universe in which nothing exists but matter, our minds would reducible to brain chemistry. Our thoughts, ideas even our reasoning would be reducible to deterministic physical processes. So when Hawkings (surely regarded as one of the greats of naturalism) appeals to the theory of evolution, random mutation and natural selection to explain our ability to think, reason and draw accurate conclusions, he appeals o a theory that is itself the result of physical processes How can you or Hawkings or any naturalist know that your ideas are true??

If our ideas are just the biological product of deterministic material laws and natural processes, biochemical excretions and whatnot, why does anything you have to say about anything have any meaning? Or any truth?

If you are really a firm naturalist surely you agree?

Hah didnt get a proper chance to read that till now Iceman. Basically what you are trrying to say is "nobody knows nawhin, they only think they know something"

On a side note I used to go to a quiz in Belfast in which there would be rather "colourful" team names one week there was a clinker:

"If Stephen Hawking is so f**king smart, why doesn't he get up and walk"

Is that a clinker as in a peurile/offensive/unfunny/disturbing kind of clinker?

That would be it

[whitey]

SHOCKED........"non partisan" PBS selectively edits "documentary" to protect liberal mouthpiece, Ben Affleck.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/business/media/citing-ben-afflecks-improper-influence-pbs-suspends-finding-your-roots.html?_r=0

I don't get why this is this a big deal? Are you saying that PBS would not have done the same for, say, Bruce Willis? It's not a political show in any shape or form.

Affleck agreed to be a subject for the documentary. Surely he, and any other subject, should have some say over the final product? It's not his fault one of his ancestors owned slaves, but I can understand his discomfort with it. You have little to be getting worked up over.

On a personal note, the wife will be disappointed if it's off the air.  She is big into genealogy and is an avid watcher of this show.

First off..whos getting worked up? I find it both sad and ironic that a great station such as PBS could get maniopulated in this way

Secondly, weve been having a civil discourse about where people get their information from and the fact that every news source tends to have some degree of bias.

Do you not find it amazing and bewildering that they would let a high profile liberal like Ben Affleck essentially cherry pick what he wanted excluded? 

PBS actually does....theyve suspended the show

This is not some newspaper or cable channel hiding or trumping up some political charge or scandal or crime.

It's a show about genealogy where a subject found out something embarrassing about their ancestry and requested it be withheld. The host,  I guess feeling some compassion for him, pulled some strings. Which broke the organizations rules. Which they have now addressed. And that's it! Evidence of liberal bias it is not. Had the same people at the same time refused to do it for Bruce Willis or Clint Eastwood or Dennis Miller, you might have something to complain about.

I guess we'll agree to disagree then

[omaghjoe]

SHOCKED........"non partisan" PBS selectively edits "documentary" to protect liberal mouthpiece, Ben Affleck.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/business/media/citing-ben-afflecks-improper-influence-pbs-suspends-finding-your-roots.html?_r=0

I don't get why this is this a big deal? Are you saying that PBS would not have done the same for, say, Bruce Willis? It's not a political show in any shape or form.

Affleck agreed to be a subject for the documentary. Surely he, and any other subject, should have some say over the final product? It's not his fault one of his ancestors owned slaves, but I can understand his discomfort with it. You have little to be getting worked up over.

On a personal note, the wife will be disappointed if it's off the air.  She is big into genealogy and is an avid watcher of this show.

First off..whos getting worked up? I find it both sad and ironic that a great station such as PBS could get maniopulated in this way

Secondly, weve been having a civil discourse about where people get their information from and the fact that every news source tends to have some degree of bias.

Do you not find it amazing and bewildering that they would let a high profile liberal like Ben Affleck essentially cherry pick what he wanted excluded? 

PBS actually does....theyve suspended the show

This is not some newspaper or cable channel hiding or trumping up some political charge or scandal or crime.

It's a show about genealogy where a subject found out something embarrassing about their ancestry and requested it be withheld. The host,  I guess feeling some compassion for him, pulled some strings. Which broke the organizations rules. Which they have now addressed. And that's it! Evidence of liberal bias it is not. Had the same people at the same time refused to do it for Bruce Willis or Clint Eastwood or Dennis Miller, you might have something to complain about.

I guess we'll agree to disagree then

How can yous agree to disagree when yous are both making seperate points and ignoring the point the other makes?