Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (5313)	11/14/2005 1:33:41 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541777

The whole hate-talk radio industry thrives on personal hatred, and it has for 20-25 years now. I like to play a game when I am in the US: click on the AM dial, find a talk show then count how long it takes for the "host" to tell me who I am supposed to hate during that segment. Once it took a whole 30 seconds but that was just because the producer hadn't cued up the sound clip of the public official the host was into bashing that hour. Which is sadder, the hate-talk jocks or the people who lap up their swill 24/7? It's just hatemongering dressed up as political discussion.

To: KLP who wrote (5313)	11/14/2005 1:45:24 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541777

Interesting -- I mention slavery as an issue that religious people opposed in the past, and you want to talk about how black Africans sold their own tribesman. Actually, by the way, that's false, the people who were sold as slaves were captured during wars, just as they are now in places like the Sudan. But I was trying to pick an old topic that didn't have much juice left in it, in order to argue that religious scruples against political expedience is not self-loathing. I disavow the allegation that the person you linked somehow balances Carroll's reporting by attacking Carroll. That's an absurd argument. The term "self-loathing" is typically used, at least what I've seen of it, as a criticism of Jews who oppose hard-liners in Israel. If a non-Jew opposes hard-liners in Israel, then he or she is castigated as an anti-Semite. It's the same thing, attacking the character of the person making the argument rather than the ideas. It's very weak. So weak it's actually silly. By that I mean the argument is silly. I could say that the person making the argument is silly, but that's the same fallacy I am arguing against, so I won't.