Free Press

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Uhhh ... ahhh ... hmm. Difference?

[sexual_chocolate]

Force versus choice.

[iain]

I'm still waiting to hear if I can drive my goddamn tank to work tomorrow. It's been disarmed.

I tried this but got cited for driving with traction chains out of season. Things might be looser where you are though?

[MtnGoat]

"So, you think it's wrong for people to be coerced into not buying an SUV, which makes other people feel unsafe."

 

Yup, you're writing a law, using threats specific to what you wish to achieve, and threatening people to observe your specific ends and goals or else go to jail.

 

"So, your suggestion to those people is to buy a car that they would not otherwise buy so that other people can drive their SUV's and not smash people?"

 

My suggestion is that they do what everyone else does, what it their right to do, control their *own* choices using the *own* values according to the world around them and the others they can't control, just like everyone else does.

 

Claiming everyone effects everyone else is so basic as to be useless. The question is not effect, it's whose effects are within the sphere of their self determination and who is trying to reach outside that. If you claim some people are effecting others and thats a problem, why do you get to turn around and demand another effect is your right to impose?

 

"So you're fine with just passing the coersion buck down the line, is that correct?"

 

No, it is not correct. There is no law specifying that you shall be forced to drive a specific car and accept a specific risk level. Under what you are supporting, the opposite is not true.

 

Those you wish to coerce with law on this, are *not* coercing you with law detailing how you shall value risk, what choices you shall make to deal with it, or what you shall drive or not drive.

 

There is no "passing the buck" here. On one hand we have everyone making many different choices "coerced" only by their own values, their own choices, and what they have done with their lives, etc. On the other, we have folks who intend to use threats to remove choices from others.

 

[MtnGoat]

"Hey, no one's forcing the others to buy a safer car, so they can make it to work alive. It's a choice, see? And that's the difference!"

 

And on this, you are finally correct. How you evaluate your risk and your willingness to work around it is your own buisness.

 

I assume that as a liberal, you automatically take into account all the ramifications of your choices on society, as is proper. I'd never claim you shouldn't do so. This is the essence of our differences in viewpoint. While I recognize your right to make your choices for you, using your standards, and live by them, you are far less likely to do the same for me.

[sexual_chocolate]

Goddamnit, I make a smart-ass comment and mtgoat responds to it as if it's serious.

 

Mtgoat, don't be such a tool.

 

And answer my tank question please. Or are you avoiding its ramifications?

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Goat, you sound an awful lot like you're warming up to debate what the meaning of "is" is.

 

(That's what we like to call "a joke," you dig?)

[Peter_Puget]

Ah Free Press. I remember the first time I climbed it. I swear it was rated 5.8 in the old Meyers guide but has since for some reason been up graded to 5.10a. The main problem is/was the rap anchor a freeking bashy! We backed it up. I heard later someone died while rapping. The groovy thing is that you can easily TR Fish Crack. Fish Crack is so cool that even rapping it an feeling the jams gets you psyched. Unfortunately the actual climbing isn't a cool as the scoping leads you to believe. It is a better TR than lead by the way.

 

PP

[allthumbs]

Are you just now figuring this out. MtnGoat is not human. He's a computer program written by Jon and Timmy to piss us off.

[iain]

yes my original thesis about MtnGoat, artificial "intelligence" (in this case, a rickety abacus and some punchcards).

[sexual_chocolate]

Cheap shot from the side-lines. Debate him.

 

I'm still waiting for my tank answer.

[MtnGoat]

For a rickety abacus, my designer did pretty well holding off the likes of the competition I see here.

 

If you want to drive your tank to work, by all means do so. You may be assessed weight fees like a semi, and additional user fees may be necessary if you damage the pavement more than is costed for when doing road maintainance tax costing for normal vehicles.

 

 

Edited January 10, 2003 by MtnGoat

[Rainierwon]

You can't debate the Goat. He is a computer generated wanker setup here to make useless points .

Part of the alien conspiracy we heard of recently ...

[allison]

I am afraid the Goat is a real person.

 

I know it to be true.

 

Holy carp you people all need to get real jobs 'cuz this stuff is time consuming!

[mattp]

Good morning again, campers.

 

N Y TIMES HEADLINES

Today, America's "liberal" flag bearer, the New York Times, carries headlines critical of Iraq and of Korea, and has one that says the US has asked that a judge to deny a terror suspect access to a lawyer because it could harm the interrogation. Other headlines say the US economy is dissapointing, and that stocks are up. It says Nuclear plant emergency plans are inadequate, that the US is suing Tnet over medicare billing and threatening the Europeans over some issue related to modified plans. The Senate has passed a stopgap finance bill. The only headline that mentions the administration directly states that "Bush Says Tax Proposal Will Be Fair for All Incomes." I detect no liberal bias though of course I do not know what ACTUALLY happened yesterday.

 

NY TIMES EDITORIALS

The editorial page, as usual, is tilted in favor of the administration if anything. Of eight listed, it has one saying that Bush's tax proposal is right on, one saying that some of the conservatives who support Bush are against condom use and this undermines the battle against aids, one saying the quest to disarm Iraq must not fail but peaceful alternatives must first be exhausted, one saying the detention of enemy combatants without giving them a lawyer is "disturbing," one saying that congress "finally" helped the jobless, one saying that police should videotape confessions, one saying that black's enjoyment of freedoms is resented by Afrikaners, and one saying New York City workers should reject a contract.

 

PP AND MTN GOAT CITE NO EXAMPLES OF LIBERAL PRESS

At risk of engaging the likes of PP and MtnG again, I will note that they still have failed to show how the mainstream TV or newspaper press has a liberal bias. I am willing to admit that one could argue that NPR is liberal oriented, though I would argue that the conservative talk shows at least counterbalance it if not vastly outweigh it. But newspapers and TV? I have been looking for news that will counterbalance the Administration's propoganda for the last year and I just can't find it.

 

Mtn. Goat has not put forth any specific example of a liberal bias, and PP cites three examples of how the NY Times is liberal-slanted, but did not even bother to argue that any TV station consistently slants things to the left. PP's examples just don't do it for me because he has failed to state whether, in the case of the "economy grew at 3.1%, slower than expected" the "slant" was liberal or conservative or whether the real news story was the figure itself or the fact that greater growth had been predicted or relied upon. PP's second example, that the NYT printed an op-ed written by a U.S. diplomat who had a direct stake in the matter he wrote about but failed to state his background, again does not convince me of anything. PP has not stated whether this failure to reveal background aided a liberal or conservative view of the matter, and he has not addressed the question of whether such "disclosure" appears in other op-ed pieces, such as the one written by George Mitchell two days ago. And then there is the "Augusta fiasco." PP has not stated how the NYT coverage of this matter may have shown liberal bias; he seems to assert, rather, that the mere fact that the story existed is evidence of that bias.

 

THE LIBERAL PRESS IS A MYTH.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[RobBob]

mattp,

 

The difference between NPR and the talk shows is that a high %age of NPR is presented as news. The news stories, the emphases in the delivery, etc. are clearly liberal on NPR.

[allthumbs]

Jeez Matt, you're really immersing yourself in this media slant. Careful or the Goat will put you on his "best buddy" list.

[mattp]

Trask -

Maybe I should preemptively put Mtn Goat on my buddy list?

 

RobBob -

Personally, I find NPR rather disappointing. All that smart-ass liberal banter is simply that -- just like the crap on the right-wing radio stations. And the news? There has been little coverage about the suffering in Iraq that follows our bombing or results from the sanctions, there has been little follow up on what is happening in Afghanistan now -- and nothing about the recent pipeline deal that may have been the real reason for that war in the first place. There are commentaries about how Bush's tax cut will favor the rich, yes, but the presentation of the news just does not satisfy THIS liberal. Never-the-less, for the sake of this discussion I am willing to concede that NPR has a liberal slant to it (I just think it is lame).

[Jim]

Kinda shows the limited range of new coverage we have out there when NPR is considered liberal. Anytime they interview an administration figure (any administration current or past) they throw softballs over the plate every time. They play the same game. They know if they question too much the will be denied access, so their polite. There is no liberal media in the US.

[iain]

I thought that M. Albright interview this morning was interesting. She's probably the one who best knows the bigwigs in N. Korea.

[Peter_Puget]

Quote:

PP AND MTN GOAT CITE NO EXAMPLES OF LIBERAL PRESS

"….. PP cites three examples of how the NY Times is liberal-slanted, but did not even bother to argue that any TV station consistently slants things to the left. PP's examples just don't do it for me because he has failed to state whether, in the case of the "economy grew at 3.1%, slower than expected" the "slant" was liberal or conservative or whether the real news story was the figure itself or the fact that greater growth had been predicted or relied upon. PP's second example, that the NYT printed an op-ed written by a U.S. diplomat who had a direct stake in the matter he wrote about but failed to state his background, again does not convince me of anything. PP has not stated whether this failure to reveal background aided a liberal or conservative view of the matter, and he has not addressed the question of whether such "disclosure" appears in other op-ed pieces, such as the one written by George Mitchell two days ago. And then there is the "Augusta fiasco." PP has not stated how the NYT coverage of this matter may have shown liberal bias; he seems to assert, rather, that the mere fact that the story existed is evidence of that bias. "

 

Egads! I turned to this thread hoping someone would have responded to my climbing post in it and was shocked to find Mattp had written a "Goatish" tome! "Goatish" that is in length only. I am not sure how to respond to his piece and have very little time to do so because I might get to leave work early! I find his internal contradictions amazing and vertigo inducing. For example take the title, shown in red above, and compare to the sentence highlighted in blue! Whoa Nelly! He claims that I didn't convince him of a liberal bias because that I never explicitly stated whether the bias I was trying to illustrate in my examples was conservative or liberal. (See brown highlights) Surely his very rejoinder indicates that he clearly knows I was using these examples to illustrate indicate a liberal bias. Now I wish I had been more explicit as that would have had him conceding to the obvious truth!

 

I approach these discussions as a joint exploration of our culture. An exploration carried out by those with the shared goal of seeking to increase our knowledge and understanding of the world around us. Accordingly I have provided verifiable references that would enable other CC.comers to research the matter and come to their own conclusions. Now I find that I have entered a spray filled debating zone where the goal is nothing but assertion of a point of view. How could I have been so wrong.

 

Perhaps a beer is on order.

 

Edited January 10, 2003 by Peter_Puget

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Perhaps a beer is on order.

 

A beer is always in order, brother Puget.

 

 

Drink on.

[mattp]

PP-

You can do better than that, honestly. If you are going to make an argument - go ahead and make it. For example, how is it that the story about a flap over a golf tournament at an all-men's country club shows that the NYT or the press-at-large is biassed? Your "examples" are flung out without any explanation just like Mtn Goat's (weren't they his?) pointing to gun control and taxes - without any explanation of how an actual news story was slanted. Again I will note that I conceded that you may be right about these stories, but you have failed to make your point. And once again you say you are too busy to do so in the same breadth as you fling the condescending dismissal of my attempt at reasoned discussion.

 

And, by the way, you had an opportunity to share a with me and you stood us up.

 

 

Edited January 10, 2003 by mattp

[Peter_Puget]

So right DFA, except right now it's sparkling water for me as I too have that holiday poundage. However I imagine You, Mtngoat, Mattp, SC and myself could drink a house down discussing politics if the need ever arose.

[allthumbs]

I'd rather watch Jenny Jones. She's got women bodybuilders and exotic dancers on today. All claim to be "smart". One didn't know what ESP was, and another supposed law student didn't know what a mandible was. She claimed she didn't have one. Yeosa