World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[CRTGAMER]

How about this. We don't post insane left wing nut job news posts and you don't do the same for the right side?

Well, it is a Political Thread which includes reaching out to the world events. The Forum has powerful tools that include inserting Images, URLs and Quotes. If this was strictly a cell phone environment then we would all be doing BBS DOS based text messaging hiding in just our opinions. As mentioned earlier, a good idea to keep subjects separate to keep the posts below the length of a small novel.

Good luck with that, he's buried it into his forum signature for posterity.

Unless you are willing to sacrifice a few IQ points, I strongly recommend that no one watch those videos, BTW. I still marvel at the aggressive ignorance on display in the "Big Joe" video.

IQ points would be lost by not willing to research everything. I too am marveled by the ignorance in the video for a different reason; the protesters not listening to reality. Some stayed for the entire speech stopped in the tracks to at least hear what he spoke. Yes he went extreme on some points, served it as a wake up call for the fools that continue to instill violence in their protests. Controlled vs extreme emotions will always prevail in making a mark. That is what protesters should do, attack the problem with the mind instead of the heart. The swarm is not always correct, decide as Big Joe stated with your own intellect.

Why would you encourage not watching or reading everything presented? Even if you do not agree, a worry others might? I thought open to all discussion means looking at everything, not even looking just limits your exposure, a loss of information. I look at all links that are posted in this Thread even if I do not agree with them. The purpose is to gain knowledge from ALL sides, laugh at the ridiculous and decide what makes sense to you alone.

[jp1]

[Sarge]

I didn't find that statement very confusing at all.

(I have not watched the video, in the interest of full disclosure.)

[prfsnl_gmr]

Why would you encourage not watching or reading everything presented? Even if you do not agree, a worry others might? I thought open to all discussion means looking at everything, not even looking just limits your exposure, a loss of information. I look at all links that are posted in this Thread even if I do not agree with them. The purpose is to gain knowledge from ALL sides, laugh at the ridiculous and decide what makes sense to you alone.

Yes. I encourage people not to read everything presented to them, not because I am worried about them agreeing with it - no one with a modicum of critical thinking skills, education, or common sense will find the videos the least bit persuasive - but to prevent them from wasting their time. If you're looking for a well-reasoned conservative viewpoint, read The National Review or an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Don't waste ten minutes of your life watching an ignoramus rant on the street while being "interviewed" by a clown.

I will let you in on a dirty little secret...not all arguments are worthy of consideration, and not all viewpoints are deserving of respect. The videos linked in your signature are examples of both, and watching them is a waste of time. (If anyone is curious about them, click on the links! Be warned, however, that you won't be getting that time back.). There simply aren't enough hours in the day to consider ALL viewpoints, and even the most open-minded people aren't going to gain anything by listening to the ravings of a lunatic.

[CRTGAMER]

Oh no, I am defending myself against a lawyer. Me thinks its a lost cause case.

Yes. I encourage people not to read everything presented to them, not because I am worried about them agreeing with it - no one with a modicum of critical thinking skills, education, or common sense will find the videos the least bit persuasive - but to prevent them from wasting their time. If you're looking for a well-reasoned conservative viewpoint, read The National Review or an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Don't waste ten minutes of your life watching an ignoramus rant on the street while being "interviewed" by a clown.

In your opinion
That is just it, everyone has a different interpretation of what is right or wrong. In your invective statement, no one has the authority as to what is correct, it is why your job exists. As to the blind trust of established news institutions only, you cut yourself short. Sad that the great history of said institutions are no longer to the middle, I really miss Walter Cronkite though he too had a personal take in presenting the nightly news. However, no point on going over the bias of media; already a fact of the keel lean depending on the story or what story is not told.

I will let you in on a dirty little secret...not all arguments are worthy of consideration, and not all viewpoints are deserving of respect. The videos linked in your signature are examples of both, and watching them is a waste of time. (If anyone is curious about them, click on the links! Be warned, however, that you won't be getting that time back.). There simply aren't enough hours in the day to consider ALL viewpoints, and even the most open-minded people aren't going to gain anything by listening to the ravings of a lunatic.

That is no secret, of course not all view points worth considering. However without looking at all view points, how can you determine if valid or not? Prejudging without looking at the entire case .......... oh, you should know that already. Nor is it a secret by not investigating everything cuts your own knowledge short. The fear of exposure to hypocrisy swaying you decision unfounded unless you join the hyped swarm as many protesters on both sides do.

During the recess, I would love to read your expanded take on the protest at Berkley and the implications of Free Speech.

[prfsnl_gmr]

In your opinion
That is just it, everyone has a different interpretation of what is right or wrong. In your invective statement, no one has the authority as to what is correct, it is why your job exists.

I'm not sure where you are getting this. Facts are facts. Some things are correct, and others are incorrect. Attorneys argue in support of their clients' positions, but upon pain of losing their license, they are forbidden from making frivolous arguments or presenting facts they know to be false. (There are a lot of terrible lawyers out there; so understandably, many people find this fact shocking. )

As to the blind trust of established news institutions only, you cut yourself short.

I do not have "blind trust" in established news organizations. I have, however, cultivated an understanding of journalism ethics - remember when CBS fired Dan Rather? - and I understand how established news organizations apply them. My education also allows me to identify fairly quickly when people are ignorant of a subject - such as economics, history, or the law - and I quickly discount arguments put forward from a position of ignorance. Dismissing those arguments and positions quickly does not "cut myself short" in any way.

However without looking at all view points, how can you determine if valid or not. Prejudging without looking at all the case..........oh you should know that already. Nor is it a secret by not investigating everything cuts your own knowledge short.

First, I am not "prejudging" anything. I actually watched the videos. I "post-judged" them to be depressing displays of the deepest ignorance.

Second, you don't "cut your knowledge short" by refusing to consider and investigate "everything." If you know one sh*tty fact, you have everything you need to know that your case is a loser. Likewise, when someone consistently displays a deep misunderstanding of the topics about which he is speaking or writing, you don't cut yourself short by ignoring him Rather, you "cut yourself short" by wasting time that you could have spent considering something else.

I would love to read your expanded take on the protest at Berkley and the implications of Free Speech.

I don't care about the protests in Berkeley. As a supporter of the ACLU, I would die defending the rights of even the most hateful and ignorant people in the country to speak their minds.

[CRTGAMER]

I would love to read your expanded take on the protest at Berkley and the implications of Free Speech.

I don't care about the protests in Berkeley. As a supporter of the ACLU, I would die defending the rights of even the most hateful and ignorant people in the country to speak their minds.

Thanks for the rebuttal, I think we have reached an impasse. The jury should have a say in the earlier proceedings, any takers?

You surprised me by your answer on Berkley for two points.

1. I did not expect you to side on the free speech at Berkley even for a reviled conservative. Thank you for that! More should see the huge picture instead of the immediate, free speech was at one time the hallmark of Berkley. Still do not like the college though, in my eyes (if you are ready) too much "free speech" and not enough free thinking. The swarm take again. The "free speech" in the past has tied up the Los Angeles Police Department; the reason why the violence got out of control once again. Thinking about Chicago again.

2. Wow! Did the ACLU make any statements that Milo Yiannopoulos should have been allowed to speak? This I would not expect from the ACLU who usually takes the extreme liberal causes. A challenge to the ACLU to do what is right and to improve your standing of the right; take on that Berkley Free Speech case for once instead of crippling the "free speech" of the police to enforce the law!

[MrPopo]

1. I did not expect you to side on the free speech at Berkley even for a reviled conservative.

Milo is reviled for being an asshole. The fact he aligns himself with the conservative side of the American political spectrum has nothing to do with it. There are many conservatives who don't get mass protested; they manage this by not being assholes.

[prfsnl_gmr]

1. I did not expect you to side on the free speech at Berkley even for a reviled conservative.

Milo is reviled for being an asshole. The fact he aligns himself with the conservative side of the American political spectrum has nothing to do with it. There are many conservatives who don't get mass protested; they manage this by not being assholes.

It is also as important to remember that "freedom of speech and association" is a two-way street. As much as I would defend a hateful bigot's right to speak his mind, I would defend a university's decision - and even a decision by a public university - not to associate itself with that person's speech by providing him with a forum to express his views. (That is, a hateful bigot is free to yell from the streets, but he is not entitled to a an auditorium - even an auditorium at a public university.)

[CRTGAMER]

It is also as important to remember that "freedom of speech and association" is a two-way street. As much as I would defend a hateful bigot's right to speak his mind free of consequence, I would defend a university decision - and even a decision by a public university - not to associate itself with that person's speech by providing him with a forum to express his views. (That is, a hateful bigot is free to yell from the streets, but he is not entitled to a an auditorium.)

Okay now you are swarming, get away from being drawn as a moth into the one sided lamp. The university did invite him. The protesters denied the Free Speech which is the big issue. This has happened in New York and a few other locations as well.