Diversity of Everything but Thought

bump - posted to the wrong thread.

Whatever, I only pointed out that he is free to make any commentary he wants because it is labled as opinion and does not pretend to represent factual reporting.

How 'factual' can you get really in matters of sociology, philosophy, or any of the more intangible sciences? I would give one trained in sociology, who also appears to be blessed with reasonable insights and common sense, an edge on his perceptions being a bit more than mere opinion. But then I'm a bit biased there myself as my daughter has a PhD in sociology though she is a tad left of John Leo though way right of where she once was.

so am I

That's very funny, Dys.......very funny. But then I've been watching The Life of Brian.....one of my favorite movies. And I'm in a good mood. I think............I think we should stop quibbling over what other people should be doing and.........and always look on the bright side of life, ti dum ti dum ti dum ti dum ti dum...

"Kill them all, God will recognize his own." (Arnald-Amalric, 1208,when asked by the Crusaders what to do with the citizens of Beziers who were a mixture of Catholics and Cathars)

okay. but just also agreed that townhall is right leaning biased.

since we're still sort of in christmas mode, i'll paraphrase the great man himself, from "merry christmas charlie brown";

"isn't there anyone who we can all agree is unbiased ?"

i'm pretty sure we can leave noam chomsky and sean hannity off the short list.

Is it not a mistake, though, to dismiss out of hand anyone whom you perceive to have a bias...either right or left?

I've had to wade through endless columns by the gormless (my new word for 2005) Krugman, yet read him I DO. (Forwarned is forearmed, so to speak), and he seems to have no end of admirers on this forum.

As long as a column is well written, thoughtful AND thought-provoking, contains no blatant factual errors, I see nothing wrong with presenting a point of view and will generally try to maintain an objective opinion.

Dismissing Mr. Leo's revelations (as seen through the eyes of his liberal daughter), just because it's rumored that he's been quoted on Townhall seems a bit narrow-minded to me.

Dtom wrote


On the formal liturgical calendar, it is still Christmas, so I'll address your second statement first with a heartfelt and very warm Merry Christmas back at you, Dtom, and also to everybody along with sincere best wishes for a great New Year ahead. Both wishes, however, reflect my personal bias born of belief in "God with us" and a resulting eternal optimism that good and right will ultimately win out over bad and evil when good people determine for it to be so. My personal bias no doubt colors my perceptions of my world and the people and events in it in a way that is different from those who do not share my beliefs.

Some people hold my beliefs in contempt; some hold me in contempt because of my beliefs and will go so far as to build some ridiculous straw man to illustrate that because I hold the beliefs I hold, I am like THAT....or I am capable of THAT....or I approve of THAT.

Some people who do not share my beliefs accept and appreciate them as part of who I am and, even if they discuss/debate them when appropriate, they feel not the least angry or threatened because I hold and express them. Some do not even think I am diminished because I hold them.

Guess which group I think is tolerant of diversity of thought.

Using the implied logic from Dtom's first statement, any writer whose writings appear in Townhall is biased and therefore to be discounted as an biased source regardless of the fact that Townhall itself neither hires nor pays writers. Townhall is purely a repository for writings first printed somewhere else.

I've engaged in enough friendly jousts with Dtom and some others to know that they do not share some or many of my views, but neither do thet generally dismiss an idea, concept, opinion or statement based purely on its source. Some here do. Some can explore an idea or opinion on its own merits. Some are incapable of separating an idea or opinion from its source.

Guess which group I think is tolerant of diversity of thought.

And finally to Dtom's question: "Is there anyone here we can all agree is unbiased?" I honestly don't know a single soul/writer/source whose opinions I consider or whose take on things I appreciate who is unbiased. Bias in itself is an integral part of who we are whether it is a preference for raw or cooked carrots or whether we are partial to Republican or Democrat candidates.

Having said that, there are far too many reporters/commentators/sources, both liberal and conservative, who research poorly or who attack rather than reason. Those are the users of anonymous or unnamed sources, those willing to jump to a desired conclusion on the flimsiest of evidence or highly selective evidence, those who build straw men to denounce something, somebody, some point of view. Some quote only from these kinds of sources that support their personal ideology or opinion and will not even thoughtfully consider any other point of view.

There are many writers/reporters/commentators who come from both more liberal or more conservative points of view who utilize competent scholarship and research and, even though their personal ideology will influence their conclusions, they present their argument honestly and fairly. Some look for this kind of source and will post/quote the conclusion drawn by this kind of source with no consideration for whether the source is liberal or conservative.

Guess which group I think is tolerant of diversity of thought?

In other words, I think there is no such thing as an unbiased source when it comes to matters social, religious, or politic. There is broad diversity of thought and opinion. Some believe no conviction is worth holding if it cannot stand up against scrutiny and they enjoy testing their conviction/opinion against different opinions and convictions. Such people do not have to agree to appreciate the opinions of others. Others are so insecure in their own opinion and conviction, they dare not test it against any other and become angry when challenged, or their arrogance is demonstrated and expressed in anger and contempt for any other point of view.

Guess which group I think is tolerant of diversity of thought?

Guess which group I would prefer to be prevalent on our public school and university campuses?

the problem I have with Leo's opinion piece it that it has an agenda for which he is well known (and often critized) he has demonstrated repeatedly his distain for all PC and made seemingly irrational attacks on private interprise (a conservative?) especially in his christmass rant about a NYC department store that chose (free interprise decision) to display neutal/sectarian window treatments for the holiday season.

Macy's got the message I strolled through one of their stores at a fabulous mall in San Diego a couple of days after the "holiday" and they had signs everywhere proclaiming "After CHRISTMAS Half-Price Sale"....lol.

What do you bet that "Christmas" is mentioned quite prominently in their pre-Christmas 2005 ads?

Yep, neither Macys nor Target got any of my Christmas money that I chose to spend in places that did allow Salvation Army bell ringers. To me, without charity and good will, Christmas is meaningless.

I suspect we'll see the kettles back next year. Or not. Everybody is entitled to their preferences, and I won't blackball or even lead a protest against a store for exercising theirs. But I will mostly patronize a business establishment who at least appreciates that not everybody has the Grinch's tiny heart.

Correct. He's a regular contributor for townhall, or is sydicated to townhall. Though the point doesn't have much relevance.

Rather more relevant - of the nearly 100 writers listed at townhall under "columnists", there is not a single - not one - voice representing something other than conservative (often very radical) views (do go check). As we are talking the value of diversity and all.

"divesity of thought" isn't always what's it thinks it is. There is a implied limit in degree to the "diversity". As in, you can offer differing opinions as long as they do not challenge my opinions. If they do challenge my opinions, you obviously can't read what I meant to write.

There is doubt that Townhall.com is generally conservative?

That's like saying CommonDreams is not liberal...

Rumored? Is that a joke?

townhall is the internet portal for the Heritage Foundation, and was established as such by Joseph Coors and Paul Weyrich...stated mission... "to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."

Aside from a rather blatant objectivity or balance problem, journalistic standards at townhall are essentially non-existant. Fact-checking, correction of previous errors, presentation of divergent views, etc...these constitute no part of townhall's operation.

If we understand townhall to be an uncareful mouthpiece for rightwing propaganda, we understand correctly.

Now, does that mean any and all content on townhall will be false or worthless? Of course not. But let's be honest about who this writer is and what group he is aligned with.

The column he wrote is pretty much worthless in content. For precisely the same reasons that finn's anecdotal account is. We learn (though quite foggily) of several instances. The logical error (encouraged by both finn and this writer) is to then jump to the conclusion that such instances are 1) as described, without significant or important nuance and 2) they are widespread. Neither conclusion is warranted logically.

I feel pretty much the same way about much of what the gormless Krugman writes

Segue, the way to go. Well yeah, and I don't like crunchy peaanut butter either. lol

Yes, you would. But the reasons for that are rather different from what you assume.

You work off an assumption, evidenced by your participation particularly here on this thread, that proper scholarship and competent journalism have much to do with, or are properly measured by, political leaning. So Krugman equals Coulter.

This is such an uneducated and impoverished view of either sphere of activity that I want to bite you. It endangers our pursuit of truth (the actual goal of competent journalism and higher education) by establishing party membership or ideology as the criterion for how we get to facts and truthful statements.

From such a stance, it follows that regardless of facts and how those facts might have been established, a literal genesis account of the earth's history equals an account garnered from the various physical sciences.

From such a stance, it follows that regardless of whether a columnists claims are specific and verifiable or whether they are marked by generalizations and unverifiable accounts and unwarranted (illogical) conclusions, they are exactly equal in worth.

One man's Dogma is another man's delusion.

Forced to choose betwee Galileo's heliocentricity "theory" and the biblical assertion that Earth is the center of the universe, one chooses between rationale and Faith.
Choosing your option based upon partisanship rather than facts... is an action worthy of sheep.