O'Reilly - "Very Secret Plan to Diminish Christianity"

Setanta wrote:

Did you hear the Terry Gross Fresh Air interview, before O'Reilly lost it and stormed out? It gives quite an interesting perspective on his attitude toward his own adolescence . . .

Could you explicate in quite a detailed manner, please?

0 Replies

No

0 Replies

chichan wrote:

Lash wrote:

Someone tell me--does one have to be angry to have their post described as a rant? I think the word is misused here. I wasn't angry at all.

Lash wrote:
PS-- For clarification I was pissed when I wrote "fukking."

No, Lash, I don't think anger is a requisite for a rant, buuuut I do think one should try to put some space between the self contradictions, say, at a minimum, four or five breathing cycles.

Try to keep up. I wasn't angry when I wrote the first post--and was owning up to be minorly pissed when writing the second.
They were written on different days.

If you investigate just a tiny bit, it'll save you future humilitation,such as you are experiencing now. Confused

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Lash wrote:
I did not say they were "justified"--quite sloppy and untruthful of you.

Quite right: you didn't say "justified stereotype", you said "earned stereotype". I don't see the difference myself, but whatever.

Lash wrote:
The (earned) stereotype of a worker who "can't follow this job duty", or "that aspect of the job" because of his religion, and he MUST pray five times a day. Does he have to take a ritualistic bath, too, after each prayer? You wanna hire one?? Their religion dictates they cannot accept someone of another religion--how does that work in the workplace? Their (fundamentalist's) women are not allowed to benefit from equal rights--so the men will not subject themselves to secular law. How would you like Abdul throwing rocks at the female working beside him, or OK, maybe just calling her a whore, because of how she's dressed? These are VALID complaints by prospective employers. Can you imagine leading a sensitivity training session with some of these guys.

Everyone note the parenthetical explanation of "their"-- being (fundamentalists).

They exist.

They DO perform many, if not all of these behaviors I listed, and they HAVE caused other Islamics, especially those who seperate themselves with traditional garb, to be discriminated against.

Do you deny it?

0 Replies

snake handlers, do you deny them?

0 Replies

I don't deny they exist.

That would be as stupid as nimh denying discrimination of fundamentalist Muslims exists.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I don't deny they exist.

That would be as stupid as nimh denying discrimination of fundamentalist Muslims exists.

probably true if he does, do you nimh?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

finn

Where did you come by this set of notions you often state here regarding post-modernism and moral relativity? Real question. You have not been in the university environment for a long time (if I have that right) and so your notions won't be accumulated through personal contact. So I conclude you've been reading someone(s). Perhaps Bork, perhaps D'Sousa, perhaps someone else.

Could you tell me who you've received these notions from and why you grant them credence?

I come by most of my sets of notions the same way: ingesting information from numerous different sources and reflecting on it.

I can't provide you with even one specific source for this particular set of notions, but then I don't think I could provide you with even one specific source for most of my sets of notions.

This is certainly not to say that I lay claim to originality in my sets of notions, and I'm sure I have been heavily influenced by any number of different people. I just can't really tell you who they are with any precision.

I have not been in a university setting for many years, but, as you know, that doesn't mean I haven't been learning anything over the last thirty years.

I'm not an academic and am not interested in identifying myself as a member of any particular school of thought.

I like to think of my sets of notions as products of a unobserved synthesis.

I give them credence because they make sense to me, they align with my experiences and are the distillate of a lot of thinking.

I'm sure some are a load of crap, and that I will likely modify them as times passes. Hell, it wasn't that long ago that I would have agreed with you more often than not.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
It is also my opinion that no one requires license to criticize a way of thought. If you reread his quote you will see that he did not belittle or demean any individual.

since MA hasn't responded, i'll slide in with a follow-up. since the quote characterizes Christianity as depraved, it follows that Christians are either depraved or clueless, does it not? assuming that conclusion is unsound--which i think it is--then the quote demeans all Christians, even if it did not enumerate individual Christians.

I take your point, but I don't think it follows at all that to Nietzsche Christians were depraved. Victims perhaps, and maybe even cowards, but not depraved or clueless, and to the extent that either characterization is demeaning to individual Christians, I don't think that was, necessarily, Nietzsche's intent with the quoted statement.

I just don't think anyone need refrain from condemning a philosophy, world view or religion because it will offend some of its followers.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Did you hear the Terry Gross Fresh Air interview, before O'Reilly lost it and stormed out? It gives quite an interesting perspective on his attitude toward his own adolescence . . .

Could you explicate in quite a detailed manner, please?

NPR still has the interview webbed here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1459090

And if Setanta and I agree it's recommended listening, it must be true.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Did you hear the Terry Gross Fresh Air interview, before O'Reilly lost it and stormed out? It gives quite an interesting perspective on his attitude toward his own adolescence . . .

Could you explicate in quite a detailed manner, please?

NPR still has the interview webbed here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1459090

And if Setanta and I agree it's recommended listening, it must be true.

I listen to Fresh Air (or as Gross would say Fressssssssh Airrrrrrr) regularly and I heard her interview with O'Reilly.

O'Reilly is a petulant egoist, but there is no doubt, what-so-ever, that Gross began and continued her interview in the attack mode.

Whenever a Lib confronts O'Reilly (and is there anyone here who will argue that Gross is not a Lib?) they are representing all Libs against the Great Satan. Their objectivity goes out the window and their true colors come to light.

As an aside, another example of NPR bias:

Today there was a report on a NY Times article that reported that a major Al-Qaida leader recanted his previous testimony that Al-Qaida was in cahoots with Saddam.

Fair enough. The US sent him to Eqypt to have his guts spilled through torture and perhaps he did.

Here is where the inexcusable bias comes into play:

The NPR reporter never asked the NY Times reporter the following question:

"Considering this guy is at least a murderous terrorist and undoubtedly a liar, did anyone think to question whether or not he was telling the truth when he said the Egyptians tortured him? More importantly, did anyone consider that when he recanted it was when he was free of the tender mercies of Egyptian torturers, and might have felt comfortable in throwing himself back into lies?

It's not a question of whether or not he has lied (which in some fashion or another the scum bag has), but whether or not an unbiased and professional reporter would not have raised a full portfolio of questions.

0 Replies

Americans consider THAT "attack mode"?

Really? Anyone not on the far right agree?

If so, this is really a major cultural difference, as was suggested by the Bush co wailings and carry on over the French journalist's interview.

And O'Reilly threw a screaming hissy fit...and became extraordinarily aggressive over THAT?

If this idiot has any real power over the American public, that is scary. And he seemed quite sane until he was asked to account for his actions.....I imagine, protected on his own show, that he could reasonable for protracted periods.

Thanks Thomas...I have listened to a ferw O'Reilly shows, in the interests of understanding where some Americans are coming from, and read more transcripts, but that was very instructive.

0 Replies

Depressing, even.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

And O'Reilly threw a screaming hissy fit...and became extraordinarily aggressive over THAT?

I think there's no "became" about it, actually. O'Reilly is always extraordinarily agreesive. When I'm visiting the US and I channel-hop to the "O'Reilly factor" in my hotel room, I often clock the time until he first yells at his conversation partner or tells him to "shut up". Fifteen minutes is a typical timeframe.

But Terry Gross was in attack mode! That's something totally different you know.

0 Replies

I thought he sounded almost normal for the first part of the interview, though, T.

It was striking.

0 Replies

I agree it was striking, dlowan. I also found it funny that of all the talk shows he could have freaked out in, he had to freak out in Terry Gross's. She is one of the calmest, most level-headed, most rational interviewers I can think of. I actually admire how she kept her cool during the last part of the interview. I don't think many interviewers could do this. Terry Gross rocks. I always try to catch "Fresh Air" on npr.com as soon as I can.

0 Replies

I just listened in, I'm thinking Bill really gave it a go and then paranoia crept into his mind=pinhead. Terry is the coolest thing to happen.

0 Replies

NPR Ombudsman calls it what it is--

Gross was gross. Her partisan-fuelled attack proved what O'Reilly has been saying.

Gross "carried Al Franken's water."

NPR: Bias Revealed.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

But Terry Gross was in attack mode! That's something totally different you know.

That statement is without foundation--your reactionary prejudices are showing through. I've listened to Miss Gross' interviews for years on end, and she was extraordinarily easy on O'Reilly. I had just previously listened to her interview of Al Franken. When O'Reilly was winding up to his typical peurile hysteria, he asked if Gross were as hard on Franken as she was being on him (O'Reilly). In a small, mousy voice, she said: "no." I was outraged--she had put all the tough questions to Franken and Franken just laughed. And that was the difference in the two interviews. O'Reilly came in, his usually adolescent suspicion in high gear, looking for a fight. Al Franken enjoyed himself thoroughly and laughed through most of the interview, including those times when Gross accused him of making things up.

That statement of yours about Gross being "in attack mode" is pure horseshit and says nothing about the reality of the interview. It does speak volumes about your reactionary prejudices, however.

0 Replies

I think Thomas was being sarcastic.

But, she WAS obviously "carrying Franken's water."

<I LOVE quoting that!!>

She took NPR down in flames. A decentinterview, like all her other ones, would have proven O'Reilly wrong.

He NAILED her.

0 Replies

O'Reilly - "Very Secret Plan to Diminish Christianity"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know