Anyone catch Jon Stewart on FNS?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:
He doesn't target the foundations or fundamental structure of either party and honestly holds no bias against either one.

your opinion, the amount of time making fun of one party or beliefs vs. the other belies the statement

No, not really. Believing that one party or belief is more absurd than another does not in and of itself indicate an unfair bias (because plain bias really isn't important to the discussion) against that party or belief.

Very few people will ever claim that mocking white supremacists is indicative of an unfair bias against white supremacism, probably not even very many white supremacists.

Frazzled wrote:
I don't have a beef with Stewart, but the thought that he doesn't have a bias is just wrong. Lewis Black and Ron White are biased too, but thats ok.

And now Frazzled begins equivocating. There is a difference between having a particular type of bias, say a partisan bias, and another particular type of bias. The statement "Everyone is biased." is plainly true, but that statement carries no weight if you aren't going to talk about the way in which a particular person is biased.

**sebster**

youbedead wrote:"Wit, an't be thy will, put me in good fooling! Those wits that think they have thee, do very oft prove fools, and I that am sure lack thee may pass for a wise man"Ö"Better a witty fool than a foolish wit"

Exactly!

Probably!

**youbedead**

sebster wrote:
youbedead wrote:"Wit, an't be thy will, put me in good fooling! Those wits that think they have thee, do very oft prove fools, and I that am sure lack thee may pass for a wise man"Ö"Better a witty fool than a foolish wit"

Exactly!

Probably!

Don't remember high school english then

, that line is from feste in twelfth night, one of Shakespeare's best characters in my opinion

**Albatross**

Ahtman wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Albatross wrote:We have Queso de Cheddar here, for example.

My god, the Brits have inveted cheese de cheese, or cheese².

'Cheddar' doesn't mean 'cheese'. Cheddar is a place in England, for which the cheese is named.

This thread is about cheese now.

Sometimes you just have a terrible sense of humor. Sorry, humour.

Well, sometimes you just have a terrible sense of cheese. Sorry, 'cheez'.

(Ugh.

)

**SilverMK2**

Indeed - the words "processed" and "cheese" should never meet...

**biccat**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
biccat wrote:
Yes, well, I followed the story of the Daily Show's failure to address the issue.

Why is a satirical comedy show under any onus to report a story?

He's not under an onus to report the story. But when he claims to be bipartisan and applies his barbs equally to the left and right, the failure to report on a story full of pure comedy gold tends to suggest the opposite.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
biccat wrote:This simply reinforces the fact that anyone who believes a word out of Stewart's mouth is engaging in selective truths.

Says the poster who defends Fox news, an entire channel that purports to be 'fair and balanced' journalism, whilst crying foul over a comedy show not being bipartisan.

Yeah...Fox actually is fair and balanced journalism. At least compared to the other drek available in the alphabet soup of news channels.

Crying foul about Leibowitz "not being bipartisan" or more accurately, "biased," is what this thread is all about. If you have an issue with the topic of the thread, perhaps you should find another thread to post in? Alternatively, you could start your very own thread where you complain about Fox News.

juraigamer wrote:
biccat wrote:Yes, well, I followed the story of the Daily Show's failure to address the issue.

Since when was the daily show a show that was supposed to be taken seriously? Also, WHEN did it become a news show? Last I checked, it wasn't, the only thing that was odd was the other channels that state they are news are farther from being news than the daily show... wait... I see the problem.

It's not supposed to be taken seriously. But as I explained to the other poster quoted in this response, the failure to report on the story reinforces the idea that Leibowitz is biased in favor of the left. Especially given that the comedic value of the issue is unquestionable.

Oh yeah, he also admitted that he didn't report on the story due to his perseonal bias. There's that part.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:This is where I talk about bias being a polite euphemism for "I don't like you." when used in the context of public discourse, rather than anything that actually has anything to do with bias.

And this is where I talk about you changing the meaning of words to suit your particularly narrow worldview instead of the commonly used definitions. I think we've done this before.

dogma wrote:Very few people will ever claim that mocking white supremacists is indicative of an unfair bias against white supremacism, probably not even very many white supremacists.

While people don't claim it, it's quite obviously true. People mock white supremacists because they are biased against white supremacy (quite correctly). However, if one were being intellectually honest, one would point out how black supremacist groups aren't subjected to the same degree of scorn and ridicule.

This could be interpreted as a separate bias, not just opposed to white supremacists, but in favor of black supremacists.

**frgsinwntr**

http://youtu.be/97Zi9va5BY4

Heres some fox news bias

here is some more....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0kYzTkFY_A

And some more...

http://youtu.be/PO2Hhs3DeG8

eh... here is the whole play list for fox news bias...

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_632428

And to end my "link rant"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFvT_qEZJf8&feature=related

**juraigamer**

biccat wrote:

juraigamer wrote:
biccat wrote:Yes, well, I followed the story of the Daily Show's failure to address the issue.

Since when was the daily show a show that was supposed to be taken seriously? Also, WHEN did it become a news show? Last I checked, it wasn't, the only thing that was odd was the other channels that state they are news are farther from being news than the daily show... wait... I see the problem.

It's not supposed to be taken seriously. But as I explained to the other poster quoted in this response, the failure to report on the story reinforces the idea that Leibowitz is biased in favor of the left. Especially given that the comedic value of the issue is unquestionable.

Oh yeah, he also admitted that he didn't report on the story due to his perseonal bias. There's that part.

If it's not supposed to be taken seriously, then why are you and all the fox news lackies getting all angry about it? Because he didn't report part of the story? Fox news does this all the time. Should i be angry at fox news for doing this as well then? Also... your asking a 25 minute program to to give a full report. Do you see the failed logic there?

**biccat**

juraigamer wrote:If it's not supposed to be taken seriously, then why are you and all the fox news lackies getting all angry about it? Because he didn't report part of the story? Fox news does this all the time. Should i be angry at fox news for doing this as well then? Also... your asking a 25 minute program to to give a full report. Do you see the failed logic there?

1) I'm not a "fox news lacky" Thanks.

2) There's no "failed logic" in asking The Daily Show - a show that covers politics in a comedic way - to cover a story about a congressman publicly tweeting a picture of his wang, apparently intended as a DM to a young coed, (and most importantly) whose name was Weiner. The jokes write themselves, really.

So the question you should ask is "Why didn't The Daily Show" cover the issue? The answer is simple (and was provided by Stewart himself): Personal Bias.

**Manchu**

Please remember that disagreeing with one another does not entail insulting one another. Keep in mind that personal insults are in violation of Rule Number One. Thanks!

**KamikazeCanuck**

biccat wrote:
juraigamer wrote:If it's not supposed to be taken seriously, then why are you and all the fox news lackies getting all angry about it? Because he didn't report part of the story? Fox news does this all the time. Should i be angry at fox news for doing this as well then? Also... your asking a 25 minute program to to give a full report. Do you see the failed logic there?

1) I'm not a "fox news lacky" Thanks.

2) There's no "failed logic" in asking The Daily Show - a show that covers politics in a comedic way - to cover a story about a congressman publicly tweeting a picture of his wang, apparently intended as a DM to a young coed, (and most importantly) whose name was Weiner. The jokes write themselves, really.

So the question you should ask is "Why didn't The Daily Show" cover the issue? The answer is simple (and was provided by Stewart himself): Personal Bias.

Once again he did. I would say he dedicated about 3-4 times as much showtime to Weinergate as he would a "normal" scandal. From comparing the pubic hairs of jews to Endor to giant dildo powered wheels of fortune he can't go one show without mentioing it it some way. The Weiner talk just don't stop on The Daily Show. He once called it a gift from the comedy gods - and by god I mean the bottle of gin that all comics worship.

**themocaw**

Re: "Racist" Herman Cain joke: is this the one about "I don't like to read?" The one made about a candidate who claimed that bills are too long, and when he is president, no bill will be allowed to be longer than three pages?

Yeah.

**daedalus-templarius**

He did "mine the gold" from weiner-gate, making fun of his friend a lot in the process; I don't see the problem. While he does tend to go after Conservatives more, it just seems as though they tend to hand out the gold much more often; especially those 3 on Fox in the morning, feth they drive me crazy.

biccat wrote:Yeah...Fox actually is fair and balanced journalism. At least compared to the other drek available in the alphabet soup of news channels.

I think it would have been better to say all network news is just biased, sensationalist garbage, but you had to go and say Fox was "actually fair and balanced". So, does "actually fair and balanced" equate to "yea, sometimes we make gak up, and report a ton of fallacies"?

Are really, Killborn better than Stewart? Ugh.

**nectarprime**

biccat wrote: Yeah...Fox actually is fair and balanced journalism.

I lolled. Seriously? There's a documentary called "Outfoxed". You should watch it.

**daedalus-templarius**

themocaw wrote:Re: "Racist" Herman Cain joke: is this the one about "I don't like to read?" The one made about a candidate who claimed that bills are too long, and when he is president, no bill will be allowed to be longer than three pages?

Yeah.

I just laughed when I saw the video of that.

**juraigamer**

biccat wrote: Yeah...Fox actually is fair and balanced journalism.

If you believe that, truthfully, then I will stop attempting to shed the light on the lies, as nothing will get through.

My mom is in the same state as you, I can't talk to her about anything regarding politics and I'm a conservative republican, as is she. Damn channel drives us apart. I wonder if I can sue for that...

**alarmingrick**

biccat wrote: but perhaps I am incorrect.

Yeah...Fox actually is fair and balanced journalism.

Yep, i'd say you are. and maybe a little high..... I'm not really too concerned about how you see the interview given your political position.
not that it's wrong. i just don't think you will ever see the hypocrisy of your beloved FOX.

so did anyone catch the "flub" by Wallace? him stating that NBC is on the Left and that they(FOX) are the countr to that? it's about 4 min. into the interview.
also, did anyone catch JS corrcting himself lastnight? he said that FOX viewers are the most misinformed watchers, and Politifact corrected him. he was big enough
to admit it. think Fox will every admit to errors?

**MeanGreenStompa**

biccat wrote:
Yeah...Fox actually is fair and balanced journalism. At least compared to the other drek available in the alphabet soup of news channels.

Why do you bother to engage in any debate over politics if you are so absolutely entrenched and utterly immobile in your beliefs?

Why are you here in the OT? Is it just to 'defend' the right? If so, I'm not sure why as 'the right' won't notice your stance or noble sacrifice.

**sebster**

youbedead wrote:Don't remember high school english then , that line is from feste in twelfth night, one of Shakespeare's best characters in my opinion

Nah, I went to highschool when staking our own literary identity away from the old empire was all the rage. So we read lots of Australian literature instead, most of which was terrible.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Yeah...Fox actually is fair and balanced journalism. At least compared to the other drek available in the alphabet soup of news channels.

Ahahahahahahahahahaha!

That's beautiful. I mean seriously, you just keep on keeping on, don't you?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

themocaw wrote:Re: "Racist" Herman Cain joke: is this the one about "I don't like to read?" The one made about a candidate who claimed that bills are too long, and when he is president, no bill will be allowed to be longer than three pages?

Yeah.

What's that? FOX ignoring the actual substance of a comment in order to twist it towards some kind of racial insult? Surely not.

**voryn15**

alarmingrick wrote:
biccat wrote: but perhaps I am incorrect.

Yeah...Fox actually is fair and balanced journalism.

Yep, i'd say you are. and maybe a little high..... I'm not really too concerned about how you see the interview given your political position.
not that it's wrong. i just don't think you will ever see the hypocrisy of your beloved FOX.

so did anyone catch the "flub" by Wallace? him stating that NBC is on the Left and that they(FOX) are the countr to that? it's about 4 min. into the interview.
also, did anyone catch JS corrcting himself lastnight? he said that FOX viewers are the most misinformed watchers, and Politifact corrected him. he was big enough
to admit it. think Fox will every admit to errors?

Yeah i saw it and thought of this thread. I also like how he listed all the stories that they busted fox for, for being outright lies and that fox has had the #1 worst lie of the year for a few years running.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
And this is where I talk about you changing the meaning of words to suit your particularly narrow worldview instead of the commonly used definitions. I think we've done this before.

The common definition of "bias" is a preference for one thing over another (we could get into the "unfair" aspect as well, but that's even more nebulous). The vast majority of people who have an opinion on a set of things prefer some of those things over others. Its possible to be neutral, but one cannot hold a neutral position and advocate a given set of policy choices. Therefore, if Stewart* is biased (and he states directly that he is informed by an ideology), and advocating a set of policy choices, the charge of bias is irrelevant as it is necessarily true. As such, the charge is made either to dispute a claim to the absence of bias (something Stewart does not claim) or to euphemistically refer to another quality of the person in question, and/or a quality of the speaker. In the case of most uses of the term it seems to be a matter of "and" where the conjunction lies between a political ideology, and the speaker's feelings regarding that ideology. Hence, bias generally means "I don't like your political positions."

I'm not changing the meaning of the word "bias" I'm explaining why the charge is nonsense from a political standpoint if used at face value, and why people who charge people with it are either foolish, or speaking euphemistically.

*Feel free to substitute any other person for Stewart.

biccat wrote:
While people don't claim it, it's quite obviously true. People mock white supremacists because they are biased against white supremacy (quite correctly). However, if one were being intellectually honest, one would point out how black supremacist groups aren't subjected to the same degree of scorn and ridicule.

This could be interpreted as a separate bias, not just opposed to white supremacists, but in favor of black supremacists.

First, one can not correctly hold an unfair bias against something. Obviously people who mock white supremacists hold a bias against them, but that bias is not necessarily unfair. If it were, then mocking pedophiles would also be indicative of an unfair bias. Similarly, if a conservative position is pro-life, and I'm biased against pro-life positions, then it is not unfair to mock people who hold pro-life positions. Impolite certainly, but not unfair.

In any case, not mocking a group is not the same as tacitly approving of that group's action, even if you spend time mocking similar groups. One might simply be unaware of the group in question, or consider their behavior to less significant when compared to that of the mocked group. Because of the time-sensitivity we all experience there will always be groups that go relatively unnoticed in terms of political commentary; which is also why many people simply don't discuss black supremacist groups in the sphere of laymen (academics do it all the time).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
2) There's no "failed logic" in asking The Daily Show - a show that covers politics in a comedic way - to cover a story about a congressman publicly tweeting a picture of his wang, apparently intended as a DM to a young coed, (and most importantly) whose name was Weiner. The jokes write themselves, really.

They did it cover it, pretty extensively actually.

**juraigamer**

alarmingrick wrote:
also, did anyone catch JS corrcting himself lastnight? he said that FOX viewers are the most misinformed watchers, and Politifact corrected him. he was big enough
to admit it. think Fox will every admit to errors?

I did, I thought it was good to know that fox viewers aren't the lowest, only almost always very low on the scale. The list of fox lies though, that was the icing on the cake. Props to Jon for admitting he was wrong, well, only slightly hahahaha.

**Frazzled**

alarmingrick wrote:
so did anyone catch the "flub" by Wallace? him stating that NBC is on the Left and that they(FOX) are the countr to that? it's about 4 min. into the interview.

Its not a flub. Its accurate. Its just gauling to you that there is a conservative news station vs. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR, and MSNBC. Thats why their ratings are so good. Too much competition for the leftwing view, and almost no competition for the right. Its a perfect market.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
biccat wrote:
Yeah...Fox actually is fair and balanced journalism. At least compared to the other drek available in the alphabet soup of news channels.

Why do you bother to engage in any debate over politics if you are so absolutely entrenched and utterly immobile in your beliefs?

Wait, you're not?

**youbedead**

Frazzled wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:
so did anyone catch the "flub" by Wallace? him stating that NBC is on the Left and that they(FOX) are the countr to that? it's about 4 min. into the interview.

Its not a flub. Its accurate. Its just gauling to you that there is a conservative news station vs. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR, and MSNBC. Thats why their ratings are so good. Too much competition for the leftwing

He claiming it's a flub because fox doesn't claim to be conservative, they claim to be fair and balanced. However, wallace ( and this is one of the reasons i quite like him) realizes this is bollocks and instead treats it as reporting from the other side. Personally I hold Wallace in a much higher regard then most fox reporters

**biccat**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Why do you bother to engage in any debate over politics if you are so absolutely entrenched and utterly immobile in your beliefs?

Why are you here in the OT? Is it just to 'defend' the right? If so, I'm not sure why as 'the right' won't notice your stance or noble sacrifice.

Why are you here in the OT? Is it just to 'defend' the ideals of ~~tyranny~~ the left? I'm not sure why as 'the left' won't notice your stance or noble sacrifice. We'll both be the first ones against the wall for having political opinions.

But, yeah, see Frazzled's point about entrenched political beliefs. There are a lot of OT posters here who have firmly established political beliefs.

Do you think all "right wingers" should be cast out so you can enjoy the OT as your personal political stomping grounds?

**Frazzled**

youbedead wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:
so did anyone catch the "flub" by Wallace? him stating that NBC is on the Left and that they(FOX) are the countr to that? it's about 4 min. into the interview.

Its not a flub. Its accurate. Its just gauling to you that there is a conservative news station vs. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR, and MSNBC. Thats why their ratings are so good. Too much competition for the leftwing

He claiming it's a flub because fox doesn't claim to be conservative, they claim to be fair and balanced. However, wallace ( and this is one of the reasons i quite like him) realizes this is bollocks and instead treats it as reporting from the other side. Personally I hold Wallace in a much higher regard then most fox reporters

Agreed. I like Wallace. They can keep their moniker, but I don't see why FOx doesn't take pride in stating its a new station form a conservative viewpoint. Most of their commentators do. But then again, none of the other stations admit their bias so it all works out.

To Jon Stewart, and interesting post from Salon.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/21/will_bunch_jon_stewart/index.html

No, Jon Stewart, you're not just a comedian
When he's not actually doing it on his show, the "Daily Show" host's media criticism can come across as trite
By Will Bunch

FOX
Jon StewartThis originally appeared at Attytood, Will Bunch's blog at Philly.com

TV funnyman (I love that phrase) Jon Stewart is back in the news again, as he so frequently seems to be. For reasons I don't fully understand, Chris Wallace thought it would be a good idea to invite the host of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" on his program, "Fox News Sunday," and Stewart agreed to come on. Of course, Stewart showed his gratitude by telling Wallace that he was "insane" and saying that FNC is disproportionately responsible for poisoning the discourse in this country.

Stewart called Fox News a "relentless agenda-driven 24-hour news opinion propaganda delivery system" -- that sounds about right. But then he added this:

"Here's the difference between you and I. I'm a comedian first. My comedy is informed by an ideological background, there's no question about that. But the thing that you will never understand ... is that Hollywood, yeah, they're liberal, but that's not their primary motivating force. I'm not an activist. I am a comedian."

Longtime readers know I have a tangled view of Jon Stewart and his role in our vast and all-powerful media universe. Like a lot of folks who love both politics and the absurdity of politics, I live for the arrival of Stewart and "TDS" at 11 p.m., and I get anxious and uneasy during those way too many weeks the show is on vacation, as it was last week. That's because I think when he's doing his "day job" during those 30 minutes he is -- bizarre as it sounds -- the best working journalist in America. The examples are many -- his legendary takedown of CNBC that shone light on the financial crisis in a way that mainstream media wasn't capable of doing, his relentless fact-checking of the TV news, and -- most nobly of all -- his fight for the 9/11 rescue workers when it became clear that our politicians and journalists were too craven to do anything.

But outside of "The Daily Show," in interviews like the one he gave to Chris Wallace and even his famous 2004 confrontation that may or may not have killed CNN's "Crossfire," I find that Stewart (and it pains me to say this, as such a fan) can come across as kind of lame, his "media criticism" beyond trite. In interviews, his complaints against the media tend to be an unsophisticated "pox on all of your houses." I thought his largely pointless D.C. mall rally in late October repeated the mistake he makes in these interviews -- trying to argue that our discourse is too loud while ignoring the real point that he hammers home on "The Daily Show," that our politics is irrational.

But the lamest thing of all, frankly, is Stewart trying to absolve responsibility from the gravitas of what he does -- and make no mistake, the gravitas is there -- by claiming that merely, "I am a comedian." That's true, but he fails to see what many others realize, which is that he is also much more than a comedian. In a world where far too much of highly paid professional journalism, especially inside the Beltway, has become a joke, it has fallen on the comedians -- Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher perhaps the most prominent -- to say what on-one-hand, on-the-other hand journalists are too tied up in knots to tell you, that much of America's discourse in 2011 is bat-guano insane.

Actually, Jon Stewart, you are an activist, and the cause you fight for is most worthy because -- as you do correctly note -- it is not a purely ideological one, but the cause of reason. And the fight against illogic is not a "fair and balanced" one, that the most dangerous bogus ideas may be concentrated in the spots where global warming doesn't exist and the way to balance a budget deficit is more tax cuts for rich people. For whatever reason, in the past your friend and colleague Colbert -- who coined "truthiness" and said that reality has a known liberal bias -- has gotten it a lot better than you do.

Maybe Stewart is starting to get it, too. He did say on Sunday that he has an ideology that "is non-partisan and focuses on 'absurdity,' 'anti-corruption' and 'anti lack-of-authenticity.'" That sounds exactly right, so now it's time to drop the "just a comedian" shtick, which comes off like a giant cop-out, exactly the kind of thing that you normally expose so very well, night after night.

Will Bunch is a senior writer for the Philadelphia Daily News and author of the political blog Attytood. More: Will Bunch

**MeanGreenStompa**

biccat wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Why do you bother to engage in any debate over politics if you are so absolutely entrenched and utterly immobile in your beliefs?

Why are you here in the OT? Is it just to 'defend' the right? If so, I'm not sure why as 'the right' won't notice your stance or noble sacrifice.

Why are you here in the OT? Is it just to 'defend' the ideals of ~~tyranny~~ the left? I'm not sure why as 'the left' won't notice your stance or noble sacrifice. We'll both be the first ones against the wall for having political opinions.

But, yeah, see Frazzled's point about entrenched political beliefs. There are a lot of OT posters here who have firmly established political beliefs.

Do you think all "right wingers" should be cast out so you can enjoy the OT as your personal political stomping grounds?

I dated a right wing American girl prior to Mrs S, we had some highly enlightening discussions and her arguments moved my position from hardline socialist to freemarket socialist. I now believe that many industries are better served by the free market and the forced evolution that can inspire.

I have several friends on the right, both here in the US and back in the UK. They will concede points as I will concede points during a debate.

You will not concede, even when confronted with solid fact you will argue that black is white entirely based on loyalty to one side and ultra-partisan entrenchment. So, I wonder, what is the point of you entering into debate here when you will not alter your point of view or accept anything you are shown other than your own belief on entering the discussion. What discussion is that? It is just anyone else banging their head against a brick wall. You are like poster Fateweaver, only you couch the same rhetoric and vitriol in more polite language. Not getting foamy-mouthed doesn't change the underlying problem that you've come here to do battle rather than talk.

I mean, even given my question, your response is antagonistic and confrontational with your ~~tyranny~~ flamebaiting. You are not here to discuss, engage or learn or even refine your own viewpoint, only to confront and attack anyone with a differing viewpoint to your own, in the hope of browbeating them out of the discussion.

I won't be going anywhere, but I am now putting you on ignore, as you are not contributing, only confronting. I do look forward to those with right wing politics who can sway me or get me to look at something from a different angle with a mature discussion.

**biccat**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I have several friends on the right, both here in the US and back in the UK. They will concede points as I will concede points during a debate.

I am more than willing to concede points when any of my points have been affirmatively refuted. But unfortunately there's a dearth of well-reasoned discourse from the left. That's not a failing of the dakka forum members, but rather a failing of left-wing arguments. Ultimately, progressivism (the modern left) is internally inconsistent and tyrannical.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I mean, even given my question, your response is antagonistic and confrontational with your ~~tyranny~~ flamebaiting.

Yes, your question was totally reasonable and non-antagonistic.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:You are not here to discuss, engage or learn or even refine your own viewpoint, only to confront and attack anyone with a differing viewpoint to your own, in the hope of browbeating them out of the discussion.

I'm here to educate. But again, this is totally non-antagonistic. [/sarcasm]

Seriously, read some of the people who respond or attack right-wing views without any knowledge of the basis for those views. The refusal to engage or refine viewpoints is not exclusive to the right.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I won't be going anywhere, but I am now putting you on ignore, as you are not contributing, only confronting. I do look forward to those with right wing politics who can sway me or get me to look at something from a different angle with a mature discussion.

Good to hear. I wish you luck in your future at dakka. When you shut out those who you disagree with, I'm sure the experience will be significantly more enjoyable.

**nectarprime**

biccat wrote: Ultimately, progressivism (the modern left) is internally inconsistent and tyrannical.

Thanks for the laugh man, that's good! You should be a comedian.

**biccat**

nectarprime wrote:
biccat wrote: Ultimately, progressivism (the modern left) is internally inconsistent and tyrannical.

Thanks for the laugh man, that's good! You should be a comedian.

Unfortunately, it's sad rather than funny.

That's why I'm a lawyer, I enjoy making people miserable.