[Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?

[Joe Campbell]

I'm not angry, Roger. A bit frustrated but not angry.

Listen slowly. I've taught logic for 20 years. I tell you your argument is
fallacious and you should believe me. To do otherwise shows a kind of
arrogance and disrespect for longstanding social institutions.

So it frustrates me. You have, thus far, given very bad arguments for not
funding NPR. I've pointed out some problems: one might take the very words
you say and support some ridiculous claim. You acknowledge that the claim is
ridiculous ("Don't fund the military") but fail to see the logical
connection between your very words and the claim. If the words support your
claim they also support the ridiculous claim; if the ridiculous claim is
unsupported by your words, so is your claim. But you don't want to play
because you think I'm biased.

I'm not angry, I'm just very in-your-face. If you met me, I'd be in your
face, too, but you'd see I wasn't angry.

Roger, you have voted for an idiot for president twice, you've supported for
state office a man who is openly disrespectful to our Mormon community and
another man who is disrespectful to progressives, and you are now trying to
tell me that the world would be better off without NPR.

I, on the other hand, think the world is better off with better sources of
information, sources that test our critical thinking skills. You can't
compare NPR to Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.

I'd be more than happy to consider your opinion that NPR should not be
funded but so far you have not given one non-fallacious argument in support
of that claim. So what am I to do? Accept your opinion because, well, you're
a nice guy and everyone is entitled to his position?

No. This is public forum and I'm going to point out that, although you have
your own opinions which we are entitled to respect, it is my right and duty
to note that you do not have one damn good reason for believing them.

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:01 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:

> Shame on you. Your argument is illogical. You attribute things to me that
> arn't factual. Why do you seem so angry? I do not wish to see NPR fail. I
> hope that they continue to survive. Only a fraction of their funding comes
> from the government. Why should they recieve federal funding and Fox, ABC,
> NBC, CBS, etc. do not? None of them should receive federal funding. That is
> the only way to insure a free press.
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:09:00 -0700
> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
>
> > The point is NOT supported by you or anyone else. You radical right wing
> > folks think your views should be adopted for no other reason than that
> you
> > believe them; because you believe it is true I should also. But that is
> not
> > the case. We have a history of objective standards for judging the merits
> of
> > reasons and argument. It is called the discipline of logic. If you had
> more
> > respect for the history of Western civilization and public institutions
> you
> > would realize that. The fact that you ignore those is no ones fault but
> your
> > own. Shame on you. Worse, you want to promote further ignorance by
> > disallowing legitimate news sources (NPR) and gutting education. That way
> > even fewer people will be able to see through your irrational rhetoric.
> >
> > But here in a nut shell is the issue for all fair minded people to see.
> You
> > have nothing but fallacious arguments and unsupported accusations to
> support
> > your claims. Nothing at all. The nameless "Glenn" is in the exact same
> boat.
> >
> > The real issue is, like with respect to military funding, whether the
> source
> > funded provides a public good. Whether it is "slightly right" or
> "slightly
> > left" is completely irrelevant. Shame on you!
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:53 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The point is that is they should not be funded period. It makes no
> > > difference whether they are right, left or down the center.
> > > Roger
> > > -----Original message-----
> > > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> > > Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:42:44 -0700
> > > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
> > >
> > > > No Roger, Glenn did not answer the question. Glenn made several
> > > fallacious
> > > > points, some of which were pointed out and all of which are ignored
> > > below.
> > > > And do you also support slavery, another view that "Glenn" supports?
> > > >
> > > > Why bother pretending to engage in discussions about these issues if
> you
> > > > IGNORE criticisms of points made? Here is another refutation of one
> of
> > > your
> > > > points. Please respond.
> > > >
> > > > You write that NPR is "[s]lightly left of center" [even though you
> admit
> > > to
> > > > listening to it only "occasionally" and do not provide ONE example
> > > > supporting this claim]. If this is a reason to not fund NPR via
> taxpayer
> > > > money, then the following would also be a good argument: The military
> is
> > > > slightly right of center, so it should not receive any public
> funding.
> > > >
> > > > So which is it: should we end public support for the military or
> should
> > > we
> > > > recognize that your argument is a bad one?
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:54 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have not been on the computer all week, but I think that Glenn
> > > answered
> > > > > your question.
> > > > > In response ro Nick- I do not know it Nader is right or not.I have
> only
> > > > > listened to NPR occasionally. What I have caught is Fresh Air or
> All
> > > Things
> > > > > Considered. They both at the times I heard them seemed to be
> lightly
> > > left of
> > > > > center. Nader only mentioned Charlie Rose. I am sure there a lot of
> > > other
> > > > > hosts besides Rose. I have never heard him. In any event this is
> all
> > > > > irrelevant. It would not make any difference if they were equally
> > > balanced
> > > > > or were 100% to the right. They should not be geting any funding
> from
> > > the
> > > > > taxpayers. In case you don't realize it we are in a money crunch.
> Let
> > > spend
> > > > > only on those thing that are essential and can not be done
> adequately
> > > by the
> > > > > private sector. I want to see our veterans taken care of for just
> one
> > > of
> > > > > many that we should be spending on. Your ideal Nation of Sweden is
> > > geting
> > > > > the message and cutting back on services before they wind up like
> > > Greece and
> > > > > Ireland. I hope they succeed, that is the ancestral home of the
> > > Falen's.
> > > > > They come from Ostergotlund.
> > > > > You may know  where that is.
> > > > > Roger
> > > > > -----Original message-----
> > > > > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> > > > > Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:27:38 -0700
> > > > > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
> > > > >
> > > > > > State one left wing point of view that NPR broadcasts, Roger.
> Just
> > > one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They broadcast news. You are so used to listening to the lies on
> Fox
> > > that
> > > > > > you confuse them for "points of view."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:17 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If  NPR wants to broadcast left wing points of view and
> supporters
> > > are
> > > > > > > willing to fund it, more power to them.
> > > > > > > Roger
> > > > > > > -----Original message-----
> > > > > > > From: "Robert Dickow" dickow at turbonet.com
> > > > > > > Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 02:18:10 -0700
> > > > > > > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > > > Subject: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I hear that the conservative congressmen have proposed
> > > withdrawing
> > > > > > > > government funding for NPR. Apparently a newscaster or fund
> drive
> > > > > person
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > somebody made some disparaging remarks about the Tea Party.
> Fie!
> > > Fie!
> > > > > > > Now,
> > > > > > > > denying public broadcasting all those scarce taxpayer dollars
> > > sounds
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > reasonable and just response to such offenses if you're a
> > > > > conservative
> > > > > > > > Republican sympathetic with the Tea Party movement, right? Uh
> > > > > huh.sure.
> > > > > > > How
> > > > > > > > dumb can anybody be?! NPR won't suddenly go belly up and go
> off
> > > the
> > > > > air,
> > > > > > > > slinking off into the shadows with its tail between its legs.
> > > Private
> > > > > > > > donors-- those dwindling middle class stalwarts-- will
> valiantly
> > > step
> > > > > up
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the plate in ever greater numbers. So what will actually
> happen,
> > > > > then, is
> > > > > > > > that NPR will be unfettered and free to unleash all their
> rabid
> > > > > commie
> > > > > > > pinko
> > > > > > > > liberal gun-hating womens libber staffers to say all the
> rabid
> > > commie
> > > > > > > pinko
> > > > > > > > tea-barfing they've always wanted to say but didn't because
> they
> > > felt
> > > > > > > > compelled to be balanced in their commie pinko tree-hugging
> > > opinions
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > bleeding-heart liberal union thug biased news reporting.
> Clearly,
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > government measure will not serve the common good. And I may
> be
> > > > > forced to
> > > > > > > > mix even more metaphors in the future.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bob Dickow, troublemaker
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > > >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > > >               http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > > >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110328/76bd904e/attachment-0001.html