...

Let's get banhammer month started on the right track shall we?

Aaaaaaand we fail at political discourse even here.

Actually, the discussions usually aren't too bad but for the hecklers.

Yeah, neither me nor Wookie are doing anything against the rules.



Yeah, I looked for the original version for a while before I posted that one because I agree with your first point. And to refer to your final sentence, I think there's a difference between insulting a person's character after they're dead while passing it off as an obituary, and talking about their life's challenges. Can you find a single other effigy of the man that mitigates his career while exalting his suicide attempt?

Look, it's as I believe I said before. There were many takes on him and his life. I know you don't like that one, but it's a valid one. Troubled and controversial people are going to end up with a wide range of eulogies. I think you are looking at it wrong. That eulogy presented an aspect of the man, that many already were, unfortunately, unfamiliar with, that inspired reflect about his flawed nature.

So I decided to go back and research the original topic. I don't quite have the patience to find an unedited clip but I do have some comments.

First, O'Reilly is an opinion show. His comments do not represent an opinion of the Fox News Channel. He's also a sort of "gut instinct" kind of guy. In another anti-Fox News thread, recently, I showed how a clearly intelligent and informed woman, with a command of the facts, fared against O'Reilly. He's more of a "traditionalist" but she was running intellectual circles around him regardless of whether or not you agreed with her opinion. Oh, and she's also a marquee Fox News figure so it's not possible to hold "Fox News" to either position. In fact, in these Amsterdam clips all of the characters, including the O'Reilly dissenters, are Fox News personalities.

Next, Amsterdam is generally considered as a permissive location with legalized drugs and brothels (please correct me if I'm wrong as I've never, and undoubtfully never will have, been there). His comments seemed to indicate that the major problems he was referring to were in a relatively small area. There's no indication that the rebuke, which showed wide ranging and vast views of the city addressed that.

Lastly, there is no hidden bias at Fox News. You pretty much know the leanings of the commentators. That is what set them apart from other news channels. MSNBC is the other major US network to pick up on that as their lineup is unabashedly left.

I see.

How, exactly, do you know that this is a "valid" take on him and his life? How do you know that the eulogy presented an "aspect" of the man that was anything other than vitriolic fiction written to punish an influential liberal author for the sole reason that in death he is no longer able to sue Fox for their libel? Do you have some deeper understanding of Vonnegut that you think anybody should actually care about? Do you believe that all opinions are valid?

Don't bother answering; they're rhetorical questions. Everybody who watches Fox News is willfully illiterate so it's not like anybody who watched that eulogy even had a clue what the dude was talking about.

Sure.

It's not like we should bother commenting on the entire networks reporting of his death based on one report anyway. Besides, this is all ancient news but, apparently, it gets your panties in a bunch as well.

If you think it's the news being discussed, you truly cannot have a discussion on any significant level.

Um, it's the O'Reilly Factor.

The only one stupid here is OP, who for some reason thinks it purports to be news.

It's one step removed from being offended by the Onion.

While it may be an opinion show, they're not just expressing their opinions, in fact, most of the time, they're not. They're stating 'facts' about Amsterdam that are completely false, painting a picture that is far from the truth.

Amsterdam isn't a 'cesspit of corruption and crime', that's an absolute lie.

Amsterdam isn't 'completely out of control' and it's not 'anarchy'. These aren't even things you can have an opinion on because they're absolutely ridiculous. But they're stating all these things as if they are facts.

Besides, as far as opinions go, they're only valid when they're based on the right information.

When that analyst says "They have these wonderfully naive ideas about teaching your children to have safe sex...", that's an opinion. However, she follows this up with saying this policy hasn't worked at all, it has backfired. That's not an opinion, it's a lie. Teenage pregnancy in The Netherlands is among the lowest in the world. (And yes, I'm talking about percentages, so don't give me that ancient crap about how it is only a small country).

From Wikipedia:

Netherlands

The Netherlands has a low rate of births and abortions among teenagers (5 births per 1,000 women aged 15–19 in 2002[3]). Compared to countries with higher teenage birth rates, the Dutch have a higher average age at first intercourse and increased levels of contraceptive use (including the "double Dutch" method of using both a hormonal contraception method and a condom).



I know Wikipedia isn't the best source, but these statistics are well known and you'll find them confirmed anywhere.

Now look at these numbers and tell me how valid that 'opinion' is.

The problem is that these things are brought as facts to millions of people who will take it for granted.

To say that it's 'only an opinion show' is pretty damn

Why not? Amsterdam is a beautiful city full of culture. I enjoyed my stay there very much.

Because he takes Bill O'Reilly and Fox News seriously.

I know you were talking to Kirbs, but in case you were also taking a stab at me: I wasn't trying to prove a point, I found a video that I wanted to discuss. I wouldn't want to insult anyone's intelligence, so here is (what I believe to be) the original video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLJ56BfPoSg



Not this time, it seems.



That's too bad. It's a beautiful city, rich in history and culture and very safe to walk around. There's plenty to see and do even if you're not even remotely interested in the red light district or the pot shops (coffeeshops).



I'm not sure what gave you this idea, but I don't see it. The problem is more that the major problems he is referring to are non-existent, or rather: completely made up.

- He says 'organized crime is controlling the pot shops and brothels'. Nonsense. Pot shop owners aren't criminals. They're simply people running a business. The only way pot shops can get involved with crime is because the government is allowing shops to sell weed, but they're not allowing people to grow it. So if you're a shop owner, you'll sometimes need to buy product from 'criminals', simply because it's still illegal to grow in large quantities. Pretty much the only criminal problem involved with the pot shops is the growing industry. People stealing electricity because they don't want to get caught because of a high energy bill, that sort of thing.

Prostitution is a different story. There is indeed a problem with girls being victims of human trafficking, but this is not a result of the legalization. It's more a problem that hasn't been completely solved yet. However, working conditions for prostitutes have generally increased since. The main reason they're closing down brothels is because they feel the need to tidy up the image of the city somewhat.

- I will forgo the sex education thing for now because I addressed that extensively in my previous post.

- "All the criminals and drug addicts throughout Europe have gone and exploited that opening in Amsterdam". This is a ridiculous claim. Amsterdam isn't any more criminal than any other major European city. The truth of the tolerance policy is that it actually works. Because we make a difference between hard (physically addictive) drugs and soft drugs, drug use in the Netherlands is much lower than in the neighbouring countries. That goes for both hard drugs and soft drugs. Just look at the statistics. France, for example has a much higher percentage of hard drug addicts and casualties. As far as cannabis use goes, from all the countries in the world, The Netherlands is in the average range. FYI, countries where it's strictly illegal, such as Australia and the US, are on top of the list.

The only real problem we have with drug tourists is in the cities near the border, where big groups of French tourists are flooding the limited number of coffeeshops, which leads to, what they call 'nuisance' with the inhabitants, but not in Amsterdam. The fact that the Dutch conservative right wing is shutting down coffeeshops is not because of criminal control, but because they're too close to high schools. Which is ridiculous, because you'll need an ID to prove you're an adult if you want to purchase anything. No shop owner I know is willing to risk his license by selling to minors. It's just an excuse to limit the number of shops because 'drugs are bad hurrrrr'. If anything, these measures are counter-productive because fewer coffeeshops and no decline in demand will only increase the so called 'nuisance'.

- Amsterdam isn't a cesspit of corruption. It's not some poor third world country where you can bribe cops or officials. We rarely, if ever, have big corruption scandals. Our politicians aren't in the pocket of the Mafia. Hell, we don't even have a Mafia.

- It's not 'out of control' or 'anarchy'. They make it sound like there's no law and order. There isn't any area in the entire country where you'd risk your life just walking around. Amsterdam isn't full of pot headed zombies roaming the streets, harassing by-passers. People smoke in the shops, so 'nuisance' is very limited. This claim of 'anarchy' is so bizarre that it's absolutely laughable.

- Amsterdam doesn't have 'problems attracting family tourists' because of the prostitution and pot shops. The red light district is in a very small area and can easily be avoided no matter what you want to see or do in the capital. People aren't having sex in public. There aren't prostitutes on every corner. Pot shops are just that. They're shops, and you don't have to go in there. From the outside, all you'll see is some neon signs.

I could go on and on arguing every point they're making, but I think it's been more than enough.

The video I originally posted was made by a Dutch director in response to the O'Reilly show. O'Reilly even responded to it, saying it's only the left that disagrees with it, that it's a propaganda video (even though all the video does is presenting accurate statistics), and best of all : we can't compare the numbers because it's a much smaller country. As if he's not intelligent enough to understand what percentages are. He also mumbles that 'statistics are done differently over there', whatever that may mean. He takes a quote from a local politician out of context and continues to rehash his old story.

The point of the show is the 'danger' of liberalization, but they are simply painting a completely false picture, as well as drawing false conclusions about the results of our liberal policies. Statistics only prove the success of these policies.

Bill O' is a dip$h1t

ORJ_JoS, you don't have to defend or rationalize your disagreement with O'Reilly. I'll grant you that he is probably wrong on many of the points you take issue with. It's not really a topic that interests me. I often disagree with Mr. Bill as well. When he's wrong I don't think it is because he is trying to deceive. I also don't think it is ignorance, per se. I think it is more of a stubbornness and unwillingness to change. In the other thread I cited videos that clearly rebutted his statements yet he was unwilling to fully consider them. Having said all that, his flaws are quite visible and the discussions are frank. There really isn't much reason to dislike him as much as there is reason to disagree with him. He is also a very charitable person and he brings awareness to very important issues. On balance I think his show generally does more good than bad.

Also, my comment about not visiting Amsterdam has more to do with the probability that if I even do ever get to visit Europe again I just probably won't get there. Perhaps, hopefully, I am wrong.

Oh, and enjoy the following clip (language warning):

My god, you are so willfully ignorant. Why do you try so hard to defend this man? If it is not deception, how can it not be ignorance? ORJ_JoS refuted all the stupid **** O`Reilly said. It's all PUBLICLY available information. Bill either LIED or is too stupid to know the obvious truth. This **** is not a secret.

By the way, that's not what "rationalize" means. Rationalization is what you're doing to defend O'Reilly: making up reasons to explain away the obvious problems.

The cognitive dissonance is absolutely staggering.

Defend him by being critical of him? Maybe it was when I said his intellect loses to his emotions or maybe it was when I called his style "non-analytical".



If you reread the statements you quoted you will notice that I used the words "think" and "per se". If we stipulate that Orange Juice's arguments are correct then we could say O'Reilly is ignorant of the facts. It could be more likely that he is relying on a separate set of facts but I believe it even more likely that his argument is again non-analytical and emotional no doubt due to the likely demoralizing effects upon a society of open drug use and promiscuity. Orange Juice offered an opinion with facts he believes to be relevant. Considering the nature of these sort of discussions I'm sure another native of his land could argue a contrary opinion.



That could be one way of looking at it but it is flawed. I think it's perfectly acceptable that he disagrees with O'Reilly as O'Reilly's arguments are often flawed. However, O'Reilly seeks out people with contradictory opinions. The very nature of the format allows for multiple sides of issues to be discussed. Now this may not have happened in this instance (actually he did play at least part of a rebuttal) but it's also relatively inconsequential. I'm sure most of us couldn't care less what O'Reilly's opinion of Amsterdam is. Now I suppose some might argue that his comments could hurt tourism to the country, and I'm sure O'Reilly would trumpet that himself if he thought it true, but I doubt many planning a trip there would have changed their minds due to the segments.

Also, "rationalize" doesn't have just one meaning. Look it up.

LOL Canada.

Wait... Is that actually short for "orange juice"?

I think he had a custom title once pointing to the homophonic similarity. It's just easier for me to type that than remember his actual username. It took me forever to catch that Jon`C's username contained a reverse apostrophe as well (I'm sure it has a real name).

What? Incorrect facts?


This is a completely absurd statement with no empirical evidence. It's your own bull****, poorly supported morality (similar to Bill's), and it's a crock of ****.



I assume you're talking about the definition of "make something rational." That implies that it is irrational to begin with, which in that context is an incorrect usage.

It's called a backquote.


The CBSC is the Canadian equivalent of the FCC. The Canadian regulations w.r.t. obscenity are similar to to the American regulations, although the Canadian regulations are more verbose and purpose-oriented while the American regulations involves much more frighteningly generic handwaving about what an "average" person deems objectionable.

Here are the Canadian obscenity regulations (specifically relevant are Clauses 9 and 10): http://www.cbsc.ca/english/codes/cabethics.php
Here are the FCC regulations: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html

It's very well-established that people who watch Fox News know less about other countries, local, national and international politics, current events and history than people who watch any other cable news program. I'm truly happy that Fox News has chosen to educate their audience about how similar Canada's state censorship is to your own.

Not necessarily although I stated it was more likely that his arguments were driven by emotions. As I suggested, one could use facts other than the ones Juice used to make the argument. I didn't watch any of those videos completely and I don't recall if I saw them when they aired but it doesn't seem that O'Reilly was supporting his position with facts.



I did use the word "likely" but since you've engaged the topic, you wouldn't, even generally, consider drug use and promiscuity immoral? Can you point to a culture or society that has thrived due to or in spite of its drug use and sexual permissiveness? I imagine an educated person could show a correlation between American exceptionalism and increased drug and sexual permissiveness. I'm not prepared to make the case, just thinking out loud.



No it isn't. His opening post was, essentially, a rant. One, of course, that you would agree with so you probably wouldn't view it as such. He "rationalized" it by providing evidence to support it. Regardless, it's a silly point to contest. My point was that I don't consider that part of this conversation to be of any import. I mean, he has a valid difference of opinion but it's of little consequence to me and most of us. I can certainly see why he would see it differently, though.

Haha, no. Jos is actually a Dutch name. The ORJ is just a tag from the old zone days.



I've always had this custom title. Before this, I never had one, and I've never asked to change it because I really like it. However, Orange Juice was indeed suggested by someone in one of the old 'Make up a custom title for the person posting before you' topics.

If you want to call me Juice or whatever, I'm fine with it. It's pretty funny.



I see what you're trying to say (although I see Emon's points too), and I can tell you're being relatively reasonable for your standards. I'm really not interested in starting a trench war over this.



I'll admit I was offended by it.

Let's say some guy with a popular opinion show on the BBC news network told millions of viewers in all seriousness that nowadays you can't walk the streets of San Francisco without getting butt-raped by hordes of out-of-control homosexuals.

If you were from San Francisco, wouldn't you be offended? I figure you'd say it was a lie.

And then people tell you 'it's only an opinion show hurrrrr, get over it'?

Doesn't change the fact that it's bull****, right?

The Netherlands? Sweden? Denmark? By your standards they have high drug use and sexual permissiveness, but by every measurable way a better place to live than the US. Also, previous cultures or societies do not determine what is right and wrong.

Modern Republicans, especially Tea Partiers, use previous cultures or societies to determine what is right and wrong by definition. The fact that they are comparing those cultures to a wholly-fictional standard doesn't change the fact that they are die-hard traditionalists.

If they were interested in legitimate change, would they spend so much time watching a news channel that only tells them what they want to hear?

Because challenging your beliefs is a weakness of character!

Legalizing marijuana would be an insult to the founding fathers!

I don't consider legal drug use immoral. Legalized drug use is no more immoral then taking head-ache tablets. My Nan was prescribed marijuana to heal her eyes and they did a damn good job too, would you consider that immoral?

As for promiscuity, who the hell cares? You can have sex with as many people as you like as long as you aren't hurting anybody (unless they're into that), I thoroughly recommend using protection though.

I would also consider legal drug use no more immoral then drinking beer. As long as it was done safely. I don't want anybody driving high, or driving drunk.

And, as discussed, the Dutch are certainly doing a better job than Americans.

Funny thing is, up until this thread I'd never heard of the Netherlands being associated with such problems.
Drug use, crime, unsafe promiscuity... that sounds like America to me (not saying America is, it's just that's just what most non-Americans seem to associate America with).

There is a good reason for that

Because it's accurate. <_<

Yeah, really.

It's like the Y2K bug. There was never any credible threat, but the survival nuts just ate it up. These were people who desperately wanted to be right, so they could eat canned beans and live in a bunker and force everybody else to see the world the way they do.

The people who watch Fox are the exact same way. Fox is for people who are only interested in hearing what they want to hear. Do the people who watch Fox want to hear that the War on Drugs is being driven by the for-profit prison industry, whose lobbyists are paid with federal funding, and which now houses and feeds 2.4% of the American population for free? Nah, that'd be something you'd see on the BBC. The people who watch Fox want to hear that America is great and perfect, they can do no wrong (can't even vote for a black man really, 'cause he was born in Kenya,) and if people are allowed to smoke pot - other than US Presidents, I mean - the whole country will go down the ****ter.

Now, I don't disagree with anything you guys are saying, and I'd love to join in on the pro drug train, but isn't this pretty much what most people are doing these days? I don't know many liberals that can actually articulate many of their beliefs beyond repeating what they heard. Since cable news took over, not even local news is capable of reporting on anything comprehensively. Even late night news has become schlock. Unless you're an honest internet nerd that makes sure to cross-reference everything you read, you're basically sucking the teet of someone's milk.

I think a lot of liberals romanticize compassion, progression, and doing good for the world. In the way those Y2K conspiracy nuts wanted the world to see things from their tiny perspective, I think a lot of liberals really like the being the victims fighting the man with fists in the air, but don't actually address the dirty details that actually stand in their way. I still like the guy, but the way some people hang on Obama's every word (moreso during the election) is about the same thing as what Fox does, from my perspective.

That said I think what Fox does is far worse, pervasive, destructive, intentional, and maligned.

Yeah, Fox News never has any diversity of opinion on any of its programs although, Jedi Kirby, I assume you would agree that MSNBC is actually a worse example.

Anyway, some more media hilarity:

An edited video. Unedited segment linked below:

unedited

Diversity of opinion is worthless when the whole format is a sham.