[Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
Glenn Schwaller
vpschwaller at gmail.com
Wed Mar 30 15:17:23 PDT 2011
Well besides refunding tuition to your poor students, you better give
back your doctorate as well because I, and I think several others here
agree, your attempt at logical argument is seriously flawed. Instead
of arrogantly patronizing Roger and others, maybe you would be best
off to "listen slowly" to yourself.
1 - "Glenn made several fallacious points. . .," Let me paraphrase
you: "You 'professors of logic' think your views should be adopted
for no other reason than that you believe them" So because you think
I made fallacious points, they are - end
of story. And that is NOT a fallacious argument?? Point 1: FAIL
2 - “Roger, do you also support slavery, another view that Glenn
supports?” And you KNOW I support slavery how?? Because you say so?
Because you "know" I belong to Christ Church? Because you "know" I'm
Doug Wilson? You call me a racist (proof??) using a fake name
(proof??) Yet it must be true because YOU say so? Your only argument
being 20 years of teaching logic leads you to believe that "I think
therefore it is" and THAT is what progressive, rational, logical
thinking is. Point 2: FAIL
3 - "Glenn made several fallacious points, some of which were pointed
out and all of which are ignored below." You know I have ignored
them? Perhaps I have been out of town and not on the computer.
Perhaps I've been ill. Perhaps any number of things yet you say they
are ignored. There is no basis in fact to say they have been ignored.
Point 3: FAIL.
4 - You asked Roger for one example. I gave you three and you dismiss
them out of hand with no opposing point of view other than to offer up
your standard “fallacious arguments”, "they are pretty bad", “just
irrational rhetoric”. Then you proceed with your usual badmouthing
and denigration of the other person, never attempting to explain why
the other person is “irrational and misguided” other than the fact
that you say so. Point four: FAIL. Plus another fail for being
rude, offensive, and pretentious in general.
5 - "You are so used to listening to the lies on Fox" Let me quote
you: "This is crap rhetoric and you should know better." Yes, you
SHOULD know better. You criticize someone for speaking what you
consider to be rhetoric, offer no proof it IS, then turn around and
argue with “crap rhetoric” yourself. Point 5: FAIL
6 – “Worse, you want to promote further ignorance by disallowing
legitimate news sources (NPR) and gutting education”. You offer
nothing to support your contention NPR is more legitimate than any
news source (please try to note the distinction between “news’ and
“opinion”), nor any support that education has been gutted. Except
for the “crap rhetoric” spewed forth. Oh yes, it’s spewed from the
progressives so its true no doubt about it. Point 6: FAIL
7 - I don't care if NPR is left wing, right wing, libertarian, or
simply bad. There is absolutely NO reason they should feed at the
government trough. Your position that corporate money influences
broadcasting is inane. I pointed out that most corporations advertise
on all major broadcast networks and cable networks, FOX and MSNBC
included. Big oil, stock brokers, big-box stores, banks, car
companies foreign and domestic. All advertise on all networks. Your
argument is they would influence FOX differently than CBS or NBC?
Seriously?? Point 7: FAIL
8 - Yes, give me $1 million to shut up and go away I will. If I don’t
keep quiet, you don’t pay. Quite an influence you have over me. So
ultra-left winger George Soros gives nearly $2 million to NPR and they
will tell him to go fly a kite when he wants an agenda pushed?
Seriously? Point 8 - FAIL
9 - Comparing state run colleges to state-run (it’s actually federal
given your argument of NATIONAL) broadcasting corporations is
ludicrous at best. State run colleges and federally run broadcasting
networks - apples and oranges. FAIL.
The federal government has no business being in education. It has no
business being in the broadcasting industry. NRP already accepts
commercial funding from businesses. It’s just couched as “support”.
Want an example? “Funding for NPR is provided by Chevrolet, maker of
the 40 miles-per-charge Chevy Volt. See one now at your local
Chevrolet dealer.” Sounds like corporate advertising to me. To argue
it is not - well then NPR lies. They want to accept "support" from
corporations, fine. Limit the acknowledgement to "Program funding is
provided by Chevrolet". Period.
And even giving you the benefit of the doubt, your only argument is
that it “keeps costs down”. If one is a student paying tuition to a
university, then keeping costs down is important. Keeping costs down
for a broadcast network is good for the network maybe, but this
affects out-of-pocket expense to an individual or the general public
how?? Apples and oranges, point 9: FAIL
10 - And I support Roger (and everyone else to whom you make
unsubstantiated and non-factual statements about) with several rounds
of FAIL FAIL FAIL.
You and your ilk seem to think all of us “backward” people want NPR to
go away. Nothing is further from the truth. (So another FAIL for
illogical assumptions). Roger listens to some things, I listen to
some things (and ignore what I consider to be left-wing babble). Just
as you ignore what you consider to be right-wing babble from networks
such as FOX. And both NPR and FOX are guilty of such babble – it’s
called “opinion programming”. We just think government needs to keep
it’s pointy little head out of the broadcast industry. Enough said.
GS
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
> We're not spending too much on NPR! We spend more bombing Libya in one day
> than a year's worth of NPR! I don't see any good arguments supporting your
> case. That's all.
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:37 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>>
>> N PR receives less than half it's funding from the government. It is not a
>> 100% federal entity. Its management is private and so should it's funding.
>> Your comparison with colleges is still apples and orange. You said " If you
>> can tell me a better way for the US to spend it money, I'll listen." The
>> problem is we are spending too much. We are head over heels in debt and need
>> to cut many other things in addition to NPR funding. To name just a few
>> OSHSA, EPA, planned ParentHood, and even waste in the military. I would not
>> cut FDA or Child Protective Services. Both of these are more important that
>> funding NPR. I was the Compliance officer for most of the feed companies I
>> worked for. I dealt with all of the agencies. EPA and OSHA were ridiculous.
>> We had some feed bend at Lewiston the bottom of witch were about 15 feet in
>> the air. Feed sometimes hung up in them. We had to hang in the air with one
>> hand and beat on them with a hammer with the other hand. To make it safer we
>> installed a cat
>> walk bellow them to salve the problem. OSHSA made us take them out because
>> the regulations sday you have to be able to walk down a cat walk. There was
>> not room to do that, so we were back to clearing bins in an unsafe manner.
>> There are many more examples I could site. FDA's regulations for the moist
>> part made sense. Our food supply is very important. Most food business(not
>> all) do their best to insure a safe food supply, but the FDA is short of
>> inspectors and can not do their job adequately. Imports are not properly
>> inspected either. When I started as manager of the feed mill in Colfax I put
>> in a ridged control system and weigh back procedure for drug use. The next
>> day after I instructed the crew on the proper procedure, I caught an
>> employee putting a feed scoop in a drug bin walk over to the mixer and dump
>> it in with Aureomycin falling off all the way. I fired him on the spot.
>> Roger
>> -----Original message-----
>> From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:41:23 -0700
>> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
>>
>> > NPR is the NATIONAL PUBLIC radio. NPR was set up for exactly this
>> > reason: to
>> > have a state run radio station that does not risk genuine objectivity
>> > due to
>> > corporate interests. It is the only such radio station in existence, the
>> > only thing of its kind. Better one than none, I think.
>> >
>> > Your question is kind of like asking, Why should we have state colleges?
>> > Why
>> > can't all colleges be private? The answer is the existence of state
>> > colleges
>> > is a public good: it keeps costs down, etc. I think ONE state run radio
>> > station should exist; it is a good way to use state funds, it has a
>> > general
>> > interest to the public. And really that is all that matters. If you can
>> > tell
>> > me of a better way for the US to spend its money, I'll listen. But so
>> > far
>> > you have not done that.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:48 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Joe
>> > > I do not know how many times I have to say I do dont wish to see NPR
>> > > disappear. They have some very good programming. They receive only a
>> > > portion
>> > > of their funding from the government. They can do just fine with out
>> > > it.
>> > > Would you please explain to me, just why you think that NPR should
>> > > receive
>> > > federal funding and Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc should not.not?Comparing
>> > > funding
>> > > of NPR to the military is like comparing apples and oranges.
>> > > Roger
>> > > -----Original message-----
>> > > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>> > > Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:37:29 -0700
>> > > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
>> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
>> > >
>> > > > 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
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > =======================================================
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list