O'Reilly evidence

This "feels" off-topic to continue this discussion here, but I've no idea what to do about it. So I'll just post my thoughts and pretend like I didn't even realize that we're way off-topic. Maybe if I say "we're 'promoting' this thread by bumping the 'activity meter,' then I can justify my off-threadedness?" Maybe not.Rrhain, I simply tried to say that I don't know you. Of course, that makes me doubt as to whether or not you carry out your philosophy. Rather than assume, I ask a question.It really is that simple. Anyway, successful communication requires matching the intent of the speaker with the assumptions of the reader. Clearly my intent didn't match your assumptions, there's a failure in communication. I think we can leave it at that. On here, many people (notable to me are jar and Arach) take the philosophy of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Since my philosophy is to "put your money where your mouth is," I did that. I didn't expect you to care at all. Actually, it's your "calling me on it" that I find slightly annoying. I STILL haven't judged you; I don't have enough information to do it. All I've determined is that, since I don't know about your actions, that your words about ethics don't mean much to me. So I'll choose to ignore them.If you read the previous post again, maybe you'll see that I was trying to show respect. As I said, I was interested in your ethics in the first place because I respect your logical thinking. (Repeating again) But for me, the action has to be there too. Otherwise I don't have respect for the person, and I lose interest in their ethics. Ethics is not a purely logical enterprise in my eyes.To state again, I haven't judged you or "lost respect" for you. I don't know enough about you to have a thought either way. I'm not claiming that it matters to you either.That's a lot of disclaimers. Dude, lighten up. When it comes to things based on logic, I agree. Ethics is not a logical enterprise. Ethics is all about how people act. You can use your brain to think about the best way to act. But how people implement things, and how they think about things, is different. Things that you think about in the brain never pan out the way you thought in real life. It's the difference between declarative, symbolic knowledge and non-declarative, unconscious action / skill / knowledge. In my experience, trying to live your own "logical" ethic gives you invaluable insight into if it's reasonable or not. After all, ethics is about how people act. There's so little point in an "idealist" ethic. Ethics is a practical enterprise.I'd be happy to discuss it more clearly and fully in another thread. Open one up (or tell me to do it) if you're interested. That's poorly thought out and written by me. I actually changed this in edit, but I guess you were already reading / posting. You're right, that's just poor quality posting on my part. And that's why I don't feel bad in offending you. What people find offensive is often not shared, and can be diametrically opposed. Usually when people live within the same "culture" they share the same idea of "offensive," but that obviously didn't happen here. That's the way the cookie crumbles. I didn't mean to offend you, but I'd do the same thing again. It's up to us to find a way to work together and tolerate each other. No, I want to judge you based on my idea of morality in order to decide whether or not your ideas on ethics are worthwhile to me. You choose not to tell me what I was interested in hearing, and so I'm not so interested in hearing your ideas on ethics. The onus is on me to ignore that kind of post.Discussing "HOW to think about ethics" is a different matter. I AM interested to discuss that with you.Ben

Ben responds to me:

quote:

---

I simply tried to say that I don't know you. Of course, that makes me doubt as to whether or not you carry out your philosophy. Rather than assume, I ask a question.

---

And that's the problem. You shouldn't have asked the question. Whether or not you make the assumption is up to you, but your question is irrelevant. And given your reasons for asking it, the act of asking it is offensive.So not only was it immaterial to the discussion at hand, it was rude to do so.So why on earth did you do it?

quote:

---

Actually, it's your "calling me on it" that I find slightly annoying. I STILL haven't judged you; I don't have enough information to do it. All I've determined is that, since I don't know about your actions, that your words about ethics don't mean much to me. So I'll choose to ignore them.

---

Which is precisely the problem and is indicative of intellectuall dishonesty.You want to evaluate something based upon completely irrelevant criteria. Whether or not I follow an ethical program has nothing to do with the validity of that ethical program.What would change if I said yes? What would change if I said no? Why does it matter if I follow?

quote:

---

If you read the previous post again, maybe you'll see that I was trying to show respect.

---

No, you weren't. You were talking up a good game, but if you were really trying to show respect, you wouldn't have asked it in the first place.The fact that you are trying to justify yourself despite the fact that I've told you that your question is rude is indicative that you don't have any respect. You asked a question. I told you to get lost. Why are you still harping on it?

quote:

---

Ethics is not a logical enterprise.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Of course ethics is a logical enterprise. That's why they teach it in philosophy.

quote:

---

Ethics is a practical enterprise.

---

And how does that preclude rational, logical thinking? Just because something involves the gut doesn't mean you abandon the brain.

quote:

---

And that's why I don't feel bad in offending you.

---

What was that you said about trying to show respect? And now you say you don't care about offending me?

quote:

---

quote:

---

In other words, you want to judge somebody based on your definition of morality in order for you to decide whether or not what they said is true or not.

---

​

No, I want to judge you based on my idea of morality in order to decide whether or not your ideas on ethics are worthwhile to me.

---

That's what I said. Thank you for agreeing with me. That you find the truth worthwhile doesn't change it from being the truth.

quote:

---

You choose not to tell me what I was interested in hearing, and so I'm not so interested in hearing your ideas on ethics.

---

Your perogative, of course, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you have made a rational, logical choice. You have made an illogical, prejudiced one.So let it go. You are in control of your posts. You asked a question you shouldn't have, I told you that you're not going to get an answer, stop trying to justify it.Let it go.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This is nonsense. Statistics Canada - We couldn't find that Web page (Error 404) / Statistique Canada - Nous ne pouvons trouver cette page Web (Erreur 404) says that the population of Canada should be 32,233,955 by 7/1/05. One million dollars per person would total 32 trillion dollars. Bill Gates is rich, but he's nowhere near that rich. The last figure I heard for him was $95 billion, which was a couple years ago. This would allow him to give each Canadian about $3,000....edited to fix quote code...one more edit: I'm not suggesting it's nonsense that Yaro passed on what she heard. I'm saying the figures are nonsense. No offense intended with my statement.This message has been edited by truthlover, 04-02-2005 10:40 PMThis message has been edited by truthlover, 04-02-2005 11:20 PM

from http://www.sptimes.com/2003/09/03/State/Bush_claims_victory_i.shtml

quote:

---

The percentage of all incoming minority freshmen at the 11 public universities increased to 37.3 percent, half a percent from the year before.

---

Maybe that's why. Maybe you heard him wrong, and he said minorities in general rather than just blacks. You have a bit of a history of unreliable statistics, so perhaps you could reference the other claims in your OP?The article also says 37.3% is only a 1% increase over three years, so it seems it's not just incoming freshmen, but the whole student population that is 37%.

This isn't true, either.From http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

quote:

---

USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically in the last three years, their dollar amount has been the highest.

---

It then says Japan's was the highest from 1992 onwards.Admittedly, though, the page also says that as a percentage of GNP, the US gives very little compared to other industrial countries. And if O'Reilly really said "far and away" more than other countries, with no other country coming close, then he was wrong, especially if he said it in 2001, when the US was only about 1.2 billion, or 12%, ahead of Japan.In 2003, however, O'Reilly's statement was quite true. We gave double what Japan gave, and Japan was still 2nd. According to that same site, Japan wasn't even close. Their chart for 2002, which they say was the latest figures available, puts them 17th, with the US tied for 18th with two other countries. Japan gives 1/5 of what Sweden gives (according to that chart) based on GDP. The US, though, is at 1/7.I am not trying to suggest America is some immensely generous country. I am saying, however, that O'Reilly is not being a blowhard. It looks like he has a pretty reasonable basis for the things Rrhain mentions. You see a lot of topics this way. You'd be much more pleasant to talk to if you had less confidence in this.

That's from the Who Owes Income Taxes thread, and it's in reference to Terry Gross' interview with Bill O'Reilly that is linked to in the OP.Shoot, I thought O'Reilly handled that great, and I don't know what crash means by "storms out." He said, "That's the end of the interview," and then he hung up. He wasn't even in the room with her, and she didn't know he was gone after he made the statement. There was no storming out.Rrhain should have listened to the interview, because O'Reilly answers at least the Republican/independent thing in it.It really drove my respect for O'Reilly way up. At one point, Terry reads the last paragraph of a review that O'Reilly had just asked her about. The paragraph really backed up Terry against O'Reilly. O'Reilly didn't give a great apology or anything, but he did back up and say "maybe I'm wrong." It's hard to handle being wrong in a national forum, so although he could have handled that better, he was at least honest, as I have always found him to be, which is very, very refreshing.

truthlover responds to me:

quote:

---

You have a bit of a history of unreliable statistics

---

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!Oh, that's rich. That's just absolutely precious. Truthlover lecturing me about statistics and being unreliable?Here's the actual quote, truthlover. Did you bother to look it up? From his February 26, 2001 broadcast, to State Senator Kendrick Meek: Meek tried to correct him but O'Reilly cut him off shouting, "I got the numbers and they're dead on."Well no, they're not.And you tell me. When O'Reilly said "black," did he really mean "not white"?

quote:

---

perhaps you could reference the other claims in your OP?

---

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!Oh, you are just so cute when you're silly, truthlover? Did you bother to read your own source? What does that tell you about blacks in Florida universities? Does it sound like the number of blacks in Florida universities is going up or does it sound like the number of blacks in Florida universities is going down?What do you think the word "decreased" means?Regarding welfare, from his February 5, 2002 broadcast, O'Reilly said: Except it isn't. According to the federal census, in 2000 there were about 12.7 million female householder families (13.6 in 2003) of which 7.6 were with own children (8.1 in 2003)In 2002, there were about 2.1 million families receiving assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF...formerly called Aid to Families with Dependent Children until the welfare reform bill, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996).Even if we were to assume that every single family receiving TANF assistance were a single mother family, that's less than 30% of all single mother households.Now you tell me. How does one get 58% of single mother households are on welfare when at maximum it can only be 30%?I'll leave you to determine the actual percentage of single mother households who are on welfare. I'm not here to do your homework for you.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

truthlover responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why would O'Reilly then rail about how generous the US is in foreign aid, repeating his claim that he made back in 2001 that the US gives "far and away more tax money to foreign countries than anyone...nobody else even comes close," when that isn't true. Japan gives more. No, not on a per capita basis but on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

---

​

This isn't true, either.

---

(*sigh*)Why are you only looking at once source of foreign aid? But I digress.Here's the quote from O'Reilly's May 8, 2001 broadcast, to Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for National Policy: When Bennis pointed out that this was wrong and tried to point out that the US gives less of its GNP than any other developed country, O'Reilly shouted at her, "That's not true." But it is.When O'Reilly said it, it wasn't true. According to your own source, Japan gave about 36% more than the US. In raw dollars. When O'Reilly said it, it wasn't true. According to your own source, the US was last on the list in percentage of GNP.

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is not a question of "interpretation." This is not a question of "reasonable people can disagree."

---

​

You see a lot of topics this way. You'd be much more pleasant to talk to if you had less confidence in this.

---

(*chuckle*)That's because I feel that an uncomfortable truth is better than a pleasant lie.I don't care if you find me "pleasant," truthlover. You do not love the truth and thus, I will continue to be an unpleasant thorn in your side.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

truthlover writes:

quote:

---

Shoot, I thought O'Reilly handled that great, and I don't know what crash means by "storms out." He said, "That's the end of the interview," and then he hung up. He wasn't even in the room with her, and she didn't know he was gone after he made the statement. There was no storming out.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?He storms out! He went on a rant about himself. "Review the book, not me!" He started yelling at her about a columnist who had reviewed O'Reilly's book and then pointed out that O'Reilly then called her names on his own show. Gross tries to say something, but O'Reilly shouts her down: But Gross gets in: O'Reilly starts shouting her down, getting extremely defensive: The interview disintegrates with O'Reilly lambasting Gross: When Gross pauses, O'Reilly then raises his voice...again: And then O'Reilly throws a temper tantrum: Are you seriously telling me that he is calm in that rant?Here's the paragraph she was trying to read: Let us not forget that according to O'Reilly's own words: Is that something a calm, rational person who isn't about to storm off does?

quote:

---

At one point, Terry reads the last paragraph of a review that O'Reilly had just asked her about. The paragraph really backed up Terry against O'Reilly. O'Reilly didn't give a great apology or anything, but he did back up and say "maybe I'm wrong."

---

Huh? Did you listen to the same interview? At no point did O'Reilly ask Gross about a review. While the words "could be wrong" did come out of his lips, he certainly wasn't of the opinion that he might be. When Gross brought it up, but before reading the final paragraph, here's what he said in his insistence that the review was positive: Except he wasn't in possession of a single fact. Here's what he said after hearing the last paragraph: Does that really sound like he's hedging? Give unto me a break.

quote:

---

It's hard to handle being wrong in a national forum, so although he could have handled that better, he was at least honest, as I have always found him to be, which is very, very refreshing.

---

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!Oh, you are just the sweetest thing in the world, aren't you? O'Reilly, honest? He had to be FORCED into admitting his mistake about calling Senator Boxer a "nut" regarding the confirmation of Rice.Here's what he said during the interview: According to O'Reilly's own words, he's never had to retract a story. That means he has never, ever said he was wrong.Others have put together a montage of clips of O'Reilly telling people to shut up. Here's a set of video clips of O'Reilly telling people to shut up: O'Reilly at his BestNote, O'Reilly is still lying about the Peabodies won by Inside Edition. During the interview, he said: Well, no. He said it at least three times within the space of nine months. In fact, the entire statement was wrong. O'Reilly claimed two Peabodies, attaching himself to the award by insisting "We won Peabody Awards."Well, no. Inside Edition won a Polk. One Polk. A year after O'Reilly left the show. He had nothing to do with it.Al Franken actually called O'Reilly up to ask him about it and the two had both agreed that it wasn't two Peabodies, it was a single Polk. The Washington Post picked it up and gave O'Reilly a chance to respond where he said: Two weeks later, O'Reilly said on his own program: Why would he say that when just two weeks previously he admitted that he did say "Peabody"?He said, "We won Peabodies." That entire statement is wrong. What does he mean "we," paleface? He wasn't involved in it at all. It wasn't a Peabody. It was a Polk. And it wasn't Peabodies. It was a single Polk.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I'm a simple minded person, but I'm getting the impression your style is reminisent of that of the right wing ranters.Might you try calming down some?Also, I still hate messages that are all chopped up with quotations. Yours are not the only ones.I may be wrong.Anyone wishing to respond to this message should take such to the "General Discussion..." topic, link below.Adminnemooseus

---

Well, you gave a link in the OP. Anyone who wants to can link to it. She didn't even know he had left. He wasn't in the same room.Personally, I think the flavor of the response you gave to my entirely typical request for references does enough for what I was trying to get across for me to leave it there.On O'Reilly, for others:Oh, wait one more thing: Yes, I was quite impressed. I invite anyone to go listen to it.Ok, back to on O'Reilly, for others:There's several comments in Rrhain's posts about O'Reilly calling someone a pinhead, calling Sen. Boxer a nut (it would be very difficult for anyone to deserve that title more), and Terry Gross mentions him telling people to shut up. I personally have heard him refer to people as morons on several occasions. Admittedly, he's like that. I reckon most people would think he's too much like that, and I would agree, but I prefer it to underhanded insinuations, which is a much more common fault, on and off news shows.I just said he was honest, and I think that interview with Terry Gross is a great example of it.

I did listen. That's not calm.

Truthlover, I recommend that you watch "Outfoxed", which is a documentary about Fox News Corporation.It documents O'Reilly's penchant for playing fast and loose with the facts. He particularly likes to reinvent history, misquoting guests and creating lies about what they said, sometimes out of whole cloth.Also, he tells people to shut up all the time.(added by edit: O'Reilly is on record defending the accusation that he tells people to shut up on his show, and has claimed that he's only told people to shut up a couple of times, yet Outfoxed demonstrates that he has told people to shut up many, many times.I saw it with my own eyes.)Lastly, if you really want to get into well-documented facts about O'Reilly, Al Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them" also lists quite a few.He's also is the biggest blowhard on TV news and the only reason he hasn't been fired is because he doesn't work for a real news corporation, he works for Fox.I respect Rush Limbaugh more than O'Reilly only because Limbaugh is a blowhard and doesn't pretend to be anything else, but O'Reilly pretends to be some kind of real news reporter.O'Reilly is pathalogical. And he's a total blowhard.That you don't recognize that is incredible to me.Oh, and just who are all of those Socialists on the radio shows you say exist out there in your nexk of the woods?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-03-2005 05:13 PM

He's calm in the beginning, agitated by the middle, and ranting by the end.Quite frankly, my assumption is that O'Reilly went on Fresh Air specifically in order to rant and make himself out to be a victim of the liberal media, so that he could add it as an NPR-demonizing segment to his show.Has O'Reilly ever given a calm interview to anyone even slightly left of center; in other words, could the NPR interview have really ended any other way?I also find it amusing how he attacks Terry Gross regarding her toothless interview of Franken; I was immediately reminded of O'Reilly's interview of George W - where he praised the president for entering his "no spin zone" and facing tough questions, then proceeded to avoid all of the controversial issues regarding W's administration, not to mention actually helping provide answers for the president. O'Reilly actually answered the questions he asked the president himself, for those questions that W hesitated on - Bush just sat there nodding like a goofy bobble-head.When O'Reilly takes part in such a dog-and-pony spectacle as his presidential interview, he really has no right to complain about a liberal talk show giving a comedian an easy interview.

Hmm. That seems very hard to believe. And since the last link you sent me to about Fox News was inaccurate and quite purposely slanted, I'm not going to be real quick to just trust such a reference.However, if there's any good way to do it, I would look at outfoxed. I have no reason not to believe Al Franken makes up a lot of what he says. I looked at his book in the bookstore long before I ever heard you suggest it to Percy, and it didn't look very reliable.I heard O'Reilly's answer to Al Franken's charge about the Republican/independent thing, and it seemed believable to me. What gain could O'Reilly possibly get by registering Republican and publicly saying he was Independent?Listen, I have been on the receiving end of a lot of slander & libel. Fox News ran a completely negative news story on us with about two minutes of slander from a family that hates us, and they followed it with about 8 minutes of inuendo and suggestion. A pastor in Florida wrote a 19-page refutation of us, with numerous out-of-context quotes from our web site, most of which was written by me. Then I was called as a witness in a custody case, and grilled about more out of context quotes from our site, which wasn't even up anymore. Prodigy's message board once had two people claiming that I propositioned a 13-year-old boy by email, and they had the email to prove it.I'm in a "cult." People will produce all sorts of accusations. I've learned not to trust those accusations, because I've seen what's been done to us and to me, and I've seen the witnesses produced to prove those false accusations were true.I believe O'Reilly when he says he didn't know he was registered Republican. The man seems honest to me, and I have yet to see the motive for any of the lies they've accused him of telling; nor to see one of those lies that's even significant. If the man were going to lie, don't you think he'd find better things to lie about than how he's registered at the polls and the name of an award that can be researched by anyone? Whatever. I don't have any reason to believe Fox is not a real news corporation. I listen to their five minute news on the hour on the way to and from work, and I listen to NPR news if I have time in the car at other times in the day. NPR is more thorough...sometimes so thorough it's boring...but otherwise they don't seem much different to me. I did find out last month on our Dallas trip that FoxNews is the most popular morning news program there. I don't think most people agree with you, and "most people" seem a better source than Al Franken's book of accusations. And that link I followed from you in the last thread this was discussed was simply inaccurate. FoxNews couldn't be any more slanted than that article you sent me to. (One of their three "myths" that FoxNews watchers think is true proved not to be a myth, but to be quite true. Definitely makes their statistics useless. You must not listen to Limbaugh. I used to listen to him often a few years back. I don't think he's honest with arguments presented to him. I think he takes the Republican side on everything, no matter how weak the position, and he ignores the facts that are against him.On the other hand, he most definitely claims to be something more than a blowhard, and he is something much more than a blowhard. He strongly influences the opinions of at least 10 to 15 million people, and he's quite well-informed and prepared to defend his positions. I only hear him about a half hour a week, so I could be missing a lot. I've never seen his TV show, and I can't imagine that I ever will. It's hard for me to imagine him telling someone to shut up, because I've never heard a situation where "shut up" would even apply. He can turn off his callers, and I've only heard one or two interviews. In fact, maybe I haven't heard any interviews, and I've only heard excerpts he's chosen.I don't have any problems believing he might be a hothead with guests on interviews. He was not a hothead with Terry Gross. He handled that interview incredibly well; she did okay, too, but not as well as him. Well, I might have to be embarrassed here, at least a little. I remember now the person I used to listen to, though not by name. I used to make somewhat regular trips to Atlanta, and I was in the car in the evening a lot. It's probably been two years since I've heard the guy. I had said I hadn't listened to him in a while, but I thought it was because I didn't have my radio on in the evening much. It's because I haven't been making those Atlanta trips anymore.Just a note: you didn't get that socialist term from me. I don't refer to democrats or left-wingers as socialists, unless they call themselves that. I was totally impressed with Germany's "socialist" medical system, which I was on for a couple years, and I'm all for America having one.