The never ending idiocy of Bill O'Reilly...

[dean_dem]

I know O'Reilly's reputation as a douche is well-established around here, but I just need to vent, and this is the best place if there ever was one in which to do it.

I actually managed to sit through part of The O'Reilly Factor last night (it's like the cleaning the litter box- it stinks, you hate doing it, but sometimes it just has to be done), and he was interviewing two students from Hamilton College. Apparently Hamilton invited a radical speaker named Churchill who had suggested that the 9-11 victims "deserved it" (I'm not vouching that he said this, this is just what Falafel said), but the Hamilton President pulled out at the last minute because college administrators were receiving "credible death threats."

I'm not saying I agree with what Churchill supposedly said, but what got me was O'Reilly's attitude towards the death threats. He seemed to be saying that the school administrators were right to uninvite Churchill because of the threats made. He said something to the effect of Hamilton should be reviewing the policies and practices that seem to invite threats made against them.

OK, I stopped right there. Now, if we take out "Hamilton" and insert "United States," replace "threats" with, what do we get? That the United States should be reviewing it policies that seem to invite threats made against them. So following O'Reilly's past reasoning, Hamilton College is right to cave in to a bunch of disturbed RW-ers who make death threats, but if the US reexamines it policy towards the Middle East, that's considered un-american, and "appeasing the terrorists"?

I truly hope the irony wasn't lost on O'Reilly, though I'm pretty certain it was.

[sui generis]

1. oh why do you hurt yourself like that?

look in the mirror and say, "I am a good person. I am a worthy person. I will not torture myself with falafels"

:evilgrin:

You make a great point though - but O'Reilly isn't concerned with appealing to intellect or rationality. He just wants to get his dittoheads to remain in a state of indignant righteous outrage long enough to tune back in to the next episode of oral flatulence. Ratings, ratings, ratings.

[Oreo]

2. But Churchill's beliefs are wrong.

That's all they have to say and they wouldn't see any problem in it. You can't think rationally with these people!

[dean_dem]

4. That's exactly my point...

What gets me is that O'Reilly loves to hold other people to his narrow idea of morality, but refuses any self-examination of his own or that of his country. Real productive.

[tabasco]

3. Don't drive yourself crazy.

O'Reilly is a propagandist. His positions are not based on logic or facts. He is paid to support the corporate cabal. His target audience is the freepers with an average IQ of 50.

I know you have to look from time to time to see how absurd the noise machine has become. But don't expect any reasoning, logic, or truth.

[ladjf]

8. At some point, even his base is going to tire of his mindless

bull sh.t.

[Ravenseye]

5. What's with 'Falafel'?

Why is O'Reilly refered to as Falafel?

[RuleofLaw]

6. Here is the ironic thing:

Mr. Churchill in essence said that the people of a country is sometimes responsible for the actions of its leaders and that the people in the WTC were complicit in carrying out the foreign policy of the US.

Here is what, Bill O'Reilly said in the aftermath of 9/11: "to bomb the Afghan infrastructure to rubble, the airport, the power plants, the water facilities, the roads." He went on to describe Afghanistan as "a very primitive country" and to say "taking out their ability to exist day-to-day will not be hard. Remember the people of any country are ultimately responsible for the government they have. The Germans were responsible for Hitler, the Afghans are responsible for the Taliban. We should not target civilians but if they don't rise up against this criminal government, they starve, period."

[gordianot]

7. Situational ethics the bane of all neo conservatives and Fundamentalist.

You could also call this flip flopping. It also allows a situation where those who espouse they follow a non-violent philosophy to rationlize killing such as many fundamentalist Christians. Yet the same fundamentalist may claim they absolutely follow the teachings of Jesus.

Using neo-con Bush doctrine, Hamilton College officials would have been in their right to identify those making threats and kill them before they were attacked. Why use logic and consistency when you can rely on situational ethics? Situational ethics frees you from guilt to do whatever you want as long as you can rationalize your actions.

see link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics

Situational ethics refers to a particular view of ethics, in which absolute standards are considered less important than the requirements of a particular situation. The standards used may, therefore, vary from one situation to another, and may even contradict one another. This view of ethics is similar to moral relativism, and is contradictory to moral universalism, and moral absolutism.

The term situational ethics has been broadened to include numerous situations in which a code of ethics is designed to suit the needs of the situation.

The original situational ethics theory was developed by Joseph Fletcher, an Episcopalian priest, in the 1960s. Based on the concept that the only thing with intrinsic value is Love (specifically agape), Fletcher advocated a number of controversial courses of action.

Opponents are usually moral universalists who view situational ethics, in its purest sense, as inherently contradictory, and argue that the very term "situational ethics" is an oxymoron. They argue that ethics and morality are fundamental and cannot be based on practical, functional, or ethno-centric values; therefore, ethics must be based on something more persistent than one group's assessment of their current situation.

Situated ethics is an entirely different theory in which it is the actual physical, geographical, ecological and infrastructural state one is in, determines one's actions or range of actions - green economics is at least partially based on that view. It too is criticized for lack of a single geographically-neutral point of view from which to apply standards of or by an authority.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics"

[ShiftNght]

9. Actually Churchill was canceled

because many of Hamilton's wealthy donors said they'd stop supporting the school if they allowed Churchill to speak. I think that may happen other places as well. The govenor of Colorado is asking for Churchill's resignation also. An emergency meeting is scheduled for Thursday.