+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Political Discussion =/= Pornography (/showthread.php?tid=66801)
Re: Political Discussion =/= Pornography - swampy - 11-23-2008
Mikey... just roll things back? To where? Your selective point in time when the Fairness doctrine existed? Why not all the way back before the days of the Fairness Doctrine?
Re: Political Discussion =/= Pornography - mikeylikesit - 11-23-2008
It served us well for almost 40-years, why not bring it back?
"The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[3 wrote: "]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
Think banks need regulation?
Re: Political Discussion =/= Pornography - Stizzealth - 11-24-2008
There you go again!
Just because the government regulates banks doesn't mean that it can regulate free speech. And how do you define "served us well"? Not allowing gay marriage has served us well since the founding of the United States, as well as a bunch of other stuff the left side of the political spectrum would throw a hissy fit about.
Re: Political Discussion =/= Pornography - Ted King - 11-24-2008
Stizzealth wrote:
Furthermore, Ted seems determined to deconstruct an argument that I never made. He says that my statement that the argument of allowing the government to regulate anything means that the government can regulate anything, as is argued by Chuckie Schumer, oversimplifies the issue. I don't doubt that there is more than one fallacious argument in the push for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but the aforementioned argument is the one Chuck Schumer used.
Schumer did not say this, you did, "It boils down to the idea that if the government can regulate anything, it can regulate everything. Just because we let the government inspect meat in supermarkets doesn't mean that we let government inspect the meat after it enters our kitchen." That is a straw dog of his argument. Given the context it is clear he was referring to what the FCC can and can't do. You can be sure that if it were common for people to take his statement in the most utterly literal and most ungenerous way that there'd be a lot more for a lot of people to be much more worked up about than merely what would happen to conservative talk radio. But reasonable people understand well that in the context he was referring only to government controlled airways and not to every little nook that the government gets into. It is plainly evident that the issue he was talking about is when government can legitimately regulate speech when it comes to publicly owned radio frequencies (which are publicly owned contrary to what Swampy seems to think), not meat inspection or "everything". I don't agree with him about this issue because even if there was at some point a legitimate scarcity issue with respect to radio stations (which was the basis of the Supreme Court decision) that issue no longer applies.
Stizzealth wrote:
As for one of the other statements in your diatribe, I would argue that the Fairness Doctrine is politically motivated.
I have no idea what statement you are referring to. When did I say it wasn't politically motivated? Perhaps you are referring to my comment, "This stuff about the Fairness Doctrine is just a way conservative talk show hosts have of keeping their audiences riled up." There are all kinds of calls for action put forth congresscritters to do things that are politically motivated. Why the focus on this one? Look at the first statement of the parent post, "Chuck Schumer makes it abundantly clear in an interview with Fox News that the incoming Democratic Congress intends to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine..." This is a meme conservative talk radio is pushing even though they know, as you know, that there is no realistic move afoot to try to reinstate it. Hence, they are doing it to get their audiences riled up.
Re: Political Discussion =/= Pornography - MacGurl - 11-24-2008
Stizzealth wrote:
Not allowing gay marriage has served us well since the founding of the United States
I don't think it's served gay people very well.
Kathy
Re: Political Discussion =/= Pornography - Greg the dogsitter - 11-24-2008
MacGurl wrote: I don't think it's served gay people very well.
Now I'm blocking you.
Let's get something to eat.
Re: Political Discussion =/= Pornography - Ted King - 11-24-2008
Stizzealth wrote:
Furthermore, Ted seems determined to deconstruct an argument that I never made. He says that my statement that the argument of allowing the government to regulate anything means that the government can regulate anything, as is argued by Chuckie Schumer, oversimplifies the issue. I don't doubt that there is more than one fallacious argument in the push for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but the aforementioned argument is the one Chuck Schumer used.
On further reflection I can kind of see a bit of your point. You seem to be saying here that you took the most utterly literal and ungenerous (and I would say unreasonable) interpretation of Schumer's remark and restated what you then thought the argument implied. So my critique of the analogies you presented were, to the extent that they supposedly were a reflection of his argument, not an accurate deconstruction of an argument you were making. But to the extent that I think you were indeed fabricating an argument - that I believe he was not making but instead represented a straw dog of what his was proposing - to that extent I do think my deconstruction applies. And I will say that if you look at your commentary immediately after the presentation of what you seem to take to be his argument, that it certainly gives the impression that you knew he was actually referring specifically to the what the FCC can and can't do and not to "everything the government regulates". You said at that point, "While I realize that conservative political theory is looked upon as smut by the majority of Democratic officials in Washington, sending the message that political speech can be regulated just as we regulate the pornography industry does no favors for the average American's perception of Washington." That commentary certainly was enough to give me the impression that you understood Schumer was referring directly to what the FCC can and can't do.
And I think the rest of my analysis still stands until you show me otherwise; e.g., "When these creeps have nothing better to do than track down rogue conservative talk radio hosts and accuse them of corrupting the minds of our citizens with aural bestiality...", is nothing more than vapid inflammatory rhetoric.
Re: Political Discussion =/= Pornography - Stizzealth - 11-24-2008
To be honest, I don't see what's so "vapid" or "inflammatory" about it. It's certainly more concrete that "hope" and "change". The fact of the matter is that enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine would involve coercing radio stations into either kicking conservative talk show hosts off the air or allowing completely unprofitable liberal talk show hosts on air at the same price. The premise of the Fairness Doctrine is that American citizens are far too stupid to differentiate between facts and demagoguery. Clearly, Congressional Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (You know, the elected Majority leaders?) see things this way and would like a return to the "good old days".
Re: Political Discussion =/= Pornography - karsen - 11-24-2008
Greg the dogsitter wrote:
[quote=MacGurl]I don't think it's served gay people very well.
Now I'm blocking you.
Let's get something to eat.
I don't like your tone. You're getting a preemptive block from me.
Re: Political Discussion =/= Pornography - mikeylikesit - 11-24-2008
No after dinner mint for karsen.