Why are these Fora so overwhelming Conservative

[Elizabeth502]

Originally Posted by ReapReason

Having a good education does not necessitate that you have rational-excellence.

Except that I do demonstrate that in my posts.

The analytical part of me wants to study your assertions, but I can see that it has no content.

The analytical part of me wants to study your assertions, but I can see that they are merely doctrinaire assertions.

Unlike me, you provide no content.

But try to have a nice day, Reap, instead of providing empty criticisms and assuming that the rest of the forum trusts that there's some substance there.

[ReapReason]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

Except that I do demonstrate that in my posts.



The analytical part of me wants to study your assertions, but I can see that they are merely doctrinaire assertions.

Unlike me, you provide no content.

But try to have a nice day, Reap, instead of providing empty criticisms and assuming that the rest of the forum trusts that there's some substance there.

If you had confidence in your supposed "rational-excellence" you would have ignored me instead of stating - or should I say asserting - how intelligent you are.

[atheistgirl]

Originally Posted by ReapReason

If you had confidence in your supposed "rational-excellence" you would have ignored me instead of stating - or should I say asserting - how intelligent you are.

I've just been tickled by another poster on another thread who felt compelled to tell me they had two, count them, two PhDs

Sarah x

[AlanFromWichita]

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

And one's perception of the reach of media (and its slant/biases) may partly depend on geography. In my neck of the woods, MSNBC is worshipped like a media "god." That station has more True Believers than Vatican City.

We've been around this before. I don't think your "neck of the woods" is typical at all, though I admit that mine (northern Indiana) is probably at the other end of the spectrum. Around here one almost always sees FOX in public places; sometimes CNN and never MSNBC. In airports, in my experience, it's more often CNN and sometimes FOX--again never MSNBC.

You're the only person I've ever encountered who reports seeing MSNBC broadcast in public places.

That MSNBC is stridently liberal is certainly beyond dispute--I would say that they are what FOX's fans say FOX is, namely a news source that is honest about its bias. (Though I agree that they indulge in their bias to such a degree that they aren't really a traditional news source at all.)

FOX, on the other hand, seems to me to be much more cynical and smarmy.

NPR is definitely liberal, but not to an unreasonable degree--I think they make serious efforts to be fair.

CNN is sort of liberal, but it really depends on how you define it and what issues we're talking about. Generally news outlets tend to be more conservative on national security issues than on social issues. Since that's exactly the reverse of my own views, I find this endlessly frustrating!


In what way is USNWR no longer conservative? Less substantive than it used to be, definitely. . . .

If you're including in "the media" popular talk-show hosts, that's another matter entirely. Those people are chosen for their ability to entertain and be provocative, whether that is liberal or conservative.

Right, but they're predominantly conservative (Maddow has admitted that the attempt to create a liberal alternative, in which she was involved, was an abject failure), and they are in fact where a lot of people in this country get their understanding of current events. Hence I think you have to count them.

The fact that conservative outlets, whether FOX or talk radio, tend to be more sensationalistic and populist than liberal ones should not surely be taken to show some kind of unfair liberal dominance, but rather says something about what "conservatives" in this country want and who they are, as opposed to "liberals." (That's not entirely a slam at conservatives, though perhaps it mostly is--being populist isn't necessarily bad, but the form of populism I find in FOX and talk radio is pretty despicable and fake in my opinion.)

Representing a more conservative viewpoint: WSJ. Their reading audience is also not as broad an economic & cultural cross-section of the American public that the above are.

I'm scratching my head at the suggestion that WSJ represents a narrower spectrum than MSNBC (or NPR, which you didn't mention). I'd say that all three speak to a relatively narrow, elite spectrum of American society.

Edwin

[ProLepanto]

Originally Posted by Contarini

NPR is definitely liberal, but not to an unreasonable degree--

Edwin

Much like saying: "My car is in need of repair, but it isn't totaled"

Or are you implying that liberalism itself isn't incompatible with reason? Because, if so, what you are actually saying is more akin to: "The room is indeed dark, just not terribly dim"

The simple fact is that there can be no bases for critique without the principle of believing in an objective truth, and there can be no definitive goal without an equally definitive purpose. Given that combating concepts of social good are evaluate-able through more than their popularity or forced practice, one must concede that there is a non subjective “there” and that if we know what it is, it is because at one time it was understood/practiced. If it was never held then there is no basis for complaint (political or otherwise) just undefendable arbitrary assertions of worth.

Id Est only a conservative (that is someone of the belief of our purpose filled intent as described to us) has any grounds for his assertions (social or otherwise) because even if a progressive/liberal (that is someone who does not trust in a tradition of which to conserve) believes in definitive truth but that we have yet to obtain it, then he also has to concede that he may never be able to know it when or if he does manage to find it. So one can trust in an unveiled truth, attack existing precepts of morality, fight for a compensatory state of individually professed ignorance and pray for enlightenment, or comply to the best of our ability to the ethics we’ve inherited.

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by ProLepanto

Much like saying: "My car is in need of repair, but it isn't totaled"

Or are you implying that liberalism itself isn't incompatible with reason?

It all depends on what you mean by "liberalism." But liberal political/social positions are certainly compatible with reason in the sense that rational people hold them and make rational arguments for them.

The simple fact is that there can be no bases for critique without the principle of believing in an objective truth

You're assuming that liberals don't believe in objective truth. If nothing else, liberals believe that certain things are good for human well-being and certain things aren't. You're making a lot of assumptions about "liberals," it seems to me.

In fact a lot of liberals are fond of saying that "reality has a liberal bias." That indicates a pretty strong belief in objective truth!

one must concede that there is a non subjective “there” and that if we know what it is, it is because at one time it was understood/practiced.

That doesn't make sense at all. Reason is not merely the observation of what has been practices in the past.

Id Est only a conservative (that is someone of the belief of our purpose filled intent as described to us)

This is a loaded definition.

has any grounds for his assertions (social or otherwise) because even if a progressive/liberal (that is someone who does not trust in a tradition of which to conserve) believes in definitive truth but that we have yet to obtain it, then he also has to concede that he may never be able to know it when or if he does manage to find it. So one can trust in an unveiled truth, attack existing precepts of morality, fight for a compensatory state of individually professed ignorance and pray for enlightenment, or comply to the best of our ability to the ethics we’ve inherited.

There's nothing irrational about saying, "I don't know the whole truth yet, but I will fight for the truth I see." In fact, I would say that claiming to be in present possession of "definitive truth" is contrary to reason--contrary, certainly, to the ratio of our nature as finite human beings in via and not yet in patria.

But you're taking this in way too philosophical a direction. I was speaking simply to the tendency of certain media outlets to take certain specific political positions which tend to be described in our culture as "liberal" or "conservative."

I think that FOX News, as a matter of fact, is utterly unworthy of the noble name of "conservative." Certainly most of what I hear their commentators say (not all) is incompatible with reason. So perhaps, by your definition, they are liberals?
I'm using the terms in the sense they are used conventionally in current political culture, and I think assuming that such usage matches up with some kind of coherent philosophical position (on either) side is a serious mistake.

Edwin

[ProLepanto]

@Contarini

I specifically mentioned the kind of liberal who purports to believe in objectivity. To say that I failed in addressing this, or that I am guilty of "assuming" they don't exist is at best a demonstration of poor reading comprehension, and at worst, a lie.


Now, if realizing moral/ethical truth isn't dependent on revelation, then how do you propose to authenticate its discovery (when and if it is found)?

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by ProLepanto

@Contarini

I specifically mentioned the kind of liberal who purports to believe in objectivity. To say that I failed in addressing this, or that I am guilty of "assuming" they don't exist is at best a demonstration of poor reading comprehension, and at worst, a lie.

You did mention the possibility of a liberal believing in "definitive truth" toward the end of the post, yes. I was guilty of responding too fast, line by line, but you seemed to regard such "liberals" as rare exceptions, which is not my experience at all. The main body of your critique seemed to assume that liberalism as a whole is characterized by not believing in objective truth, and you then seemed to be finding some rather convoluted way of claiming that even those who do believe in it really don't have any basis for claiming to possess it.

Now, if realizing moral/ethical truth isn't dependent on revelation, then how do you propose to authenticate its discovery (when and if it is found)?

I would put the question the other way round: how would you authenticate revelation? Or more specifically, distinguish divine from demonic revelation?

Moral/ethical truth is primarily intuitive, though of course we need discursive reason to organize and explain our intuitions (and I believe that such rational inquiry points toward a transcendent source for morality).

Human beings, among many other impulses, have impulses toward justice and compassion, and a strong inclination to regard these particular impulses as more valuable and authoritative than the others. (i.e., when we choose to indulge lust or malice instead of virtuous impulses, we have a sense that we ought not to be doing so.)

The Christian faith perfects and sharpens moral intuition, and even more importantly it provides a framework in which that intuition makes sense and gives us the grace to overcome our sinfulness. But moral intuitions pre-existed Christianity, and indeed Christianity would have made no sense without those pre-existing intuitions.

Edwin

[ProLepanto]

Originally Posted by Contarini

I would put the question the other way round: how would you authenticate revelation? Or more specifically, distinguish divine from demonic revelation?


Edwin

Answer: Ask, "Is it scripture and does it conform to all else that is understood to be reality?"

Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand?

[mercytruth]

Originally Posted by Gaber

Yes, and I'm sure that many on here believe I need it, lol!

OK, I think I see where you might be coming from. You are kind of saying that from your standpoint as a devout Catholic the content and manner of reportage in today's media is liberal? OK., but that's not quite what I'm referring to. So in some respects I agree with you, but I'm looking at a different part of the picture, for the most part. in claiming that the media is increasingly conservative. More on that in a bit.Ah, yes, like FOX "news."I;m in kind of a red neck haven in CA and my wife is a confessed Oakie with dust-bowl, motorcycle racing, and real estate roots. Kinda that. And we are sort of rural. the nearest town is about 1K strong.No kidding! Really? Isn't that the one whose chief editor just polled as to whether their newspaper ought to investigate the accuracy of "facts?" Sorry, it was a story on NPR, and can't find the reference now. But generally I agree with that one.

Back to the c/l idea: When I say that the media is more conservative now than ever, I mean that it has succumbed to the freefall our Country is experiencing into plutocracy and the machinery that sustains that. Whereas in 1983, fifty corporations dominated most of every mass medium and the biggest media merger in history was a $340 million deal. … [i]n 1987, the fifty companies had shrunk to twenty-nine. … [i]n 1990, the twenty-nine had shrunk to twenty three. … [i]n 1997, the biggest firms numbered ten and involved the $19 billion Disney-ABC deal, at the time the biggest media merger ever. … [In 2000] AOL Time Warner’s $350 billion merged corporation [was] more than 1,000 times larger [than the biggest deal of 1983].

--Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000), pp. xx—xxi

Today, six colossal media giants tower over all the rest. And the CEO's of those corps are very, very rich. Therefore most likely conservative republicans, yes? And when I say "very very rich, I mean this. And this. So by "conservative," I mean that what we are given as "news" by nearly anyone is along the company lines of a few mega giants whose reach is astounding, if you look at it. And what we are not told, as well as what we are, is equally critically important, and that's where the conservatism kicks in. The "liberalism" you point to might just be a distraction?

These six colossal media giants who tower over all the rest, does not prove that they are either conservative, or liberal.

It proves that they are very wealthy, and very powerful. It proves that they have the power to manipulate the masses. It proves that they have the power to divide the masses with mistrust of one another. It proves that they have the power to choose the political playing field. It proves that they have the power to generate and shape the discourse, or non-discourse on social and moral issues. It proves that they have the power to lead us into war.

Is it unhealthy conspiracy to think that they may be doing any of these things? Is it delusional to think that they are serving the 'prince of the power of the air'.?

Regardless, I can only shake my head over the fact that a lot of folks out there actually think the media is decidely liberal. Therefore, such folks are gathering around the wagons to defend themselves, and this country against the 'liberal media' of these six very wealthy, and very powerful media giants.

Thus, we have conservatives flocking to the CA fora as an alternative to the 'liberal conspiracy' of these six very wealthy, and very powerful media giants. As long as the CA forum itself, remains true to it's Catholic faith, and the teachings of Jesus Christ it will be a calm voice in this present clamour of division.


just one person's perspective.

God's peace.

Micah.

[ManOnFire]

Originally Posted by Contarini

You did mention the possibility of a liberal believing in "definitive truth" toward the end of the post, yes. I was guilty of responding too fast, line by line, but you seemed to regard such "liberals" as rare exceptions, which is not my experience at all. The main body of your critique seemed to assume that liberalism as a whole is characterized by not believing in objective truth, and you then seemed to be finding some rather convoluted way of claiming that even those who do believe in it really don't have any basis for claiming to possess it.

Moral/ethical truth is primarily intuitive, though of course we need discursive reason to organize and explain our intuitions (and I believe that such rational inquiry points toward a transcendent source for morality).

Human beings, among many other impulses, have impulses toward justice and compassion, and a strong inclination to regard these particular impulses as more valuable and authoritative than the others. (i.e., when we choose to indulge lust or malice instead of virtuous impulses, we have a sense that we ought not to be doing so.)

The Christian faith perfects and sharpens moral intuition, and even more importantly it provides a framework in which that intuition makes sense and gives us the grace to overcome our sinfulness. But moral intuitions pre-existed Christianity, and indeed Christianity would have made no sense without those pre-existing intuitions.

Edwin

Liberals certainly do believe in objectivity. They are quick to judge one to be "not corrrect" if one thinks or feels an emotion that is independent of their views. The hypocrisy comes into play over the mantra "anything goes," which is the direct contradiction that is used to slay conservative values.

It distills down to who believes/ does not believe in the existence of God.

Most tightly wrapped conservatives can taste the depth of love that is found with sacrificing to have a large family, but then the "problem" for the world would be that it would become overpopulated with a continuous baby boom if the world were full of these people, as evidenced by the Baby Boomers, and the social engineers would have a fit trying to figure out how to feed everyone. Hence, the liberal sexuality, birth control, abortion, and global warming alarmists. So, in the overpopulation sense, it's "good" (cough) that people have been unknowingly lured into liberalism and that there aren't more conservatives.

Most liberal progressives are functioning atheists who live for today, and, if one believes that God does not exist, then they would ask why not indulge? It's reasonable to believe there would be no punishment for "sins" since these sins are defined by man. No acts would be off limits for consenting humans. Moral relativism. The "problem" is that they are essentially anti-religion, so those who claim to be believers could not follow them, but that's where their appeal to charity will always hook some of the religious into supporting them. They have no guilt because they believe that God does not exist. The types of lifestyles they promote would be very effective at decreasing the population, a la Europe. Expensive cost of living, rampant sexuality with bulletproof birth control, abortion, drug use, creation of more homosexuality, these all take care of overpopulation fears by those who believe there will be no punishment. I'm tempted to accuse them of luring and deceiving the public, but then they'll probably bring up Santa or the Easter Bunny. They have no theoretical cosmological science to explain how absoute nothing could magically poof into energy forms which have no mass to create the cosmos, but they manage to see past this somehow. It's shocking and disturbing how it could go either way.

[Elizabeth502]

Originally Posted by ManOnFire

Liberals certainly do believe in objectivity. They are quick to judge one to be "not corrrect" if one thinks or feels an emotion that is independent of their views. The hypocrisy comes into play over the mantra "anything goes," which is the direct contradiction that is used to slay conservative values.

Yes. "Anything goes" is the Absolute. "Objective truth" = Universal Licence.

Most liberal progressives are functioning atheists who live for today, and, if one believes that God does not exist, then they would ask why not indulge?

This is an interesting perspective. One could say that modern liberals (or as they like to call themselves, "Progressives"), are "pro-choice" when it comes to religious belief. (I have my belief, but I won't "force" it on non-believers, who are free to live amorally or immorally, therefore.)

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by ProLepanto

Answer: Ask, "Is it scripture

But the question is how we recognize Scripture?

and does it conform to all else that is understood to be reality?"

Which would mean that we would reject the Resurrection, because it doesn't conform to all else--it changes reality!

OK, that's not entirely fair--I'm not sure I disagree with what you're saying, but the way you put it might need rephrasing. Surely a true revelation will both make sense of and transform reality as we know it?

Anyway, I don't see how you could rule out moral intuitions as an important part of this, which is my point.

They are a very important part of "what is understood to be reality." In fact I'd say that they are the most important part, and the part that is least subject to doubt.

Edwin

[AlanFromWichita]

Originally Posted by ManOnFire

Liberals certainly do believe in objectivity. They are quick to judge one to be "not corrrect" if one thinks or feels an emotion that is independent of their views.

So, by contrast, are you saying that conservatives are slow to judgment of others' views, and sincerely considers they might be wrong when faced with an opinion that doesn't match their own??

The hypocrisy comes into play over the mantra "anything goes," which is the direct contradiction that is used to slay conservative values.

I sense a straw man. When have you heard a "liberal" say that anything goes?

It distills down to who believes/ does not believe in the existence of God.

Not necessarily. It boils down to who believes what about God. Just because they don't believe God conforms to everything that is said about Him, doesn't mean they don't believe in God. What were you saying about "quick to judge?"

Most liberal progressives are functioning atheists who live for today, and, if one believes that God does not exist, then they would ask why not indulge?

How do you know "most?" Where is this coming from? Are their surveys you can link?

They have no theoretical cosmological science to explain how absoute nothing could magically poof into energy forms which have no mass to create the cosmos, but they manage to see past this somehow. It's shocking and disturbing how it could go either way.

Yo, chill dude. If I were more sensitive, I'd say your rhetoric is shocking and disturbing. Your post is a tirade of baseless wide-brush claims. You have made these claims as if they are objective fact; are you sure they are not just personal opinions? You are clinging to group identity as a measure of spirituality even though Jesus clearly and repeatedly taught against judgment of others by group identity. You seem to be very miserable with a large number of members of the Body of Christ. Being shocked and disturbed at an entire category of people ... to me that doesn't jibe with the interior lessons of Jesus.

Now, from me as a brother in Christ, I offer you this suggestion:

Matt 5:23-24

Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Or tell me you're just kidding about these claims and that you're messing with me?

Alan