![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzxU2fDcrp0
Daily Show: Fox Denies War On Women But Finds Wars On Just About Everything Else
O, behold! Some classic stuff from the amazing Fox News, here summarized by Stewart. The mind-bending hypocrisy and stupidity of the Fox hacks who erroneously call themselves a "news" organization.
So, according to Fox News, there's no war on women... BUT there's a war on... watch out...
Christmas...
Easter...
Fall holidays...
Halloween...
Fossil fuels...
The Constitution...
Ladies Night...
Fishermen...
Salt...
Chocolate milk...
Sugary drinks...
Food...
Spuds...
...and of course, where without it, the War on conservative Women!
Well, that at least means some women are included!
Hm, the whole "War On... Something" sort of rhetoric seems to be going over the top already. It's fucking obnoxious, hyperbolic and insulting to the intelligence of the watcher/reader/listener. Well, at least the three big social Wars in the last decades, the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror... had some clearly defined terms and clearly formulated purposes (I'm not arguing about the usefulness of their methods right now). Granted, they had some very clear examples to describe their means, actions and subsequent results. But even then, the latter one is the probably the only one among the three that comes somewhat close to warranting the use of the term "War". The rest of those War-On-s? Just catchy slogans crafted and pushed through by sensationalist "news" media seeking ratings. News at 11, eh?
To suggest that people who don't like it when things are not going exactly their way, are then carrying out a deliberate, orchestrated "war" against said things, is the ultimate example of a logic that's flawed beyond repair, as it takes the arguer's worldview and assumes it's correct in terms of the other side's motivations and intent, without even bothering to investigate what said motivations actually are, let alone making even a shy attempt to initiate a debate with the opponent on the issue. It constitutes a whole package of logical fallacies crammed into one stinky, grotesque bundle, and the stench being fanned up to no end. And then we wonder why the whole political "debate" smells like a cesspit.
Daily Show: Fox Denies War On Women But Finds Wars On Just About Everything Else
O, behold! Some classic stuff from the amazing Fox News, here summarized by Stewart. The mind-bending hypocrisy and stupidity of the Fox hacks who erroneously call themselves a "news" organization.
So, according to Fox News, there's no war on women... BUT there's a war on... watch out...
Christmas...
Easter...
Fall holidays...
Halloween...
Fossil fuels...
The Constitution...
Ladies Night...
Fishermen...
Salt...
Chocolate milk...
Sugary drinks...
Food...
Spuds...
...and of course, where without it, the War on conservative Women!
Well, that at least means some women are included!
Hm, the whole "War On... Something" sort of rhetoric seems to be going over the top already. It's fucking obnoxious, hyperbolic and insulting to the intelligence of the watcher/reader/listener. Well, at least the three big social Wars in the last decades, the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror... had some clearly defined terms and clearly formulated purposes (I'm not arguing about the usefulness of their methods right now). Granted, they had some very clear examples to describe their means, actions and subsequent results. But even then, the latter one is the probably the only one among the three that comes somewhat close to warranting the use of the term "War". The rest of those War-On-s? Just catchy slogans crafted and pushed through by sensationalist "news" media seeking ratings. News at 11, eh?
To suggest that people who don't like it when things are not going exactly their way, are then carrying out a deliberate, orchestrated "war" against said things, is the ultimate example of a logic that's flawed beyond repair, as it takes the arguer's worldview and assumes it's correct in terms of the other side's motivations and intent, without even bothering to investigate what said motivations actually are, let alone making even a shy attempt to initiate a debate with the opponent on the issue. It constitutes a whole package of logical fallacies crammed into one stinky, grotesque bundle, and the stench being fanned up to no end. And then we wonder why the whole political "debate" smells like a cesspit.
(no subject)
Date: 3/5/12 20:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/5/12 20:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/5/12 20:50 (UTC)It's only a matter of time before he notices this and remember.
(no subject)
Date: 3/5/12 20:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/5/12 20:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/5/12 21:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/5/12 06:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/5/12 21:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/5/12 03:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/5/12 06:13 (UTC)You know you're becoming desensitized to it when you declare war on... salt?