Funniest Bad Fox News Interview Ever [W:353]

[lolabird]

I have ten minutes of her making a fool of herself. That's the one and only thing I've commented on.



No, I've taken what I've deemed embarrassing and encouraged other people to join in the schadenfreude.



I've made exactly one comment about book sales and it's factually supported. Beyond that, you're just making **** up.



And?

Since I was taught always ask questions no matter how trivial, I would never derive enjoyment from the troubles of others. But that's just me.
Calling someone a fool seems to come easy for you.

 

[Aderleth]

Since I was taught always ask questions no matter how trivial, I would never derive enjoyment from the troubles of others. But that's just me.
Calling someone a fool seems to come easy for you.

It does when it's deserved.

Were you taught to repeatedly ask the same question over and over again after its already been answered? Or attack interview subjects with blatantly false information?

 

[lolabird]

I am in a quandry. First, statements are made to the effect, that the poster would be "curious as to why a Muslim would write a book about Jesus." AND a statement by the academic that his field of study is Religions, would have caused the poster to "raise an eyebrow". I will agree no questions were asked by lolabird but I do think that most readers would understand why I posed the questions I did.

The final response is slightly unrelated to the topic and the earlier statements. Afterall I gave an example of one of my professors teaching a subject unrelated to his personal beliefs or ethnic origin, so where did the statement about the earlier "curiosity" as Prof Aslan's religion not indicate a negative attitude toward him and his chosen religion?

Allow me to extend and hand to help you out of your quandary.
My first impulse would have been to ask Aslan why he chose to write about Jesus, and the answer he gave to the interviewer was not satisfactory for me; therefore, I most likely would have raised an eyebrow. It would not have been in disdain, but rather an emotion of confusion. It's something I do.

 

[lolabird]

It does when it's deserved.

Were you taught to repeatedly ask the same question over and over again after its already been answered? Or attack interview subjects with blatantly false information?

Are you really so gauche as to think you answered my question? If you deem my perceptions false, does that mean your perceptions are true?

 

[Aderleth]

Are you really so gauche as to think you answered my question? If you deem my perceptions false, does that mean your perceptions are true?

What question? You didn't ask one in your last post.

And no, if your perceptions are false that does not necessarily mean mine are true. That would be a false dichotomy, or what a prominent judge once referred to as a "contrived dualism." What does that have to do with anything?

Now are you going to answer either of the questions I asked in my last post?

 

[lolabird]

What question? You didn't ask one in your last post.

And no, if your perceptions are false that does not necessarily mean mine are true. That would be a false dichotomy, or what a prominent judge once referred to as a "contrived dualism." What does that have to do with anything?

Now are you going to answer either of the questions I asked in my last post?

Were you taught to repeatedly ask the same question over and over again after its already been answered? Or attack interview subjects with blatantly false information? Can you attempt to explain yourself?

 

[Aderleth]

Were you taught to repeatedly ask the same question over and over again after its already been answered? Or attack interview subjects with blatantly false information? Can you attempt to explain yourself?

Are you asking me why I asked you those two questions or are you asking me to answer them for you?

 

[lolabird]

Are you asking me why I asked you those two questions or are you asking me to answer them for you?

You put yourself on the line when you said my question had already been answered. Don't back peddle; it's very off-putting.

 

[Aderleth]

You put yourself on the line when you said my question had already been answered. Don't back peddle; it's very off-putting.

I haven't said that your questions have been answered, although come to think of it I don't know of any questions you've asked that haven't been. I was asking if you were raised to repeatedly ask the same question over and over again after it's been answered which is what the interviewer did. Given that I also asked you about attacking an interviewee, that was pretty obvious in context. I'm not sure how anything I've said could possibly be construed as back-peddling.

Seriously, did you even watch the whole video?

 

[sangha]

While I'm not a au fait as you because I'm not a Muslim, I have read extensively about religion, and while you believe that Aslan is a prominent thinker on religious history, he does not have a degree in history. He is an associate professor in the Creative Writing Program at the University of California, Riverside.
Your analogy using Noam Chomsky is bloviating, to say the least.
I was taught early on that abysmal smugness leads to an empty audience.

Reza Aslan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aslan holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in religions from Santa Clara University, a Master of Theological Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School, and a Master of Fine Arts degree from the University of Iowa's Writers' Workshop, where he was named the Truman Capote Fellow in Fiction. Aslan also received a Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology from the University of California, Santa Barbara.[7][8] His dissertation was titled "Global Jihadism as a Transnational Social Movement: A Theoretical Framework".[9]

In August 2000, while serving as the Truman Capote Fellow at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop, Aslan was named Visiting Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Iowa, becoming the first full-time professor of Islam in the history of the state.[10]

 

[lolabird]

I haven't said that your questions have been answered, although come to think of it I don't know of any questions you've asked that haven't been. I was asking if you were raised to repeatedly ask the same question over and over again after it's been answered which is what the interviewer did. Given that I also asked you about attacking an interviewee, that was pretty obvious in context. I'm not sure how anything I've said could possibly be construed as back-peddling.

Seriously, did you even watch the whole video?

Are you finding it difficult to be honest?

 

[Aderleth]

Are you finding it difficult to be honest?

Not at all. Why do you ask?

 

[lolabird]

Not at all. Why do you ask?

Once again you are making a non sequitur interjection.

 

[Aderleth]

Funniest Bad Fox News Interview Ever

Once again you are making a non sequitur interjection.

Okay, I'll bite. What do you believe to be a non sequitur?

 

[sangha]

This thread has the potential to become comedy gold

 

[Aderleth]

This thread has the potential to become comedy gold

It's getting pretty funny at this point.

 

[lolabird]

Okay, I'll bite. What do you believe to be a non sequitur?

The fact that you choose not to stick to the topic. You chastised me for asking questions that you had already answered, and when I confronted you, you changed the subject. I believe that's referred to as non sequitur.

 

[sangha]

The fact that you choose not to stick to the topic. You chastised me for asking questions that you had already answered, and when I confronted you, you changed the subject. I believe that's referred to as non sequitur.

I'll give it a shot

Aderleth did not chastise you for asking question that he had already answered. He mocked the Fox lady for asking the same question over and over even though Reza Aslan had already answered it.

And it was a stupid question (the one the Fox lady asked) to begin with.

 

[Aderleth]

The fact that you choose not to stick to the topic. You chastised me for asking questions that you had already answered, and when I confronted you, you changed the subject. I believe that's referred to as non sequitur.

Except that's not remotely what I did. I explained that you had misunderstood my comment and pointed out specifically how that's the case. That's not a non sequitur, it's a direct response to your misunderstanding. There was no changing of subjects at all, and it's right there in black and white for all to see. The most charitable possible interpretation of what you're doing now is also misunderstanding things, although I also have to wonder if you're being honest at this point.

 

[lolabird]

Except that's not remotely what I did. I explained that you had misunderstood my comment and pointed out specifically how that's the case. That's not a non sequitur, it's a direct response to your misunderstanding. There was no changing of subjects at all, and it's right there in black and white for all to see. The most charitable possible interpretation of what you're doing now is also misunderstanding things, although I also have to wonder if you're being honest at this point.

But of course.

 

[Aderleth]

But of course.

Great. So... are you going to address my earlier point? About the utter stupidity of the interviewers tactics? Which you for some reason are defending?

 

[lolabird]

Great. So... are you going to address my earlier point? About the utter stupidity of the interviewers tactics? Which you for some reason are defending?

Your point went from A to Z and back again. I'll leave you to your own tactics.

 

[Fiddytree]

Things similar to that interview question, but you won't see on Fox News:

Can a man really write women's history or gender history?

Can a white person write African American history?

 

[Aderleth]

Your point went from A to Z and back again. I'll leave you to your own tactics.

You spend several pages totally misunderstanding and misrepresenting me and that's due to my tactics? Wow, that's pathetic. You're new here so I'll give you a word of advice: being blatantly disingenuous is not going to get you very far.

 

[Aderleth]

Things similar to that interview question, but you won't see on Fox News:

Can a man really write women's history or gender history?

Can a white person write African American history?

You're right: Fox probably wouldn't ask those questions because they don't support their Muslim/Left bashing discourse. Of course if you're implying that asking such questions generally is remotely comparable to spending ten minutes implying that a specific well-known scholar has an insurmountable religious bias, you're somewhat mistaken.