• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If you were curious why the GOP and MAGAS hate PBS, here is a little history lesson.

Over the decades, Republican politicians and pundits groomed their voters to reject inconvenient facts.

PBS and NPR don't follow that particular script. Hence, the chopping block for them.

(That there's no pay wall for either news source, which makes both NPR and PBS accessible to all, is the cherry on top for those who want to keep people in the dark.)
 
lol, delusional post right here.
 
aociswundumho said:
You were talking about science, remember? The doctor's advice is just an opinion. For the bazillionth time, a set of facts does not, and cannot, tell you what you should do.
Click to expand...
"What is your argument?" is the question.

The left, according to you, "automatically" follows science. Okie doke. Point?

aociswundumho said:
"Taking the doctor's advice" is not the same as "following science." Patients get second opinions because an opinion - no matter how informed - is not science. The doctor uses scientific facts, but the treatment plan is still a judgment call.
Click to expand...
You equate climate science with leftists. This mumbo jumbo is a poor substitute for what's plainly clear.
 
aociswundumho said:
No, we should follow science to understand what is. But deciding what we should do is a moral question. Science tells us what can be done, but it doesn’t (and can't) tell us what ought to be done.
Click to expand...
Ok, this ^ makes more sense.

Understanding that no scientific theory is infallible, I generally accept those that stand up to rigorous scientific review by multiple other scientific peers/experts, and are made available for public review.

As for moral considerations, IMO, following the recommended actions of the consensus of scientists would be the moral right choice.

Under the above conditions, would you reject the recommendation/s?
 
Berliner, who now works for an objectively right wing site, lied when he claimed 87 registered Democrats and zero Republicans in editorial positions.

That claim and others have already been refuted in another thread.
 
aociswundumho said:
No, we should follow science to understand what is. But deciding what we should do is a moral question. Science tells us what can be done, but it doesn’t (and can't) tell us what ought to be done.
Click to expand...
I see you are unaware of David Hume’s criticism of libertarianism if you are worried s out the is/ought fallacy without suddenly having a stroke.
 
aociswundumho said:
No, we should follow science to understand what is. But deciding what we should do is a moral question. Science tells us what can be done, but it doesn’t (and can't) tell us what ought to be done.
Click to expand...
If science is telling us that humans are destroying our planet, common sense tells us what should be done.

Oil and gas lobbyists tell us what we're not going to do !
 
aociswundumho said:
No, not the science. The fallacy is that the left believes science automatically tells us what we should do. It doesn't and and it can't.
Click to expand...

Yes, that’s why cancer causing wind turbines and autism causing vaccines are such controversial andimportant topics of debate. /s
 
joluoto said:
Ehh, not sure Southern Conservatives were necessarily Republican in 1970.
Click to expand...

They were racists the whole time. The whole reason they turned Republican in the 1970s was because they were racists. They were furious at LBJ for shoving civil rights down their throats.

“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.[1]”
-Kevin Phillips, Richard Nixon’s campaign advisor, 1970

Southern strategy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org
 
It's one of the things that their media bubble tells them when it doesn't have a juicer bit of propaganda.
 
I know that, and the Southern strategy. Some had even flipped to the GOP already in the late 60s, though most of them switched in the 70s and some in the early 80s. Just saying the racist Southern Conservatives in 1970 would to certain extent still be Democrats at the time.
 

My variation on “a rose, by any other name, is just as sweet”: a turd, by any other name, is just as repulsive.
 
aociswundumho said:
No, not the science. The fallacy is that the left believes science automatically tells us what we should do. It doesn't and and it can't.
Click to expand...
THe problem with the right is that believe only what Trump tells them to and not science. Science is not always exactly correct, but it is a hell of a lot closer to the truth than anything coming our of Trump or the GOP. Science warned us about the probability of bad weather and larger fires that would come with climate change, but of course the right listened to people like Trump and the wealthy. Now I would say we are paying the price, but Trump is ending FEMA, so we will all have to pay the price individually.
 
So, make sure your children or maybe grand children do not get vaccinated as science tellls us to and they can die of diseases we have fixed. Have you ever seen someone get polio, it isn't a pretty sight.
 
In principle, I support PBS. Also, I support them with my yearly membership. (But I do it for selfish reasons.)

Yeah, on occasion, I watch the channel as some of the programming is musical magic, intellectual stimuli, nostalgic and historical. I find that kind of stuff to be entertaining, myself. But that's just me. But I really don't watch it THAT much.

I would assume that a LOT of people don't watch it at all. So, from their point of view, I can see why they would begrudge their tax dollars being spent on PBS. They too, have their selfish reasons. So, who am I to judge?

My personal "selfish reasons," you might ask?

Well, here's a lil' sumpin'-sumpin' for ya.
1. Our PBS is a 501c3, (I think that's their non-profit classification.)
2. Often, really great bands, events, comedians, etc., come to my city and the local PBS channel offers' below cost tickets, with really awesome seating, for your "donation" of $XX.XX to them. So, in short, I can snag, say, 350.00 dollars worth of tickets, sometimes front-row-center, for just over 200.00.
3. AND.... Here's the kicker.... I can write off a significant portion of that ticket purchase as a tax deduction.

Win-Win! Bwahahahahahaha!
 
Linuxcooldude said:
So did CNN and others for the Covington kids incident. Lest you conveniently forget about that.
Click to expand...
I won't use CNN as a source of info. So no, I don't forget.

Fox and CNN are the same trash resources of info.
You won't see me brag about CNN like you bragged about fox lies.

How convenient that you don't care about fox lies?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…