Jerry Falwell Dies

[CrystalTears]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6659457.stm

US evangelist Jerry Falwell dies

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42929000/jpg/_42929337_jerryafp.jpg Jerry Falwell had a history of heart problems

Leading US conservative evangelist Rev Jerry Falwell has died in hospital in Virginia after being found unconscious in his office, his assistants said.

Doctors gave Rev Falwell emergency treatment at Lynchburg General Hospital but could not revive him.

Rev Falwell, 73, survived two serious health scares in 2005 but had a history of heart problems.

He became a figurehead of the religious right in the 1980s, founded the Moral Majority and later Liberty University.

Rev Falwell was regarded as the father of the political evangelical movement.

Ron Godwin, executive vice president for Liberty University, said Rev Falwell was found unresponsive in his office at the university at about 1045 local time (1535 GMT) after missing an appointment.

Rev Falwell was a strong opponent of abortion, homosexuality and many other issues that conflicted with his fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

The Rev Al Sharpton said he was deeply saddened and was praying for the Falwell family. He said although he often disagreed with the reverend, they had a cordial relationship.


R.I.P. I always feel bad when I hear of someone passing, but I'm not going to speak fondly of him just because he did.

[Jolena]

I wish I could feel bad about his passing. But I can't.

[Skeeter]

Don't worry, somebody worse will likely take his place.

[Gammit]

Don't worry, somebody worse will likely take his place.

So sad, and yet so true. We can celebrate when his brand of religiosity dies, not him.

[Necromancer]

"Jerry Falwell had a history of heart problems"

Yeah, he couldn't find one.

Did anyone else hear "Ding-Dong The Witch Is Dead!" in their heads when they read this?

No, mostly kidding. It's not okay when someone dies. There are always broken hearts left behind. But damn, him being dead isn't going to keep me from pointing out that he was the epitome of immorality.

[Gan]

This news does not illicit any emotion in me, one way or another. Another day, another dollar.

[Skirmisher]

"Jerry Falwell had a history of heart problems"

Yeah, he couldn't find one.
...


Heh, that was pretty funny.

Sure I have some sympathy for those that loved him but he didn't do me any favors.

I guess my feelings are similar to CT's

[Khariz]

I wish I could feel bad about his passing. But I can't.

I was thinking the same thing. I know it's mean, but I never really cared for the guy.

[Skeeter]

At least this guy can finally follow his life style in peace.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/images/_30845_t(purple).jpg

[CrystalTears]

When we [at work] first heard that he collapsed, my coworker came over and said, "It must be rapture".

[DeV]

May God have mercy on his soul.

RIP

[Khariz]

When we [at work] first heard that he collapsed, my coworker came over and said, "It must be rapture".

Holy shit, wow.

[Necromancer]

omg, that rapture comment actually made me start laughing out loud. Not LOL. Actual laughing.

My cat got scared =(

[Gan]

At least this guy can finally follow his life style in peace.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/images/_30845_t(purple).jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Ilvane]

That is hysterical CT.

As for Falwell, at least he's going to Heaven? :-P

Angela

[Khariz]

That is hysterical CT.

As for Falwell, at least he's going to Heaven? :-P

Angela

Thats debatable! :tumble:

[TheEschaton]

I hope the man rots in hell, personally. He's done more to (try and) take Christianity backwards (for this century at least) than most people could ever dare to claim.

-TheE-

[Numbers]

Hell just got a little bit more crowded.

[SpunGirl]

There's a special space in hell reserved for asshole religious figures. I hope he has fun with all the priests of the inquisition, maybe they can show him how the strappado works.

-K

[Warriorbird]

Seems like God finally smited him.

Definitely a big influence on my life. I'd probably be a lot more conservative if it wasn't for him. Growing up 20 minutes away from his city can do that to you.

[Gammit]

I was born in Lynchburg.

This was pointed out to me. First paragraph on CNN:

After his death Tuesday, the Rev. Jerry Falwell was hailed by friends and followers for his faith and for rallying conservative, religious voters. But his critics remember Falwell's controversial claims, including that the 9/11 attacks were America's punishment for for "throwing God out of the public square."

Same story, first paragraph on Fox News:

The Rev. Jerry Falwell, the folksy, small-town preacher who used the power of television to found the Moral Majority and turn the Christian right into a mighty force in American politics during the Reagan years, died Tuesday at 73.

Bias, much?

[TheEschaton]

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

We Report, You Decide, indeed.

-TheE-

[Khariz]

Both paragraphs are factual. CNN: He had critics. Fox: he led the hard right.

Wow, who cares?

[TheEschaton]

One mentions his accomplishments, and his critics. The other makes him sound like a folk hero, leading the people with a "mighty force"

-TheE-

[Khariz]

I think this is a case of reading into the story what you want to read into it to try to prove to yourself a bias that you perceive.

I could be wrong. Media bias kinda goes in one ear and out the other for me. I just let stick what I want to.

[Gammit]

They're both factual, of course, but one presents him as a controversial figure, while the other presents him as a religious revolutionary.

[Artha]

One has an audience of people who probably don't like him, one has an audience of people who probably do.

$$$.

[Daniel]

I think this is a case of reading into the story what you want to read into it to try to prove to yourself a bias that you perceive.

I could be wrong. Media bias kinda goes in one ear and out the other for me. I just let stick what I want to.

Man. Those logic skills are shining through brightly.

[Khariz]

Man. Those logic skills are shining through brightly.

Please explain what part of what I said was illogical? TheE is complaining about his perception of bias in the Fox version of the story. All I said was that they both present accurate facts, and that I think he (TheE) is wanting to read something into the story that isn't there.

That's an opinion that I'm entitled to. I formed the opinion by reading the story myself, noting that the information was factual, and then determining that *I* thought there was less bias going on than presumably he (TheE) did. I then typed out two sentences to him, leaving the possibility that I am wrong.

Wow, that was so illogical. :club:

I shouldn't have to defend my personal throught process to idiots posting one-liners.

[Latrinsorm]

Sure you should. Even if Daniel was a huge jerk, that doesn't make him wrong. That would be an ad hominem attack........... a logical fallacy. :D

I think someone in this thread whose name rhymes with Leschaton needs some a few more years under Jesuit Power. Tut tut, Mr. "I hope the man rots in hell, personally."!

[Khariz]

Sure you should. Even if Daniel was a huge jerk, that doesn't make him wrong. That would be an ad hominem attack........... a logical fallacy. :D

I think someone in this thread whose name rhymes with Leschaton needs some a few more years under Jesuit Power. Tut tut, Mr. "I hope the man rots in hell, personally."!

I wasn't saying that he was wrong *because* he was an idiot. I was saying he was wrong because it wasn't illogical.

That one is called a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

[TheEschaton]

I'm pretty sure all the Jesuits I know, while probably not overtly wanting him to rot in hell, don't think he's done much for Christianity, and has probably even made it regress.

I have stronger feelings which I'm allowed because I didn't take the vows to be a good person. :P

[Khariz]

I'm pretty sure all the Jesuits I know, while probably not overtly wanting him to rot in hell, don't think he's done much for Christianity, and has probably even made it regress.

I have stronger feelings which I'm allowed because I didn't take the vows to be a good person. :P

Yeah, I mean Jesuits don't want him to "rot in hell", but I think that you are right about them not going out of their way to say he was a positive force in moving the perception of Christianity forward.

[Latrinsorm]

I wasn't saying that he was wrong *because* he was an idiot. I was saying he was wrong because it wasn't illogical.

That one is called a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.So the line "I shouldn't have to defend my personal throught process to idiots posting one-liners." is clever subterfuge, or what?
I have stronger feelings which I'm allowed because I didn't take the vows to be a good person. :POk, Paul of Tarsus. :no:

[Daniel]

Please explain what part of what I said was illogical?

I'll be happy to *specify*, but I'm afraid you'll have to use your superior logical skills to deduce the explanation:

The part where you made a judgement of bias using the factuality of the statements as your sole determining factor.

:)

Hope that helps.

[Danical]

I would hope the news agencies would reasonably report all available facts and not a particular selection. Selectivity in reporting is deception, which to me, is a form of lying.

I'm not trying to pick on Fox, while it seems (again, to me) they do it better and more frequently, since all new networks cater to their audience.

EDIT: Agree x 2390482309480982340 with Artha's $$$ comment.

[Khariz]

I'll be happy to *specify*, but I'm afraid you'll have to use your superior logical skills to deduce the explanation:

The part where you made a judgement of bias using the factuality of the statements as your sole determining factor.

:)

Hope that helps.

Sorry when faced with evidence that what you say is *not true*, you can't reply with "haha, you figure it out". Thanks for saving me the trouble of having to take you seriously.

Edit: I explained my full thought process, which you decided to ignore.

[Khariz]

So the line "I shouldn't have to defend my personal throught process to idiots posting one-liners." is clever subterfuge, or what?

No sir, it was a remark demonstrating my disdain for what I had just done.

The comment was meant to be construed as "one liners are not worth defending, in my opinion, so why the hell did I just do it". That doesn't imply validity or lack thereof of such one-liner. I pointed out the one-liner's error. My remark came AFTER I did that. Hope that makes it more clear.

[Daniel]

Sorry when faced with evidence that what you say is *not true*, you can't reply with "haha, you figure it out". Thanks for saving me the trouble of having to take you seriously.

Evidence? What Evidence? I hope they didn't teach you that in law school.

As for not taking me seriously; I really care. No, I do.




Edit: I explained my full thought process, which you decided to ignore.

I did actually. It makes no sense to say something or something is not biased because the statements it gives are true.

I'd give examples, but you should already know this...being in Law school and all.

[Daniel]

No sir, it was a remark demonstrating my disdain for what I had just done.


So, you're a hypocrite?

[Khariz]

So, you're a hypocrite?

Sure, if you want to use the Dictionary definition of hypocrite "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings", then yes!

I thought it meritless to validate my thought process to you, and it turns out I was right to think it so! You first ignore it, and then faced with owning up to it, ignored it again, and acted like you didn't need to.

Bravo! u win at teh forumz

[Daniel]

It's no law school.

[Khariz]

It's no law school.

Damn skippy.

[Daniel]

(Last word)

[Kranar]

That's an opinion that I'm entitled to. I formed the opinion by reading the story myself, noting that the information was factual, and then determining that *I* thought there was less bias going on than presumably he (TheE) did. I then typed out two sentences to him, leaving the possibility that I am wrong.


I think your error in judgement comes from a lack of understanding of what it means to be biased. Furthermore a key illustration of your lack of reasoning comes from when you admittedly state:

"Media bias kinda goes in one ear and out the other for me. I just let stick what I want to."

Before it makes sense to even have a logical discussion about bias in the media, an understanding of what bias is, as well as what it means to actually listen to and be able to judge an argument rather than just letting in go in one ear and out the other, are required.

You really can't blame someone for pointing out these flaws in your statement and then decide to get all defensive about it.

[Khariz]

I think your error in judgement comes from a lack of understanding of what it means to be biased. Furthermore a key illustration of your lack of reasoning comes from when you admittedly state:

"Media bias kinda goes in one ear and out the other for me. I just let stick what I want to."

Before it makes sense to even have a logical discussion about bias in the media, an understanding of what bias is, as well as what it means to actually listen to and be able to judge an argument rather than just letting in go in one ear and out the other, are required.

You really can't blame someone for pointing out these flaws in your statement and then decide to get all defensive about it.

I have no misundersanding about what bias is. Furthermore, you misunderstood my post about it going in one ear and out the other. I intentionally allow the bias to filter out, and take the nuggets of factual news that I care to retain. It's not very hard to tell when a news reporter or newspaper puts a political or idealist spin on something that is not a necessary part of a story.

In case nobody noticed, I never addressed the extent to which I thought Fox was biased at all. To quote myself, "I formed the opinion by reading the story myself, noting that the information was factual, and then determining that *I* thought there was less bias going on than presumably he (TheE) did." I think that sentence should have let everyone understand that I comprehended why TheE would insinuiate the story was biased, but that I thought he was fishing for it more than it was actually present.

CNN focused on a more broad-spectrum historical story of the life of the man, and Fox's story was more religious-centric. It's not a secret that many people out there like to accuse Fox of being biased no matter how they report a story. It's also not a secret that CNN gets accused of the same thing from the other side.

The OP was the guy that originally brought up bias. To be more specific about my own views: I don't see how one can say that Fox was biased just because they didn't include a quip about the man having critics in their first paragraph. Both stories indicated that he rallied the religious conservatives. Both stories did this in the first sentence. Fox's portrayal was no more inaccurate or bloviated.

I was never addressing the presence of actual bias (until now), but rather TheE's perception of bias. More than anything, I was originally poking fun at him personally, as a means to have fun, but then got attacked with an unsubstantiated one-liner. I defended myself to my own chagrin, and continue to do so because people misunderstand what I've said.

I still defend my "logic", but certainly do not defend my lack of eloquence in this thread. I have poorly conveyed my points, and for that I apologize.

[Daniel]

More than anything, I was originally poking fun at him personally, as a means to have fun, but then got attacked with an unsubstantiated one-liner.

Me too! Amazing!

You being such a self-righteous pompous douche bag that takes himself way too seriously only makes it better.

P.s. My one liner was hardly unsubstantiated.

If you are going to claim that someone is making things up in their mind then you need to actually present some "evidence" besides an irrelevant observation about the factuality of the examples presented.

I find it hilarious that you are so indignant because I didn't feel the need to provide any additional "evidence" to prove that you are a jackass beyond your own admirable display. I find it ROFLCOPTER that you then admit to doing the same thing yourself.

[Khariz]

You'll never find me claiming that I'm not a pompous jackass :tumble:

Edit: Oh, the evidence that you are speaking of in your above post...Click on TheE, and take note of his social stance on issues. You can then fit him squarely in the box of people that would go out of their way to find bias in Fox News stories, even when it isn't there. I thought that was self-evident, self-explanatory, and didn't need pointing out. I guess I was wrong. By the way, TheE, I'm not insulting you in any way, I'm just saying I think you are pre-disposed to having a negative view of Fox Stories, about which I am perfectly willing to entertain the notion that I am wrong.

[Daniel]

Once again. Hilarity ensues.

[TheEschaton]

Let's look at the two first opening lines:



After his death Tuesday, the Rev. Jerry Falwell was hailed by friends and followers for his faith and for rallying conservative, religious voters. But his critics remember Falwell's controversial claims, including that the 9/11 attacks were America's punishment for for "throwing God out of the public square."

Same story, first paragraph on Fox News:

The Rev. Jerry Falwell, the folksy, small-town preacher who used the power of television to found the Moral Majority and turn the Christian right into a mighty force in American politics during the Reagan years, died Tuesday at 73.

Note, CNN's story leads with what his followers say, using the positive verb hail and rallying, and highlighting his faith. They then follow with the critical view, which usess the words controversial, and includes an idea of Falwell's that illustrated said controversy. It at least attempts to be balanced - you could say it was biased by quoting one quote out of context, or not quoting a supporter, but whatever. Note that CNN only uses his title, and doesn't draw conclusions about what he "did" and whether or not it was good.

Fox's story uses two positive adjectives, and the title preacher (a positive job title) in its first sentence, proclaiming him folksy and small-town. I personally find those ridiculous, but even the most objective person could see these are meant to put him in a positive light - for some reason, people think those are positive traits. Then, they paint him as an innovator for using television. Then they talk of what he founded, ie, his major accomplishment. Then, they first of all paint the Christian right as "mighty" and as a "force", both positive things, and then linked both those characteristics as due to Falwell. Notice they did not use ONE negative word referring to him at all.

I don't see how you can read that, and then not conclude Fox News doesn't have a bias.

-TheE-

[CrystalTears]

You're right, Fox should totally talk shit about him in the news. :tongue:

Personally I didn't see the big deal with either one. They were both factual comments, even if biased. I'm not sure why anyone's shocked by the bias in ANY news source.

[TheEschaton]

We're not talking factual vs. non-factual, we're talking bias vs. relatively unbiased.
Edited to add: per se, the people at CNN probably think about Falwell negatively, but at least had the good reporting skills to lead with the sentence about what his followers think about him, not what they think about him.

-TheE-

[Artha]

Note, CNN's story leads with what his followers say, using the positive verb hail and rallying, and highlighting his faith. They then follow with the critical view, which usess the words controversial, and includes an idea of Falwell's that illustrated said controversy. It at least attempts to be balanced - you could say it was biased by quoting one quote out of context, or not quoting a supporter, but whatever. Note that CNN only uses his title, and doesn't draw conclusions about what he "did" and whether or not it was good.

I think that second sentence places all the emphasis on the negative, because of the word 'but' and the apparent contrast between the first and second sentences. i.e., "Jim's a great guy. But he fucks goats." Do you think of him as Jim the great guy, or Jim the goat fucker?

But anyway, like I said before, $$$$. They're all whores.

[TheEschaton]

But at least they make the distinction between his followers and his critics, and don't give it out as their idea of the facts. In your analogy, IE,

"Jim's buddies thinks he's a great guy. But, his enemies think he's a goat fucker."

This doesn't prejudice you towards him being a goat fucker as much as the thing you posted.
It just says there are different feelings about Jim.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

the title preacher (a positive job title)Because nobody gets rabidly frothy at the suggestion of someone preaching at them, after all.
Then, they first of all paint the Christian right as "mighty" and as a "force", both positive things, and then linked both those characteristics as due to Falwell.Is it really up for debate whether the Christian right became influential? If you want to establish bias, don't you have to show how a certain fact is stretched in some way? I don't think crediting it entirely to Falwell is accurate, but he did just die. Also, it's rather clear that a "force" is neither positive nor negative: forces can be used for good, evil, or neither. A cursory examination of Foxnews itself demonstrates this.

I'm not saying Fox isn't biased, I'm saying yours is not a compelling argument.

[TheEschaton]

No, bias can simply be not presenting both sides of the issue. Or presenting them in wildly different proportions, or the over emphasis of less important facts, not necessarily the stretching of facts. No one really stretches the facts, except Dan Rather and Rush Limbaugh.

-TheE-

[Khariz]

I'm not saying Fox isn't biased, I'm saying yours is not a compelling argument.

And from the beginning of my posting in this thread, all I was saying was that he had no compelling reason for calling Fox on the carpet for his perceived bias.

Finally someone agrees with me.

Granted, I jumped the gun before TheE offered any explanation as to his bias. I jumped the gun because I was *assuming* that based on his political stances in other threads, he was wanting to read bias into the story more than it was actually present, which I said in my first response to him.

I then got attacked for my assumption (which granted, was not supported by posts in this thread alone). It has certainly been fun though!

And to close up my thought in this thread (which I now have no more reason to post in), I have no problem with TheE's opinion that there was bias in the story. His argument is compelling enough to be a valid point of view, even if I don't agree with it.

[Latrinsorm]

No, bias can simply be not presenting both sides of the issue.You mean like how we should teach Creationism alongside evolution, right? :D Not every issue has two or more sides that are worth talking about. This one does, but again, the guy just died. Don't you remember how even people who agreed with Danny Glover thought he was a jerk after Reagan died?

[Daniel]

Having Latrin on your side is not exactly a good thing.

[Latrinsorm]

lol, but I've been on your side in this thread too? Does the latrinosis cancel out?

[TheEschaton]

I bashed Reagan when he died. He was a dick, and an awful President who has plunged our country into the throes of being the biggest hypocrite the world has ever seen.

-TheE-

[Gan]

I bashed Reagan when he died. He was a dick, and an awful President who has plunged our country into the throes of being the biggest hypocrite the world has ever seen.

-TheE-

Wow. Look who swalled a liberal whackjob rhetoric pill this morning.

[Daniel]

lol, but I've been on your side in this thread too? Does the latrinosis cancel out?


<3

[Warriorbird]

...

Sorry you were born in Lynchburg, Gammit!

(grew up in Amherst)