Re: OT:Fox news is allowed to lie.

Page 1 of 5  
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:42:05 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy

Old news, by about 6 1/2 years?
What else can be expected when the press is, for all practical purposes, legally shielded from libel and slander laws.
The only hard information I see in the link is that a jury award was reversed by appellate court in 2003. All the rest appears to be commentary/editorializing/extrapolation/etc.
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RE: Subject
Fox is Faux.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Veatch wrote:

I used to live with a "journalist". She had been taught in school that it is a journalist's job to know nothing at all about the subject being reported. The sad thing is that she was quite bright but had been taught to not think.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Could you give an example of a moral absolute that does not have exceptions?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is always wrong to take innocent life.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in wrote:

I think most folks can agree on that. Innocent of what, though? I think that may cause considerable debate, since one person's innocent may be another's mortal sin. Take shaving, for example. In some places it is a sin worth your life to have a shaven face; in others it has no moral value at all, and in still others it is cause for discrimination to wear a beard. For another example, if one accepts the doctrine of Original Sin, then abortion is not wrong since the fetus, before baptism, is in a state of mortal sin and not, therefore, innocent. (If one does not accept the doctrine of Original Sin, the whole point of Christianity becomes kinda moot.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

From your mouth to God's ear, so to speak.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is incorrect.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com says...

Then argue your case.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

A ship is at sea and takes a torpedo to one of the forward compartments. The Captain orders the watertight doors sealed to preserve the ship while several seamen are still below that compartment. Several innocent lives are lost, but the remainder of the ship's compliment is saved.
Was the Captain wrong?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The captain ordering the torpedo launch took the "innocent" life. The captain on the receiving end was mitigating loss, as is his primary responsibility. Replace "torpedo" with "ice berg" and your point stands, though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Are you saying the rightness or wrongness of the Captain's decision depends on what caused the hole in the ship? -- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No, Your example introduced another consideration for blame. The captain firing the torpedo is absolutely the one responsibile for the loss of life on the ship that he attacked. The decision of the captain of the attacked ship was forced up on him. He did not make a decision with out just cause. Regardless of which decision he made lives were already predetermined to be lost, his decisions were to minimise lost lives.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Uh doh!
Yes, I believe that is what he is saying. Sorry. The captain should not hav been anywhere near the ice berg.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Close enough.

Should not, agreed, but stuff happens. In the case of the iceberg the captain of te sinking ship is culpable. It is still his responsibility to save as many lives as possible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Willemin wrote:

In general, if it has exceptions, it's not absolute (but it could still be moral).
In Judaism (for example) there are three conditions in which one must accept death rather than be forced to commit an act: idolatry, murder, and adultry. Most other religions have similar absolutes.
To the religious, morality IS absolute. To the secular progressive, morality is conditional.
To the devout, no good can come from an immoral act (therefore the Church prohibits abortion even to save the life of the mother). To the not-devout, the end justifies the means.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

And an excellent reason why a democracy/republic that wants to survive the test of time needs to seriously consider prohibiting graduates of a law school (where blurring the distinction between morality and legality is stressed/taught as a noble concept) from participating in the _legislative_ branch of government.
A silly idea?
Just take a close look at your congress and the damage they wrought to this country!!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not in my opinion. I've long felt that lawyers should be banned from approaching within 500 yards any legislature or courtroom.
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Veatch wrote:

If lawyers are to be banned from the courtroom then what is the point of having them?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:35:21 -0400, "J. Clarke"

Maybe for wills, contracts, and other civil matters.
I understand England has two categories of what we call lawyers, barristers who go to court and solicitors (?) who handle the other stuff. It must work, they've done it that way for a long time (I assume), but I wonder if it's really any better or just different from the way we do it in the US.
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.