Propriety, as in ownership of property.
So that we all begin life with equal rights, and so that rights aren’t just pulled out of the ass of some magistrate or potentate.
Please inform Sophistry and Illusion.
I can easily think of a comeback to this. However, I don’t want this to turn into another hijack, so I will give the thread time to go back to a regular train of thought. Maybe if Liberal persists, I will post, again, but not for now.
As I know you have a large vocabulary, I though you may have been using a form of the word I was not familiar with so I looked it up before posting. I don’t have my OED here with me, but dictionary.com doesn’t seem to agree with you. Is it a legal term?
The initial statements of rights in our Constitution, and most other governments were done in just that way. Though, they did make somewhat more rational choices to match the identified rights with their ideals for their new government than by excremental divination. We, as the governed, have agreed to these rights by not overthrowing the government. Consent of the governed is key to our political structure.
I think it was my statement you had a problem with, he just agreed.
Can you call band name on your own post?
I think it is very important for rules to be based on precedent, not just a straightforward reading of the rules. Thus, I have typed in the term into search and am looking for example of people quoting their own post to come up with band names. No examples so far, but I see some very, very funny threads. 
If you cannot at least make an effort to explain your axioms, and why you hold them to be so patently necessary and evident–why, in sum, you believe what you believe–then you are absolutely correct.
Apart from the discussion on the origin of rights (and I disagree firmly with Lib on this point), I am afraid I don’t understand why freedom of the press from government intrusion and manipulation necessarily requires an additional social burden on it.
The freedom of the press is precisely that–freedom. To print laughable screeds, to criticize and harangue, to editorialize, to spin, to sway . . . without answering to the Govenrment.
But they still must answer to their customers. Those who pay their salaries. We, as citizens of the United States, do not have a right to unbiased reportage. We do not have a right to have unvarnished truth spoonfed us. Hell, we’ve already pretty well established that bias must occur to some degree–we simply cannot have plain facts anyway. At very least, someone is making editorial decisions on what stories to run, when, and in what order.
The press is free to publish as they see fit without Government manipulation. But they are ultimately only responsible to their customers and their shareholders.
To be perfectly frank, I would love to see a world in which everyone wants to tell the truth, and in which everyone strives to the utmost to look juduciously at all sides of an argument. But I still don’t see why the media have an ethical or moral obligation to do so.
I’m willing to be swayed–if I weren’t, I wouldn’t have asked for explanations in the first place.
Well, whether basic axioms like “it is generally immoral to deceive or mislead others” are viable is a topic for another thread. I just assumed that such axioms were part of our common morality. But again, to prevent hijacking this thread (further), I won’t defend my position.
See its usage in the context of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States).
May I ask when my consent will be solicited?
You’re right, it’s a hijack. The issue at hand is “Is FOXNews biased?” and not “Should FOXNews be unbiased?”
My apologies.
Not to be a total bitch . . . but your consent is given every moment you choose to remain a citizen.
Not that I agree with him, but that isn’t quite true. You don’t really have a choice in the matter unless you can get another country to take you or find some uninhabitable rock that hasn’t yet been claimed by anyone. This is out of reach for most people.
Unless I am mistaken, the use in that article is identical to the dictionary definition I referenced. I think you may be confused because they talk of “propriety ownership”. I believe they mean “just and proper ownership”, not “ownership as in regards to property” as I believe you think they mean.
Man, I knew you were going to ask that, and it is the obvious question. In this case we are not talking about complete agreement on issues, which would be impossible, but…
OK, you know what, this is going to get out of hand quickly. I have not debated this issue here before and it would take quite a while distracting from the topic at hand. How about I concede that it is a good point (which it is), but one that is not particularly germain to the topic at hand. In fact, it is a sidetrack of a sidetrack.
I thought I had a pretty good point early in regards to a metric for meauring bias before this got started. Would anyone care to comment on the potential of that?
My fault. I offered the PIPA study as evidence that Fox has a pro-administration bias, and couldn’t resist the urge to get on my soapbox. Someone should reduce that sumbitch to tinder already.
Soap, forsooth! I use a refrigerator box. Shame it’s made of balsa, though. 
Sounded good to me. Studies like the PIPA one do seem to demonstrate pro-Administration bias in Fox’s news reporting. Of course, the study is compatible with the conclusion that NPR always harps on anti-Administration points, but it doesn’t demonstrate that this is the case. So you are right–we need a similar study showing liberal bias. Like you, though, I think the prospects for uncovering such a study are slim. Anyone who knows of such a study is hereby invited to share.
I have thought about it a bit, and I am unsure this method would be the best. If it comes back negative for NPR bias then we get bragging rights, but I want hard proof, for myself as well as political opponents.
The test we have would only measure misinformation, not attitudes. It is possible to accurately inform everone of a situation yet spin it enough that very different attitudes could be formed. PIPA shows that this is not necessary for FOX, but some way of categorizing it may be necessary for NPR if they pass the first cut.
Ugh, this is not easy to do.
A Pew Study has shown that 34% of national journalists consider themselves to be liberal, while only 7% of them self-identify as conservative. However, there is evidence that they mean classical liberalism as opposed to modern American liberalism, since more of them believe that people should be free to pursue goals without government interference than believe that government should provide for peoples’ needs. (The majority of libertarians in local news is even larger.) It is therefore possible to equivocate on this matter, since the term “liberal” might not mean the opposite of conservative, but rather lacking the bias of either a modern liberal or a modern conservative.
But I have no problem getting the news from people who self identify conservative or liberal. While that may send up a flag of something to look for, it does not necessarily bespeak of bias. In fact, I have more trust in someone who is able to recognize their own prejudices because it is at least possible for them to keep them out of the news. If they do recognize those prejudices then there is no hope.
I’m a liberal, I’m interested in politics, and I enjoy running on about my beliefs. So why do I hardly ever say anything in GD? Because of threads like this, and the one on NPR that preceded it. That is, because all I ever get to do is scold other liberals for lazy and/or dishonest debating. Man, it’s getting so you have to be a chemist to quantify the “thoughtful liberal” quotient around here, since it has to be measured in parts per million.
Bricker, flight, Spavined Gelding, and a couple others: keep fighting the good fight. I haven’t the heart.
rub his nose in it. It is simply common sense. Thus, when you see me, or anyone else using an odd way to defend their position, you shouldn’t just leave them be, or simply state that their analogy is incorrect, you should show how there are wrong, if you ever want anything to change. Be aware, however, that people will show how there are correct, anyway.
I have the feeling I am one of those you feel is incorrect, since you mentioned that Rick fights the good fight, and not me. Funny, I feel the same way about him.
Yes, you’re correct. Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness, and so forth. But, as I said, I’m just not up to it – playing debate nanny is no fun, and it doesn’t win any friends.