The Pat Kenny Show

Tell me how

quintana76 wrote:

Nah! He is just an irritating broadcaster with too high an opinion of his own relevance.

I'm always intrigued by those who consistently post their opinion on how someone who consistently voices their own opinion is an outrage.

quintana76

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm always intrigued by those who consistently post their opinion on how someone who consistently voices their own opinion is an outrage.

This is a site for opinions and debate. The Pat Kenny Show is about current affairs and information. Whilst personal opinions inevitably are exposed it is not the role of the presenter to force theirs on the listener. Going on one sided rants on any issue is entering Alex Jones or Rush Limbaugh territory. I'm sure you don't want that.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

quintana76 wrote: »

This is a site for opinions and debate. The Pat Kenny Show is about current affairs and information. Whilst personal opinions inevitably are exposed it is not the role of the presenter to force theirs on the listener. Going on one sided rants on any issue is entering Alex Jones or Rush Limbaugh territory. I'm sure you don't want that.

Can we consider the opinion "liberals are stupid, Healy is ****e, the media is unbalanced raaar" read and understood? Every fcuking morning it's the EXACT same posts from the same people.

Any chance of opinions on the contents of the show? Anyone? Free travel pass? Bueller?

quintana76

Ayden Thundering Poison wrote: »

Can we consider the opinion "liberals are stupid, Healy is ****e, the media is unbalanced raaar" read and understood? Every fcuking morning it's the EXACT same posts from the same people.

Any chance of opinions on the contents of the show? Anyone? Free travel pass? Bueller?

No one ever said it about Pat Kenny. It is just the pure unprofessional behavior of Healy is the problem. I think he thinks he is some form of shock jock.

DickSwiveller

Leroy says (Sorry, I've messed up the quote thing and can't be arsed trying to edit it)

These are the very same people that not only want their opinions to be considered but in the past have ensured that laws were passed that made sure their opinions became the law.

Do people think before they write? What does this mean? Is it your opinion to child abuse is wrong? Are you forcing your opinion on others when you make laws protecting children against abuse?

They are now in the minority and seemingly are all for equality and respect and taking peoples views into consideration.[/QUOTE]

So you were opposed to the ideological uniformity within the media when it was conservative but now your fine with it because it's the other way round.

nomdeboardie

Jeebus Christ – that Seth Barrett Tillman personage – can’t listen to his arrogance-inflected delivery at the best of times, but he was getting so hysterically worked up in this interview that I thought it sounded like it had been taped and speeded up. My ears :eek::pac:

Leroy42

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Leroy says (Sorry, I've messed up the quote thing and can't be arsed trying to edit it)

These are the very same people that not only want their opinions to be considered but in the past have ensured that laws were passed that made sure their opinions became the law.

Do people think before they write? What does this mean? Is it your opinion to child abuse is wrong? Are you forcing your opinion on others when you make laws protecting children against abuse?

They are now in the minority and seemingly are all for equality and respect and taking peoples views into consideration.

So you were opposed to the ideological uniformity within the media when it was conservative but now your fine with it because it's the other way round.[/QUOTE]

I am going to assume that you have taken me up wrong.

The point was not about child abuse, the point was about homosexuality, abortion, divorce etc etc. The conservatives have a history of not only stopping free speech in these areas, but enacting laws to make the practices illegal

On the claimed ideological uniformity within the media. I don't believe it exists. I believe that the pendulum has swung to a more liberal media for sure, but there are plenty of dissenting voices. They don't have to be on every channel all the time though.

The point I was making is that clearly we had a very strong religious and conservative bias in the media quite recently. I just find it strange that all of a sudden those people are so concerned about freedom and equality when it never seemed to matter when they were in charge.

Is that fair, no, but then that presumes that it is now a reversal. And that, IMO, isn't correct. FG are the main party in government, a conservative party. The Tories in the UK, Trump in the US. The 'right wing' to use a massive generalisation, is far from being pushed out of the media.

kazamo

Trying hard to decide which one is the least annoying ATM.
Is it the Trump apologist who gets rattled easily and his voice becomes very high pitched and shrill and hurts my ears.
Or is it Jonathan Healy who has become more condescending and self righteous as every minute passes.

At least the American will be gone in a few minutes.
Painful radio.

DickSwiveller

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am not saying you shouldn't have an opinion, I explicitly stated that earlier, just that your opinion is wrong and you need to get over this idea that somehow you are being unfairly treated or that the media is out to subvert your agenda.

I have engaged with those posters having this position, so not sure why you think it correct to somehow suggest I want to silence anyone.

AN OPINION CAN NOT BE WRONG

DickSwiveller

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am going to assume that you have taken me up wrong.

The point was not about child abuse, the point was about homosexuality, abortion, divorce etc etc. The conservatives have a history of not only stopping free speech in these areas, but enacting laws to make the practices illegal

On the claimed ideological uniformity within the media. I don't believe it exists. I believe that the pendulum has swung to a more liberal media for sure, but there are plenty of dissenting voices. They don't have to be on every channel all the time though.

The point I was making is that clearly we had a very strong religious and conservative bias in the media quite recently. I just find it strange that all of a sudden those people are so concerned about freedom and equality when it never seemed to matter when they were in charge.

Is that fair, no, but then that presumes that it is now a reversal. And that, IMO, isn't correct. ]FG are the main party in government, a conservative party. The Tories in the UK, Trump in the US. The 'right wing' to use a massive generalisation, is far from being pushed out of the media.

I think you are making a lot of generalisations. I wasn't around when Ireland was much more conservative, but I wouldn't have been happy if the media only catered for one point of view.

The uniformity within the media has been really been highlighted since Trump was elected and Brexit was passed. In both these countries one of the main issues for many of the electorate is immigration. Yet listening to RTE and Newstalk you would have no idea that this is the case. How many times have either station had a guest who was opposed to mass immigration?


As For Fine Gael being conservative. They are about as conservative as the Socialist Workers Party - maybe less so.

Leroy42

DickSwiveller wrote: »

AN OPINION CAN NOT BE WRONG

Well, that's quite an interesting point alright.

It depends on what value one places on opinion. If an opinion is simply an individual idea, not be be used as the basis for anything, then yes I suppose you are right.

But that's not how it works in the real world. Plenty of people make decisions based on their opinion, which they equate to the facts. And they want others to behave based on what their opinion informs them. In that case then of course an opinion can be wrong.

jooksavage

DickSwiveller wrote: »

AN OPINION CAN NOT BE WRONG

Especially when you shout it.

Grolschevik

DickSwiveller wrote: »

AN OPINION CAN NOT BE WRONG

Flat Earth Society.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

As For Fine Gael being conservative. They are about as conservative as the Socialist Workers Party - maybe less so.

I'm guessing the political science exams were tough going, so.


[Edit:] Oh, I forgot. I discount as irrational anything I see you post on Boards.

Tell me how

DickSwiveller wrote:

AN OPINION CAN NOT BE WRONG

It absolutely can be. Opinions are formed based on experience, education, personal beliefs and available factual knowledge.

If you discount the factual knowledge, your opinion is incorrect.

You have the right to hold an opinion. But others have the right to dismiss them.

Some have the opinion global warming is a myth. I think that opinion is wrong largely because of the sheer volume of evidence from reputable sources that it exists.

quintana76

Tell me how wrote: »

It absolutely can be. Opinions are formed based on experience, education, personal beliefs and available factual knowledge.

If you discount the factual knowledge, your opinion is incorrect.

You have the right to hold an opinion. But others have the right to dismiss them.

Some have the opinion global warming is a myth. I think that opinion is wrong largely because of the sheer volume of evidence from reputable sources that it exists.

They must all have the same factual knowledge in the Irish media as 98% share the same opinions. This in no way reflects the population at large. It is an echo chamber.

Leroy42

quintana76 wrote: »

They must all have the same factual knowledge in the Irish media as 98% share the same opinions. This in no way reflects the population at large. It is an echo chamber.

How do you know what the population at large think? Maybe those that are on the radio have considered the facts and come to the same conclusions.

As global warming was mentioned it is a good case in point. The vast majority of scientists in that area agree that it is real. Is that an echo chamber or simply the facts speaking for themselves.

The term echo chamber is just a way to avoid having to consider why all these people appear to have a different position that you. Faced with what appears to be a consensus that differs from your opinion, it is far easier to simply rubbish the people rather than rethink your position.

DickSwiveller

Grolschevik wrote: »

Flat Earth Society.



I'm guessing the political science exams were tough going, so.


[Edit:] Oh, I forgot. I discount as irrational anything I see you post on Boards.

In what world could Fine Gael be possibly described as conservative? Their leader was recently photographed celebrating the introduction of abortion with a bunch of blue haired crazies in Dublin Castle. It's just baffling. Is the power of conventional wisdom that strong?

DickSwiveller

Grolschevik wrote: »

Flat Earth Society.



I'm guessing the political science exams were tough going, so.


[Edit:] Oh, I forgot. I discount as irrational anything I see you post on Boards.

Oh no, how will I ever recover?

Tell me how

quintana76 wrote:

They must all have the same factual knowledge in the Irish media as 98% share the same opinions. This in no way reflects the population at large. It is an echo chamber.

With all due respect, the population at large aren't educated on most current affairs matters or have a working knowledge of their intricacies.

Many see populist statements as being of equal value to a professional opinion.

Even so, I suspect that the majority of the population, agree broadly with the views expressed by Newstalk presenters. Because it's obvious in certain areas what is right and wrong.

Particularly, in most things Trump.

quintana76

Leroy42 wrote: »

How do you know what the population at large think? Maybe those that are on the radio have considered the facts and come to the same conclusions.

As global warming was mentioned it is a good case in point. The vast majority of scientists in that area agree that it is real. Is that an echo chamber or simply the facts speaking for themselves.

The term echo chamber is just a way to avoid having to consider why all these people appear to have a different position that you. Faced with what appears to be a consensus that differs from your opinion, it is far easier to simply rubbish the people rather than rethink your position.

Most people agree that global warming is a reality. What most people don't agree with is open borders. The media suggests the opposite.
The media people all have the same view because they all hang out in the same circles and come from the same educational /colleges background. There seems to be a great need to fit in with the consensus. This is for amongst other reasons networking purposes. The other side of that coin is exclusion for the heretic. This would include penalties including career stagnation.
There is also the great temptation with the availability of a ready audience to virtue signal. This has the dual benefit of making the individual look caring to the audience and gain credit from their peers for being on message. This is a risk free exercise.
In any given group of that magnitude in normal circumstances there would be a wide variety of opinions. The uniformity suggests other forces at work.
So no, deep reasoned consideration did not go into the formation of the above common viewpoint just accepted or enforced groupthink.

Leroy42

Who in the media is suggesting open borders? People are talking about locking children up in cages.
You think that the media is all the same type of people, with the same views. That they went to the same colleges is not the point. People from different backgrounds can look at facts and come to the same conclusions. You answered it yourself. The majority of people accept that climate change is real. Why is that? Is that because all the scientists went to the same school?
Virtue signal, is that another way of saying that they come over as caring?
The world has what 7bn people.

In any given group of that magnitude in normal circumstances there would be a wide variety of opinions. The uniformity suggests other forces at work.

So how many of them think the Nazis were a great bunch of lads and just misunderstood and of that group how many do we pay attention to?
Again, you keep using these buzzwords, like virtue signal and groupthink, echo chamber. Have you considered that you are wrong and the majority is right? And on what piece of knowledge have you based your opinion such that others, the majority, don't seem to be able to comprehend what you do.

It takes quite a significant amount of arrogance to think that you somehow are the only person to really know what is going on. Despite experts in the field telling you otherwise.

DickSwiveller

Leroy42 wrote: »

Who in the media is suggesting open borders? People are talking about locking children up in cages.
You think that the media is all the same type of people, with the same views. That they went to the same colleges is not the point. People from different backgrounds can look at facts and come to the same conclusions. You answered it yourself. The majority of people accept that climate change is real. Why is that? Is that because all the scientists went to the same school?
Virtue signal, is that another way of saying that they come over as caring?
The world has what 7bn people. So how many of them think the Nazis were a great bunch of lads and just misunderstood and of that group how many do we pay attention to?
Again, you keep using these buzzwords, like virtue signal and groupthink, echo chamber. Have you considered that you are wrong and the majority is right? And on what piece of knowledge have you based your opinion such that others, the majority, don't seem to be able to comprehend what you do.

It takes quite a significant amount of arrogance to think that you somehow are the only person to really know what is going on. Despite experts in the field telling you otherwise.

In Britain, successive polls have shown that around 70 per cent of the public want controls on immigration. Going by your logic they are right.

Leroy42

DickSwiveller wrote: »

In Britain, successive polls have shown that around 70 per cent of the public want controls on immigration. Going by your logic they are right.

Well they are right in so much as they want to control immigration. Where many of them fall down is not understanding the subject. What are the levels, what difference is it making, what is the alternative, would a reduction in movement into the UK effect the lives of expats etc etc.

It is not the majority that is the convincing point, that really is groupthink. You need to ask yourself why the majority of scientists agree on climate change? And why Trump seems to disagree. What does he know that the scientists that work in the area don't?

So it accepting that ones opinion could be wrong and be willing to take on board the points that people, more expert in the area, are putting forward. Not simply dismissing them as they do not agree with your opinion. Of course they could be wrong, and large groups of people have been shown to be wrong in the past. But that normally happens when they let their critically assessment faculties lapse.

So when I hear some expert on the radio, I take what they say and question it. Depends on the subject of course, but I try (and none of us do it all the time) to understand the point they are making, look to see if it has any validity, and then if it does try to understand how that fits with my opinion.

Are these new facts that I didn't know. (for example for years people simply didn't know smoking was dangerous) and should that change my opinion.

But I fear this may be lost. If you believe that an opinion cannot be wrong, then why would you ever need to question it?

quintana76

Leroy42 wrote: »

Who in the media is suggesting open borders? People are talking about locking children up in cages.

Then how come anyone who even brings up the subject of immigration is immediately labelled a Nazi. No discussion allowed therefore no action on the issue, therefore effectively open borders.

Children in cages is bad but not so bad when Obama did the same thing.

You think that the media is all the same type of people, with the same views. That they went to the same colleges is not the point. People from different backgrounds can look at facts and come to the same conclusions.

They are not from different backgrounds. If they looked at the facts about open borders they would not support it. They came to no conclusion they just followed the mob.

You answered it yourself. The majority of people accept that climate change is real. Why is that? Is that because all the scientists went to the same school?

Comparing the wide world of science to the incestuous Irish media is nonsensical.

Virtue signal, is that another way of saying that they come over as caring?
The world has what 7bn people. So how many of them think the Nazis were a great bunch of lads and just misunderstood and of that group how many do we pay attention to?

Godwin's Law normally means you are losing the argument. Virtue signalling is self indulgence without consequence.

Again, you keep using these buzzwords, like virtue signal and groupthink, echo chamber. Have you considered that you are wrong and the majority is right?

In every country in Europe the majority are against open borders. So by your argument I am right and the minority is wrong.

And on what piece of knowledge have you based your opinion such that others, the majority, don't seem to be able to comprehend what you do.

See immediately above:


It takes quite a significant amount of arrogance to think that you somehow are the only person to really know what is going on. Despite experts in the field telling you otherwise.

Never claimed that, just wondered why the media presents a solid front on certain issues against the proven public will.

Leroy42

quintana76 wrote: »

Never claimed that, just wondered why the media presents a solid front on certain issues against the proven public will.

What proven public will? Are you suggesting that the public at large in Ireland is in favour of taking children away form their parents and locking them up in steel cages in the middle of a desert?

You are mixing two issues. One is immigration and the apparently open borders (which don't exist). The other is how the Trump administration is choosing to use children as political capital in order to get what it wants in terms of a monument to Trump (he knows not having the wall will lead to big problems for an reelection).

Then how come anyone who even brings up the subject of immigration is immediately labelled a Nazi. No discussion allowed therefore no action on the issue, therefore effectively open borders.

That's quite a statement. Do you mean to say that you believe that nobody ever gets to discuss immigration without being labelled a Nazi?

Children in cages is bad but not so bad when Obama did the same thing.

Was that a determined policy by Obama or was it just some cases where they had no other choice and looked to alleviate it as quickly as possible. Because they are two very different things.

They are not from different backgrounds. If they looked at the facts about open borders they would not support it. They came to no conclusion they just followed the mob.

You think all journalists come from the same background? So you honestly believe that journalists ignore facts and simply wait for the latest mob to tell them what to think? That strange because at the moment in the UK with have some papers pro-Brexit and some anti. How come they have different positions. Are some of them just outsiders, maybe them came from a different background.

Comparing the wide world of science to the incestuous Irish media is nonsensical.

Wow, you really have some chip there. 1st off, what is the basis for claiming that the media is incestuous. 2nd, even it is was, or you trying to say that all members of the same family all think the same way? Do you simply vote whichever way your parents tell you to?

Godwin's Law normally means you are losing the argument. Virtue signalling is self indulgence without consequence.

The word Nazi does not in of itself mean Godwins law. You failed to answer, or even try, the point that a majority does not always means a groupthink. Sometimes it simply means there is one answer.

In every country in Europe the majority are against open borders. So by your argument I am right and the minority is wrong.

Where did anyone argue for open borders? I wasn't making a point about open borders, it was about taking the time to consider that maybe, just maybe, your opinion is wrong. When the majority think one way, doesn't make it right, but when it includes experts in the field I certainly question the basis for my contrary opinion.

meeeeh

DickSwiveller wrote: »

In what world could Fine Gael be possibly described as conservative? Their leader was recently photographed celebrating the introduction of abortion with a bunch of blue haired crazies in Dublin Castle. It's just baffling. Is the power of conventional wisdom that strong?

The abortion is not a liberal issue in Europe except in a couple of church crazy countries. Most of other countries just consider it fact of life and Ireland would probably have different law before if it wasn't for the need of a referendum. FG us economically conservative and socially towards middle but liberal they are not.

DickSwiveller

meeeeh wrote: »

The abortion is not a liberal issue in Europe except in a couple of church crazy countries. Most of other countries just consider it fact of life and Ireland would probably have different law before if it wasn't for the need of a referendum. FG us economically conservative and socially towards middle but liberal they are not.

Fine Gael are economically and socially liberal. I don't see how this can be disputed.

Grolschevik

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Fine Gael are economically and socially liberal. I don't see how this can be disputed.

Neo-liberal is not 'liberal'.

meeeeh

Yeah that's why they are in People's Party grouping in EU like the other well known liberal Orban.

DickSwiveller

Grolschevik wrote: »

Neo-liberal is not 'liberal'.

Why?