America = the most backwards western country?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Kierkegaard
Russia is the only country protecting its traditions, I have faith that it will be seen as far more progressive than the filthy hedonism and unhappiness in the West when it collapses.
[h="2"]progression[/h]Line breaks: pro|gres¦sionPronunciation: /prəˈgrɛʃ(ə)n
/
[h="3"]NOUN[/h]
•
1[MASS NOUN] The process of developing gradually towards a more advanced state
[h="2"]tradition[/h]
/
[font="Arial"][h="3"]NOUN[/h]
•
•
1.1[COUNT NOUN] A long-established custom or belief that has been passed on from one generation to another
Original post by clh_hilary
progression
Line breaks: pro|gres¦sionPronunciation: /prəˈgrɛʃ(ə)n
/
NOUN
Line breaks: pro|gres¦sionPronunciation: /prəˈgrɛʃ(ə)n
/
NOUN
•
1[MASS NOUN] The process of developing gradually towards a more advanced state
tradition
/
[font="Arial"]NOUN
•
•
1.1[COUNT NOUN] A long-established custom or belief that has been passed on from one generation to another
I'm well aware... you're probably also aware academics don't just look at definitions and then conclude that what they're saying is nonsense. The point was, in comparison to the west who see themselves as 'progressive' Russia will be seen as progressive (paradoxically) because of its protection of tradition while the west proceeds to race to the bottom.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by clh_hilary
I did not say religiousity suggests the level of backwardness. I said religions by nature built on backwardness, and thus any view gathered from it would be backward. I even stressed that it doesn't mean if it's good or bad.
The actual government is religious. Look at the demography of the two houses.
But that's beyond the point because just because politicians are personally religious does not mean anything, even though many did act on it by throwing out backward policies based on their backward views (from christianity).
I see US as a very polarising country, with half of it being progressive, and half of it not. But there indeed are very indicators of its backwardness. Same-sex marriage is only one of them.
Also, nobody knows what actually is 'progressive' and what actually is 'good', so arguing over that would be pointless. Hence, the standard is based on the changes observed in more developed countries. Therefore, having same-sex marriage would make a country seems less backward. Whilst having capital punishment would make a country seems backward.
The actual government is religious. Look at the demography of the two houses.
But that's beyond the point because just because politicians are personally religious does not mean anything, even though many did act on it by throwing out backward policies based on their backward views (from christianity).
I see US as a very polarising country, with half of it being progressive, and half of it not. But there indeed are very indicators of its backwardness. Same-sex marriage is only one of them.
Also, nobody knows what actually is 'progressive' and what actually is 'good', so arguing over that would be pointless. Hence, the standard is based on the changes observed in more developed countries. Therefore, having same-sex marriage would make a country seems less backward. Whilst having capital punishment would make a country seems backward.
As you said. Just because politicians are personally religious does not make the actual government religious. Please to point me to where in the US the government is religious?
I agree the US is very polarized and is becoming more so but that doesn't make the country backward. Just as in the UK you have the Conservatives, Lib-dems, UKIP, and parties on all sides of the political spectrum in the US people are similarly divided but we only have two parties that are worth being a part of.
Original post by rayofkryptonite
why is it a news channel at all?
No one knows about the Daily Mail or Jeremy Kyle (worldwide), a lot of non Americans know about fox news, big difference.
No one knows about the Daily Mail or Jeremy Kyle (worldwide), a lot of non Americans know about fox news, big difference.
I think the better argument is that Fox is the biggest news channel in the States by far; whilst Daily Mail is not even the No 1 paper in Britain. (But then, is The Sun any better?)
Original post by rayofkryptonite
why is it a news channel at all?
Because freedom of the press? Although to be fair FOX is excessive and I am not sure that what they do should be so protected.
No one knows about the Daily Mail or Jeremy Kyle (worldwide), a lot of non Americans know about fox news, big difference.
Anybody who is even slightly informed knows about the Daily Mail. Even in the US.
I live in the UK and abortion is illegal aha.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Kierkegaard
I'm well aware... you're probably also aware academics don't just look at definitions and then conclude that what they're saying is nonsense. The point was, in comparison to the west who seem themselves as 'progressive' Russia will be seen as progressive (paradoxically) because of its protection of tradition while the west proceeds to race to the bottom.
To clarify, you are saying that Russia will be considered progressive because of its conservative attitudes???
That, to me, seems like a complete oxymoron.
Original post by clh_hilary
I think the better argument is that Fox is the biggest news channel in the States by far;
interesting...
Original post by mojojojo101
To clarify, you are saying that Russia will be considered progressive because of its conservative attitudes???
That, to me, seems like a complete oxymoron.
That, to me, seems like a complete oxymoron.
It is but it makes sense because it will be viewed to be progress when compared to the Western nations.
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
As you said. Just because politicians are personally religious does not make the actual government religious. Please to point me to where in the US the government is religious?
I agree the US is very polarized and is becoming more so but that doesn't make the country backward. Just as in the UK you have the Conservatives, Lib-dems, UKIP, and parties on all sides of the political spectrum in the US people are similarly divided but we only have two parties that are worth being a part of.
I agree the US is very polarized and is becoming more so but that doesn't make the country backward. Just as in the UK you have the Conservatives, Lib-dems, UKIP, and parties on all sides of the political spectrum in the US people are similarly divided but we only have two parties that are worth being a part of.
Well first of all, what do you count as a part of a government?
And again, many American politicians do draw on their religious views when making policies. And I do believe they use god to push for policies a lot more than British politicians do. But I know a lot less about British politicians apart from my beloved Dave so idk.
Original post by kendellex
don't you mean US? typo?
Original post by clh_hilary
Well first of all, what do you count as a part of a government?
And again, many American politicians do draw on their religious views when making policies. And I do believe they use god to push for policies a lot more than British politicians do. But I know a lot less about British politicians apart from my beloved Dave so idk.
And again, many American politicians do draw on their religious views when making policies. And I do believe they use god to push for policies a lot more than British politicians do. But I know a lot less about British politicians apart from my beloved Dave so idk.
I have heard my fair share of religious views as backing for political votes and ideologies in the UK. Particularly around the marriage debate. To be fair though I too am not the most educated in UK politics. I try to keep informed but...meh lol
Well if we are saying that politicians having personal religious views is not part of the government then we have to look at the government structures. Laws, regulations, etc. The US is technically a secular nation.
Original post by rayofkryptonite
don't you mean US? typo?
Neither would be accurate as abortion is legal in the US.
Original post by rayofkryptonite
why is it a news channel at all?
What kind of moronic question is that? It's a private corporation that has the right and ability to present media in whatever way it wants as long as it abides by the rules set by the regulators in the country. I think we can tell from the way you're talking about it that it's not to your taste, but why should that make it wrong? There are many things not to my taste - your idiocy chief among them right now - but I have no right to say you're not allowed to speak or post.
It is a news channel because it presents the news. Does it do so with a bias? Of course. But I challenge you to show me a news channel that doesn't. And I'll give you the entire world's media to pick from. Go on.
No one knows about the Daily Mail or Jeremy Kyle (worldwide), a lot of non Americans know about fox news, big difference.
Actually, I'd wager that the world is fully aware of the UK's tabloid media. Perhaps not the individual titles, but definitely aware of the practise generally. What you need to ask is is it America's fault that everyone else knows of their products, or is it the fault of the other countries that they've allowed US media to be all-pervasive?
However, my point stands; you are judging the entirety of the US by the actions of one news channel. You know how many viewers it'll get, on average, for a prime time show during the week? 1 million. Not a typo. That's one million. And that's the biggest audience a single network tv news channel will get, yes, but it's still tiny. By contrast, the BBC News channel will get 3.5 million.
So, Fox News is viewed by 0.3% of the population yet you chastise the entire country? Any idea how demented that makes you look?
Very. Very is the answer.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by NYU2012
This isn't really accurate; Fox is the only real 'conservative news station', so all the conservatives, Republicans, Tea Party, and moderates flock to Fox. But there is more than one liberal news station - CNN, MSNBC and ABC. Indeed, CNN is not far behind Fox; which would actually put it so that more Americans watch a 'liberal news source' over Fox.
Not accurate? Let's look at the ratings for yesterday:
| Total Day | P2+ (000s) | 25-54 (000s) | 35-64 (000s) | |
| FOXN | 1,261 | 275 | 555 | |
| CNN | 589 | 193 | 278 | |
| MSNBC | 371 | 104 | 191 | |
| CNBC | 146 | 44 | 65 |
Fox = 2091
CNN = 1060
MSNBC = 666
CNBC = 255
1060+666+255 = 1981
2091 > 1981 brah.
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
I have heard my fair share of religious views as backing for political votes and ideologies in the UK. Particularly around the marriage debate. To be fair though I too am not the most educated in UK politics. I try to keep informed but...meh lol
Well if we are saying that politicians having personal religious views is not part of the government then we have to look at the government structures. Laws, regulations, etc. The US is technically a secular nation.
Well if we are saying that politicians having personal religious views is not part of the government then we have to look at the government structures. Laws, regulations, etc. The US is technically a secular nation.
The US is technically a secular nation, but for example people swear on The Bible in courts, and some (eg Governor Rick Perry) interpret 'freedom of religion' as 'you need to believe in one'.
Not as backward as a country with a monarchy
Original post by clh_hilary
The US is technically a secular nation, but for example people swear on The Bible in courts, and some (eg Governor Rick Perry) interpret 'freedom of religion' as 'you need to believe in one'.
You do not need to swear in on the The Bible. You can choose to be sworn in on any text as long as you can show that it has some degree of significance. People have been sworn in on the Constitution, and Torah, etc.
Original post by NYU2012
Wow, great 'fact' selectivity you've done there 'brah'. Find one source that shows you're correct, ignore all the others 
I'm not aware that ratings are opinions instead of scientific objective facts.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
