Fuzzy math: O'Reilly says higher Canadian life expectancy is "to be expected" because "we have 10 times as many people"
July 27, 2009 9:31 pm ET
From the July 27 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
I knew HillBilly was stupid, but I never guessed just how deep his stupidity went. I'm in awe that he can even form sentences.
This guy should be wearing a bike helmet and have a personal caretaker.
But, when YOU make a nefarious comment in which you stereotype people with Intellectual Disabilities, its just fine and dandy, right? These "people" you like to laugh about who wear bike helmets and have personal caregivers (not caretakers), usually wear the helmets because they have severe seizure disorders. After a few closed head wounds, my guess is that you, in all your intellectual splendor, would wear one as well. Secondly, put yourself in the shoes of someone who has Cerebral Palsy or Dystonia. Your gait will be very unsteady, you will frequently fall, so unless you want to spend your life confined to a small room in a group home, you wear a helmet so you can interact in your community and in case you fall, you cut the risk of serious head injury. But hey, it's just hilarious to make fun of people who can't defend themselves, isn't it?
Are the physical realities of people who must wear protective head gear funny to you? Do they provide you the fodder you need to make sophomoric comparisons between O'Reilly and a person who was born with significant limitations?
I'm the farthest thing from an O'Reilly fan you will ever see, but this charicature you set up to insult someone at another's expense is repugnant. I hope and pray that the next time a conservative insults someone on the left by using repugnant stereotypes, you keep your thoughts to yourself, lest you be labeled a hypocrite.
So then by your statement we can assume that YOU think it is o.k. to make light of people who are born with intellectual disabilities. Wow! Is this what you teach your children? Are you really trying to tell me that if a black person is stereotyped by a conservative and highlighted here at MMFA you are not all over them with the label of racist? I know better, and there is no doubt that one can simply go back to such threads and find such instances. Wanna bet?
It's not o.k. to make light of those who are born with intellectual disabilities. Period. End of discussion. The next time you berate some conservative mouthpiece for making a "racist" statement remember your willingness to allow such comments towards the most helpless of our society. Idiot.
Also, you say that "it's not o.k. to make light of those who are born with intellectual disabilities". Do you think thats what someone with disabilities would say? Tey want to be treated differently, you should be careful around them and not act as you usually would? I doubt it. You say you've worked with them for a long time, so I have no doubt that you know this.
Let me help you a bit here. I don't know if you realize the folly of your logic here but just in case, read this several times so that Osmosis will take its course: If the intent is to show Bill O'Reilly is "stupid" as you put it, how does this occur? Using your argument alone, we must then assume that those who wear bike helmets and have "caretakers" are "stupid." You wrote it for all to see. Do you make it a habit of calling intellectually disabled people who have to wear protective head gear "stupid." Is that a fair description sir?
You would be crazy not to admit that a healthy person that has the same brain power as a retarded individual is ridiculous, and therefore an exaggerated insult to the person, Bill in this case.
Man you are hopeless. You just don't get it do you? The above italicized sentence of yours make absolutely no sense whatsoever. DMHACK created a charicature of disabled people with his comment and comparison. Because O'Reilly's comments made no sense, he attempted to portray O'Reilly as stupid. How did he do this? He compared him to a person who wears a bike helmet and has a caretaker. Therefore, the mistake was made my friend. Unless of course he was trying to compare O'Reilly to a disabled man, who despite many redeeming qualities, needs assistance to live a rich and full life. Is that what you are insinuating here, or are you finally willing to admit that DMHACK's portrayal of people who wear bike helmets as stupid is degrading at best?
"Also, you say that "it's not o.k. to make light of those who are born with intellectual disabilities". Do you think thats what someone with disabilities would say? Tey want to be treated differently, you should be careful around them and not act as you usually would? I doubt it. You say you've worked with them for a long time, so I have no doubt that you know this."
I know it is what people with intellectual disabilities say, at least the higher functioning individuals who can actively communicate their wants and needs. Again, your argument is completely disorganized. You seem to be saying that people with intellectual disabilities would have no problem being made fun of because they want to be treated just like anyone else. Of course that inane thinking defies even the simplest of logic. Would you say that a black man doesn't mind being racially stereotyped because he wants to be treated like everybody else? Jesus Man! Were you high when you wrote this stuff? Here is the bottom line, like it or not.... it is unacceptable to portray unjust charicatures of black people, it is unjust to do the same to those with developmental disabilities. When you make light of a person with a disability, you are certainly not treating them like anybody else. Quite the contrary in fact. You are doing nothing but identifying them by their disability, instead of their character. Why are you having a hard time understanding this?
What definition of "stupid" do you use that does not encompass those who are severely intellectually disabled? Your ridiculous pretentious posturing drove the author to state the crass but obvious - that these people are "stupid" (in the sense of the word that was jokingly applied to Bill O.), and then you... question the obvious? ...criticize his crassness? What?
The first amendment does not require us to keep our thoughts to ourselves, even our non politically correct thoughts. Is Bill O'Reilly in need of a helmet? Arguable. Are there Americans who struggle with birth defects and mental handicaps? Undoubtedly. Were the comments you are complaining about directed at those Americans? No. They were rightly deriding Bill for being a dunderhead, which he most demonstrably is. If anything, you should stick up for the mentally disabled by pointing out that most of them accomplish more in their lives with less ability than Bill O'Reilly ever will.
However much I disagree with your approach, achrispage6992, I will not ask you to keep your thoughts to yourself. Dialog is vital to our nation, now more than ever.
Actually, I think he's criticized O'Reilly for that multiple times.
Also to be fair, his point was that criticizing conservatives for similar speech would be hypocritical. That's a "for your own good" piece of advice, not censorship.
As Brab pointed out I did in fact do just that. Isn't it hilarious how you have simply assumed something and it turns out you have made a complete fool out of yourself?
"The first amendment does not require us to keep our thoughts to ourselves, even our non politically correct thoughts. Is Bill O'Reilly in need of a helmet? Arguable. Are there Americans who struggle with birth defects and mental handicaps? Undoubtedly. Were the comments you are complaining about directed at those Americans? No. They were rightly deriding Bill for being a dunderhead, which he most demonstrably is. If anything, you should stick up for the mentally disabled by pointing out that most of them accomplish more in their lives with less ability than Bill O'Reilly ever will."
I never said anything about censorship. The comparison was made madam. Like it or not. The comparison attempted to portray O'Reilly as some kind of idiot, a charicature of the mentally hadicap, if you will. By making that comparison, Einstein, he generalized people who wear protective head gear as unequal to others, stupid, etc. etc. If you can't see that I can't help you. The point also remains, as Brab pointed out, that many participants here are eager to latch on to instances in which some idiot conservative utters some racially insensitive or other ridiculous statement which stereotypes people and proceed to deride them (rightfully so in many cases) But when it is done by someone of your political persuasion you defend it. Way to go.
Also, the fact that you liken this comment to someone spewing racial slurs is incredibly insulting. Basically, you are putting minorities into one big group, (non-whites, mentally disabled, why don't we just throw in homosexuals for good measure?) and saying that they need to be treated specially, because they are different from everyone else. And, a racial slur is intended to insult and hurt someone, while this comparison is definitely not (well, except for Bill, but that doesn't count =D).
Also, the fact that you liken this comment to someone spewing racial slurs is incredibly insulting. Basically, you are putting minorities into one big group, (non-whites, mentally disabled, why don't we just throw in homosexuals for good measure?) and saying that they need to be treated specially, because they are different from everyone else. And, a racial slur is intended to insult and hurt someone, while this comparison is definitely not (well, except for Bill, but that doesn't count =D
That could be one of the most idiotic analysis' of all time. First of all, I never said anybody needed to be treated specially because they are different. you are now bound to show where I said any such thing. If you could simply grasp this subject you would see that I find it deplorable that one simply assumes (like you have admittedly done here) that people who wear bike helmets and have caretakers are stupid. Secondly, and here is where you fail miserably in grasping this issue; the comment made was simply a juvenile attempt at an insult of O'Reilly by potraying him as retarded. He did this by using the stereotype of a guy who wears a helmet. We see how these people are portrayed in Hollywood all the time. If you don't see that is the type of visualization DMHACK wanted to give, you are simply blind. Finally, your reading comprehension skills are lacking. The point I was making is that it is hypocritical to condemn conservatives here when MMFA points out their racial stereotyping and not condemn the the stereotyping of intellectually disabled people. Don't forget, you're the one who wrote that DMHACK ws trying to portray O'Reilly as stupid by saying he should be a guy wearing a helmet and have a caretaker. Therefore, you most certainly have indicated that such people are stupid.
Game, set, match pardner.
In way do I think that disabled people are inferior. I have never insulted one to their face or behind their back. I try to treat them equally, but I accept that it would be unfair to treat them equally in all matters. I have all the respect in the world for handicapped people and the people who care for them. So if you can understand only one of my points, let it be this one. That being said, I stand by my words 100%, and I may try to re-reply if my original does not show up.
If you really think the purpose of my post was to insult people with disabilities then you missed the point. Still, it was interesting to see how you seized on that one line to turn around and make your own long-winded assumptions about me.
In fact, your excuse is eerily familiar to what Hannity or Limbaugh would say if confronted on one of their bigoted statements. They would do just as you did: try to turn it around and make it about me while inserting some criticism to boot.
Face it, you screwed up. You stereotyped people with intellectual disabilities. Own up to it. It certainly doesn't make you a bad person, but to not accept what you did and insist that my calling you out is simply "long winded assumptions" only further degrades your credibility.
Are you for real? do you know anything other than accuse people of using Strawmen? I didn't imagine anything sir. You just don't get it because in my opinion you don't want to accept the fact you are wrong. Answer this and then reflect upon it. How was DMHACK trying to portray O'Reilly by saying he should be wearing a helmet and have a caretaker? Now, take the answer to that question and ask yourself how then was DMHACK (knowingly or unknowlingly) then portraying such people. Why you want to defend the obvious stereotyping of people with disabilities is beyond me.
To be a stereotype, it has to apply to a *group* of people. To be a prejudice, it has to have been applied *before* there was evidence.
Judgment calls about a specific person, based on his or her actual, documented actions, is neither a stereotype, nor a prejudice.
If you talk in the patronizing tone Bill O'Reilly did there, you had better be 100% right. Instead, he shot his mouth off and said something that any seven year old should know better than to say.
That was just stupid beyond my capacity for comprehension - an avatar of stupidity, as if some great East Indian god took mortal form with the sole purpose of causing every synapse and neuron to go "He said *WHAT*?".
Jonnan
Perhaps not fine and dandy but appropriate in this case because O'Reilly was supposedly once a teacher. Working for the Fox Noise Cabal seems to have shrunk his brain to a point where a helmet might insure he remembers his own name after age 70.
Oh and try not to get you panties in a wad over the treament of special needs people. They can read too and if one feels the need to rebut a point in here, they will. Just look for the person that calls themself "right ON". He responds all the time.
Sylvanz
However, the disparity does not always play in Canada's favour. The entertainment value of Canadian social commentators is lower than American ones, mostly because there can only be one Don Cherry and he's too busy talking about hockey most of the time. Furthermore, should Mr. Cherry move into full-on social commentary, he still wouldn't be as entertaining as Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity mostly because Cherry's not bat-sh*t insane.
Explanations for these, and other phenomena, have been sought after and experts have reduced the possible causes to either the population disparity or Native American shamans that screwed up some important rites at around the end of the American Revolution, effectively putting a 'hex' on the entire country. Either way, Canadians are close to finding the cause and look forward to exploiting it in the future.
Please don't tell O'Reilly, he'll screw it all up.
Remember Cherry's comment when goaltenders were allowed to have water bottles on the ice with them? "Next those pansies will want dinner out there, too."
And I'm not talking about the Guano-meter.
Billo has discovered the secret to eternal life!
I would have enjoyed this comment if it came from one of the third string wingnut trolls here, but I love it coming from a guy on a so-called news network.
Thank you, BilldO. You are an American treasure.
The statisticians who measure the life expectancy of countries must be slapping their collective foreheads for not taking into account population size\proportions into their calculations.
Not quite.
In Tuvalu, men can expect to live just under 67 years and women just barely break 71 years.
You were saying, HillBilly?
Craig, you fail at geography. Next time try an internet search before declaring a country nonexistent. Tuvalu is the fourth smallest country in the UN.
So says O'Reilly math.
As a topic of interst... take a look at the L.E. map for Europe.
You may notice that their seems to be a radiating pattern that extends from Eastern Europe where the life expectancy is very low and further out to the West the life expectancy is much higher.
I beleive, following this pattern is a good way of mapping the damage that Chernobyl REALLY caused.
Choke on that all you morons who say we don't have the best health care system in the universe!
...cable television hosts who are ten times as stupid?
It logically follows that life expectancy in Delaware is far longer than life expectancy in Florida.
The sad part is O'Reilly's audience is sitting there thinking, "Makes sense to me."
Exactly. Now many of them will go to work, church, bathhouses, and abortion clinics spreading this information as if it is scientific fact. No ned to worry though, since the Tiller murder, O'Reilly now believes that his words don't influence people.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=7129997&page=1
Then again, I've come to realize over the last year and a half that there are about the same number of ditto-heads on the Left as there are on the Right. Until Olbermann or Maddow spell it out for them, these "desperate to belong to the faux-Progressive tribe" types will continue to think the height of clever criticism is to mock "the other" as being as low as those who are mentally or neurologically challenged.
Can't wait to hear KO go off on this.
Please reconcile those two assertions.
I asked him recently to back up a claim he made on this thread.
He spent about three days and ten posts full of gibberish, riddles and bullshyte, and the best he could come up with was suggesting that I needed to find a non-existent document that proved his claim was not true.
Low level troll. For entertainment purposes only.Not recommended for adult discussion.
It looks like Koko has chosen the "run away" technique this time, I just wanted you to be aware that he could have chosen the option he used in the thread I linked to; Hundreds of words that add up, substance-wise, to that same chirping sound.
Only it's sort of like thousands of really lous, stupid crickets.
We have ten times the population of Canada.
The per capita homicide rate in the U.S. is three times higher than it is in Canada.
Fatalities in car accidents in the U.S. are 14 times higher than in Canada
How could adding those stats to the numbers presented close the gap between life expectancy in the two nations?
Before posting, I broke my ribs and was all hopped up on pharmaceuticals when I made my calculations and have yet to live it down. I didn't even remember posting until the next day.
It appears that wingnut math is the only kind that uses sub-prime numbers.
I did a quick search and couldn't find anything in their methodology suggesting they did not count murders and accidents. I did find that Statistics Canada factors in premature and accidental deaths in its calculation.
Could you post the site you got you information from.
Thanks.
Move to Vatican City. Live forever! (Do it now.)
IS IT REALLY SO HARD TO POST ANOTHER 1O SECONDS OF THE VIDEO SO THAT YOU DON'T GET ACCUSED OF CUTTING HIM OFF OR TAKING HIM OUT OF CONTEXT?
A simply analogy proves O'reilly right: The highest mortality rate in the world is in the nation of Angola: 182 per 1000 people.
But that's because Angola has more people than any other coun...wait..
I gotta go.
a big piece of human ignorance !!
what a disgrace that this imbecile has a TV program !!
Until a law is passed that being full of BS is a disability this guy is not disabled. He's just a blowhard and an embarassment.