Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612 
April 16th, 2008, 11:59 AM
ITN
Poor fellow.
What possible authority do you or the United States think you have when it comes to questions of "moral authority"? What possible argument can you provide that's capable of refuting the moral and fiscal corruption of the United States that's spread war and hardship around the world?
Compared to China, who would you think the most likely candidate for the prize of who has influenced more mayhem and brought more carnage and death to the world?
Poor fellow.
ITN
Poor fellow.
What possible authority do you or the United States think you have when it comes to questions of "moral authority"? What possible argument can you provide that's capable of refuting the moral and fiscal corruption of the United States that's spread war and hardship around the world?
Compared to China, who would you think the most likely candidate for the prize of who has influenced more mayhem and brought more carnage and death to the world?
Poor fellow.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
April 16th, 2008, 12:08 PM
Re-read ITN, I responded to Colpy regarding my agreement with respect to the goon-ship and thuggery of the Chinese Communist Party.... I fully accept that like Al Capone and other famous Americans who've conscripted...bought police authority and used every imaginable method in furthering their self-interests that the Chinese authority is no different. My opposition to the notion presented comes from the recognition that bullies and thugs are a part of all cultures and all people... The impression that CNN and many American broadcasters would give is that this is unique to China....it isnt.
Pookah's fine.
Re-read ITN, I responded to Colpy regarding my agreement with respect to the goon-ship and thuggery of the Chinese Communist Party.... I fully accept that like Al Capone and other famous Americans who've conscripted...bought police authority and used every imaginable method in furthering their self-interests that the Chinese authority is no different. My opposition to the notion presented comes from the recognition that bullies and thugs are a part of all cultures and all people... The impression that CNN and many American broadcasters would give is that this is unique to China....it isnt.
Pookah's fine.
House Member
Posts: 3,063
April 16th, 2008, 02:01 PM
Everytime I hear MikeyDB and DarkBeaver and all the other DB's out there talk, I always think they are really ultra-right wing trolls, trying to make the opposing view look so ludicrous that people are forced to become right wing or hang themselves.
I used to be a pretty big pinko, but every time I have to read a non-sensical pile of insanity from the "DB's" a little piece of me dies and I go more and more right wing.
I talked to some other people on the forums through PM, who all have similar stories.
So Darkbeaver, MikeyDB... if you really support what you spout...do your point of view a favour and don't say anything.
Its really that bad.
Everytime I hear MikeyDB and DarkBeaver and all the other DB's out there talk, I always think they are really ultra-right wing trolls, trying to make the opposing view look so ludicrous that people are forced to become right wing or hang themselves.
I used to be a pretty big pinko, but every time I have to read a non-sensical pile of insanity from the "DB's" a little piece of me dies and I go more and more right wing.
I talked to some other people on the forums through PM, who all have similar stories.
So Darkbeaver, MikeyDB... if you really support what you spout...do your point of view a favour and don't say anything.
Its really that bad.
The Angry Beaver
Posts: 3,539
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
April 16th, 2008, 02:44 PM
The last two posts by Mike seem to make sense to me. Seems like he's just pointing out hypocracies.
"Canadians, Germans, everyone is "entertained" by the American media machinery... a machine that is used (as it is in many other nations) to influence and propagandize..."
I can agree to that. I watch CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox all more so for entertainment purposes rather then actual fact collecting. And although Canadian news may not be all entierly perfect, they do seem a bit more restrictive of their personal bias towards what they are reporting. Very rarely, if at all have I ever seen a Canadian Reporter or Anchor stop for a minute or two after the news report and then spout off their personal opinion on the matter.
And speaking of influencing, why the hell does the US media always have to refer to China as "COMMUNIST CHINA!" ~ I think we're all very well aware they are Communist, so just stick with China how about?
Nobody anywhere else uses "DEMOCRAT US" or "DEMOCRAT CANADA!" it's a friggin given.
The only reason they still title China as "Communist China" is because "Communist" is an evil and dirty word, and what better way to give off an evil image then to keep making sure people are aware they're different then us?
From what I am reading, Mike is only speaking the truth. And if the truth is that bad.... once again.... here's some rope.
Quoting Zzarchov
Maybe it's true.... here's a rope
Everytime I hear MikeyDB and DarkBeaver and all the other DB's out there talk, I always think they are really ultra-right wing trolls, trying to make the opposing view look so ludicrous that people are forced to become right wing or hang themselves.
Quote:
Hmmmm.... maybe I should add a DB on the end of my name here.... you know... start a clan or something.
I used to be a pretty big pinko, but every time I have to read a non-sensical pile of insanity from the "DB's" a little piece of me dies and I go more and more right wing.
I talked to some other people on the forums through PM, who all have similar stories.
So Darkbeaver, MikeyDB... if you really support what you spout...do your point of view a favour and don't say anything.
Its really that bad.
I talked to some other people on the forums through PM, who all have similar stories.
So Darkbeaver, MikeyDB... if you really support what you spout...do your point of view a favour and don't say anything.
Its really that bad.
The last two posts by Mike seem to make sense to me. Seems like he's just pointing out hypocracies.
"Canadians, Germans, everyone is "entertained" by the American media machinery... a machine that is used (as it is in many other nations) to influence and propagandize..."
I can agree to that. I watch CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox all more so for entertainment purposes rather then actual fact collecting. And although Canadian news may not be all entierly perfect, they do seem a bit more restrictive of their personal bias towards what they are reporting. Very rarely, if at all have I ever seen a Canadian Reporter or Anchor stop for a minute or two after the news report and then spout off their personal opinion on the matter.
And speaking of influencing, why the hell does the US media always have to refer to China as "COMMUNIST CHINA!" ~ I think we're all very well aware they are Communist, so just stick with China how about?
Nobody anywhere else uses "DEMOCRAT US" or "DEMOCRAT CANADA!" it's a friggin given.
The only reason they still title China as "Communist China" is because "Communist" is an evil and dirty word, and what better way to give off an evil image then to keep making sure people are aware they're different then us?
From what I am reading, Mike is only speaking the truth. And if the truth is that bad.... once again.... here's some rope.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
April 16th, 2008, 08:38 PM
Value added boulders.
While a great many people may argue about the constituent elements of a conceptual amalgam or the cognitive/aesthetics involved in use of a term like “beauty” for instance, a consensus of sorts can be reached with respect to an appreciation of some broadly accepted concepts that inhere to the overarching concept.
For example, Michelangelo’s “David” is more than a boulder. It’s more than a boulder because in the hills of Miseglia at the Fantiscritti quarries in 1464 a rectangular block of marble was cut from the earth and shipped to an artist who intended to use it in creating a statue that would eventually end up in Florence, as representation of one of the Holy prophets. Eventually this artist abandoned the project. The block was shipped to yet another artist who also abandoned it. Quite frankly it isn’t high quality marble…. A young Michelangelo acquired the block in 1501 and after three years presented the nearly finished work of art to a mesmerized crowd of onlookers in Florence on a chilly September morning in 1504.
The idea that in my opinion requires examination and with any luck a certain degree of additional clarity is the concept of “morality”.
ITN has allowed that his reservoir of “morality” contained curiously enough in one of his testicles is “greater” than the quantity of “morality” contained in my entire body….
Perhaps the adage that some men “think with their penis” is more accurate than previously considered at least with respect to our friend ITN however I’m of the opinion that “morality” is a concept, and as concept exists primarily in human consciousness. Arguably human consciousness has been widely acknowledged as resting in the primary physiological mass atop the human form, where this mass of gelatinous gloop is site of a miniature maelstrom of electrical activity that presents as bio-chemical phenomena from which “thought” emerges.
We would all agree (some to lesser some to greater degree no doubt) that if someone were to steal that block of marble before it was carved by Michelangelo that this would be “wrong”. We agree in a very general sense that taking something that doesn’t belong to you, something that you’ve neither worked to produce nor obtained through exchange of some substance or symbol of agreed “value” with the person or company that quarried the stone is “theft” and in general we characterize this situation as “wrong”, a label assigning moral weight to the act.
It would be reasonable to say that an uncarved block of marble was “worth” X or Y, but after an artisan has invested years of labour and created something as awe-inspiring as Michelangelo’s ‘David’ that this chunk of marble is worth much more….
Now bear with me here if you would.
Let’s flip the paradigm for a moment to something we call the “Constitution” and in particular the Constitution of the United Sates of America.
One can take different approaches to interpreting the causal impetus underpinning the American constitution and in fact the constitution of any “state” investing the measure of self-definition that seems concomitant in any codified statement of principle so frequently referenced by citizens prepared to embrace this document as representative of its highest principles. Similarly the nature of a “constitution” is subject to a variety of interpretations that I’ll reduce to two…for simplicities sake….
The constitution can be seen as a “fixed” document i.e. “On the fixed view, then, the role of the constitution is much like the analogous role served by the ground rules of a debating society. Each sets the mutually agreed, stable framework within which controversial debate (and action) take place. Just as a debating society could not function if its ground rules were constantly being revised by the debators, a constitution cannot serve its role if its terms are constantly open to revision and reinterpretation by participants in a society's political and legal processes.”
And the “living-tree”… “One inclined towards the living tree conception will tend to spurn appeals to strict textual meaning and authors' intentions as attempts to impose the dead hand of the (possibly distant) past upon contemporary society and practice. Government must be limited in power, but our understandings of these limitations should be allowed to evolve and adapt in light of changing circumstances and beliefs about justice. Despite its undoubted appeal to some, the living tree conception faces tough questions: is viewing a constitution as a "living tree", malleable in the hands of contemporary interpreters — particularly judges — consistent with its status as foundational law, and with the entrenchment, stability and protection from unwarranted state power which seem to be crucial, if not essential, aspects of the very idea of constitutionally limited government?
A crucial element in Dworkin's constitutional theory is his general claim that the law of a community includes more than any explicit rules and decisions authoritatively adopted in accordance with accepted procedures. It does, of course, include many such rules and decisions and these can be found, paradigmatically, in statute books, judicial decisions and, of course, written constitutions. These are often termed "positive law." But the positive law in no way exhausts the law according to Dworkin. Most importantly, for our purposes, it in no way exhausts that part of law we call "the constitution." In Dworkin's view, a constitution includes the principles of political morality which provide the best explanation and moral justification — i.e., the best interpretation — of whatever limits have been expressed in positive law. Hence, constitutional interpretation must always invoke a theory of political morality.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/constitutionalism/
So now I’ll bind the concepts together….
If “morality” is an adjudication of “right” and “wrong” predicated on some “absolute”, some identifiable ort of substantive expression serving as the ultimate reference/benchmark for the authority of these concepts, we would have no difficulty differentiating the “right-ness” or “wrong-ness” of any particular question or quandary.
Unhappily this isn’t the case.
“Morality” is both situational and conditional. We may regard theft as “wrong” and murder as criminal but we can also envision circumstance wherein the full weight and responsibility for these actions weighed against the intention of a system of laws provides latitude in interpreting the “just” response.
The question becomes; If under normal circumstances an action predicated on situation and circumstance can be reasonably accorded a latitude of interpretation with respect to the just and reasonable response to this action, can evidence that fails to satisfy the causal impetus giving rise to this action and in the case of the American invasion of Iraq…. evidence clearly demonstrating that the rationale supplied for this action refutes the supplied reason, (provably false and misleading evidence) does the response elicited from the people of the United States in addressing the usurpation of the moral ethos underpinning the Constitution of the United States suggest a conditional morality subject to manipulation and abuse at the hands of its chief executives warrant respect or in fact disdain and contempt for a people prepared to abandon principle?
ITN
You keep your “morality” where-ever-you-like, but be advised that if the character and substance of your chosen “morality” reflects this willingness to abandon principles that it might just be a worthless and disingenuous concept.
If your Constitution and your embrace of abiding principles of law and statement of highest values is subject to situational re-interpretation based on lies and falsehoods, it isn’t worth the effort it took to put pen to paper creating it.
It is a morally bankrupt and counterfeit philosophy that will cost and has cost decent Americans their respect in the world to say nothing of young men and women sacrificed to a lie.
Value added boulders.
While a great many people may argue about the constituent elements of a conceptual amalgam or the cognitive/aesthetics involved in use of a term like “beauty” for instance, a consensus of sorts can be reached with respect to an appreciation of some broadly accepted concepts that inhere to the overarching concept.
For example, Michelangelo’s “David” is more than a boulder. It’s more than a boulder because in the hills of Miseglia at the Fantiscritti quarries in 1464 a rectangular block of marble was cut from the earth and shipped to an artist who intended to use it in creating a statue that would eventually end up in Florence, as representation of one of the Holy prophets. Eventually this artist abandoned the project. The block was shipped to yet another artist who also abandoned it. Quite frankly it isn’t high quality marble…. A young Michelangelo acquired the block in 1501 and after three years presented the nearly finished work of art to a mesmerized crowd of onlookers in Florence on a chilly September morning in 1504.
The idea that in my opinion requires examination and with any luck a certain degree of additional clarity is the concept of “morality”.
ITN has allowed that his reservoir of “morality” contained curiously enough in one of his testicles is “greater” than the quantity of “morality” contained in my entire body….
Perhaps the adage that some men “think with their penis” is more accurate than previously considered at least with respect to our friend ITN however I’m of the opinion that “morality” is a concept, and as concept exists primarily in human consciousness. Arguably human consciousness has been widely acknowledged as resting in the primary physiological mass atop the human form, where this mass of gelatinous gloop is site of a miniature maelstrom of electrical activity that presents as bio-chemical phenomena from which “thought” emerges.
We would all agree (some to lesser some to greater degree no doubt) that if someone were to steal that block of marble before it was carved by Michelangelo that this would be “wrong”. We agree in a very general sense that taking something that doesn’t belong to you, something that you’ve neither worked to produce nor obtained through exchange of some substance or symbol of agreed “value” with the person or company that quarried the stone is “theft” and in general we characterize this situation as “wrong”, a label assigning moral weight to the act.
It would be reasonable to say that an uncarved block of marble was “worth” X or Y, but after an artisan has invested years of labour and created something as awe-inspiring as Michelangelo’s ‘David’ that this chunk of marble is worth much more….
Now bear with me here if you would.
Let’s flip the paradigm for a moment to something we call the “Constitution” and in particular the Constitution of the United Sates of America.
One can take different approaches to interpreting the causal impetus underpinning the American constitution and in fact the constitution of any “state” investing the measure of self-definition that seems concomitant in any codified statement of principle so frequently referenced by citizens prepared to embrace this document as representative of its highest principles. Similarly the nature of a “constitution” is subject to a variety of interpretations that I’ll reduce to two…for simplicities sake….
The constitution can be seen as a “fixed” document i.e. “On the fixed view, then, the role of the constitution is much like the analogous role served by the ground rules of a debating society. Each sets the mutually agreed, stable framework within which controversial debate (and action) take place. Just as a debating society could not function if its ground rules were constantly being revised by the debators, a constitution cannot serve its role if its terms are constantly open to revision and reinterpretation by participants in a society's political and legal processes.”
And the “living-tree”… “One inclined towards the living tree conception will tend to spurn appeals to strict textual meaning and authors' intentions as attempts to impose the dead hand of the (possibly distant) past upon contemporary society and practice. Government must be limited in power, but our understandings of these limitations should be allowed to evolve and adapt in light of changing circumstances and beliefs about justice. Despite its undoubted appeal to some, the living tree conception faces tough questions: is viewing a constitution as a "living tree", malleable in the hands of contemporary interpreters — particularly judges — consistent with its status as foundational law, and with the entrenchment, stability and protection from unwarranted state power which seem to be crucial, if not essential, aspects of the very idea of constitutionally limited government?
A crucial element in Dworkin's constitutional theory is his general claim that the law of a community includes more than any explicit rules and decisions authoritatively adopted in accordance with accepted procedures. It does, of course, include many such rules and decisions and these can be found, paradigmatically, in statute books, judicial decisions and, of course, written constitutions. These are often termed "positive law." But the positive law in no way exhausts the law according to Dworkin. Most importantly, for our purposes, it in no way exhausts that part of law we call "the constitution." In Dworkin's view, a constitution includes the principles of political morality which provide the best explanation and moral justification — i.e., the best interpretation — of whatever limits have been expressed in positive law. Hence, constitutional interpretation must always invoke a theory of political morality.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/constitutionalism/
So now I’ll bind the concepts together….
If “morality” is an adjudication of “right” and “wrong” predicated on some “absolute”, some identifiable ort of substantive expression serving as the ultimate reference/benchmark for the authority of these concepts, we would have no difficulty differentiating the “right-ness” or “wrong-ness” of any particular question or quandary.
Unhappily this isn’t the case.
“Morality” is both situational and conditional. We may regard theft as “wrong” and murder as criminal but we can also envision circumstance wherein the full weight and responsibility for these actions weighed against the intention of a system of laws provides latitude in interpreting the “just” response.
The question becomes; If under normal circumstances an action predicated on situation and circumstance can be reasonably accorded a latitude of interpretation with respect to the just and reasonable response to this action, can evidence that fails to satisfy the causal impetus giving rise to this action and in the case of the American invasion of Iraq…. evidence clearly demonstrating that the rationale supplied for this action refutes the supplied reason, (provably false and misleading evidence) does the response elicited from the people of the United States in addressing the usurpation of the moral ethos underpinning the Constitution of the United States suggest a conditional morality subject to manipulation and abuse at the hands of its chief executives warrant respect or in fact disdain and contempt for a people prepared to abandon principle?
ITN
You keep your “morality” where-ever-you-like, but be advised that if the character and substance of your chosen “morality” reflects this willingness to abandon principles that it might just be a worthless and disingenuous concept.
If your Constitution and your embrace of abiding principles of law and statement of highest values is subject to situational re-interpretation based on lies and falsehoods, it isn’t worth the effort it took to put pen to paper creating it.
It is a morally bankrupt and counterfeit philosophy that will cost and has cost decent Americans their respect in the world to say nothing of young men and women sacrificed to a lie.
House Member
Posts: 3,063
April 16th, 2008, 09:21 PM
And what does that matter to you MikeyDB?
I mean, you say what you oppose, but offer no concrete examples of what you stand for.
Its a common technique, ridicule the beliefs of others while not offering your own beliefs up for careful scrutiny (for sure enough they are likely equally as ridiculous).
And what does that matter to you MikeyDB?
I mean, you say what you oppose, but offer no concrete examples of what you stand for.
Its a common technique, ridicule the beliefs of others while not offering your own beliefs up for careful scrutiny (for sure enough they are likely equally as ridiculous).
Senate Member
Posts: 5,152
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
April 16th, 2008, 09:24 PM
CHINA has brought infinitely more death, misery, murder, slavery, tyranny, to the world since 1949. Many, many times more. And it continues to do so, the finest example being the harvesting of organs from the condemned, sometimes BEFORE their execution........
Compared to the Chinese, the USA is all innocence and benevolence.......
Please, open your eyes.
.
Quoting MikeyDB
This is the entire point, Mikey.
ITN
Poor fellow.
What possible authority do you or the United States think you have when it comes to questions of "moral authority"? What possible argument can you provide that's capable of refuting the moral and fiscal corruption of the United States that's spread war and hardship around the world?
Compared to China, who would you think the most likely candidate for the prize of who has influenced more mayhem and brought more carnage and death to the world?
Poor fellow.
Poor fellow.
What possible authority do you or the United States think you have when it comes to questions of "moral authority"? What possible argument can you provide that's capable of refuting the moral and fiscal corruption of the United States that's spread war and hardship around the world?
Compared to China, who would you think the most likely candidate for the prize of who has influenced more mayhem and brought more carnage and death to the world?
Poor fellow.
CHINA has brought infinitely more death, misery, murder, slavery, tyranny, to the world since 1949. Many, many times more. And it continues to do so, the finest example being the harvesting of organs from the condemned, sometimes BEFORE their execution........
Compared to the Chinese, the USA is all innocence and benevolence.......
Please, open your eyes.
.
House Member
Posts: 4,492
Location: Minnesota: Gopher State
Location: Minnesota: Gopher State
April 16th, 2008, 09:55 PM
I suppose that by this you mean Bush Sr + Jr who are its biggest supporters.
Quoting Colpy
Okay.....
The Chinese government (the CCP) are goons and thugs. They have demonstrated this over and over and over, from Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward, to the harvesting of human organs from the executed, to the selling of unsafe goods, to Tianamen Square, the use of slave labour in the camps, the suppression iof religion, to repeated repression in Tibet.............
the Chinese people, according to China, and obviously including a significant portion of those lucky enough to live in the West, support whole-heartedly the Chinese Government.
So, what is the difference?
The CCP weilds the whip, but those who back them are just as guilty......
The Chinese government (the CCP) are goons and thugs. They have demonstrated this over and over and over, from Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward, to the harvesting of human organs from the executed, to the selling of unsafe goods, to Tianamen Square, the use of slave labour in the camps, the suppression iof religion, to repeated repression in Tibet.............
the Chinese people, according to China, and obviously including a significant portion of those lucky enough to live in the West, support whole-heartedly the Chinese Government.
So, what is the difference?
The CCP weilds the whip, but those who back them are just as guilty......
I suppose that by this you mean Bush Sr + Jr who are its biggest supporters.
Senate Member
Posts: 5,152
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
April 16th, 2008, 10:51 PM
Our buying from this place is just ......frustrating.
Ever try a China boycott?
I have.
damned hard. I kept it up until my whole family revolted.
Quoting gopher
Touche. I suppose that by this you mean Bush Sr + Jr who are its biggest supporters.
Our buying from this place is just ......frustrating.
Ever try a China boycott?
I have.
damned hard. I kept it up until my whole family revolted.
The Angry Beaver
Posts: 3,539
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
April 17th, 2008, 10:59 AM
Update to this Story:
China snubs CNN apology over Cafferty remarks
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...0417?hub=World
Update to this Story:
China snubs CNN apology over Cafferty remarks
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...0417?hub=World
Quote:
BEIJING -- China on Thursday snubbed an apology from CNN over remarks by one of its commentators as a wave of verbal assaults on foreign media raised concerns over coverage at this summer's Beijing Olympics.
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu rejected CNN's explanation that commentator Jack Cafferty was referring to China's leaders -- not the Chinese people -- when he described them as "goons and thugs." CNN said it apologized to anyone who thought otherwise.
But Jiang said at a regularly scheduled news conference that the CNN statement lacked sincerity and instead "turned its attack on the Chinese government to try to sow division between the Chinese government and the people."
The head of the ministry's information department summoned CNN's bureau chief in Beijing on Wednesday night to deliver a near identical protest.
CNN has been singled out by the Chinese government and unknown activists who have phoned and e-mailed death threats to Western reporters. Most of the criticism of the Atlanta-based network concerns a photograph posted on its Web site weeks ago which cropped out Tibetans throwing stones at Chinese security forces.
Chinese at home and abroad have heatedly accused Western media of biased coverage of violent anti-government protests in Tibet and across western China last month.
Numerous Web postings, YouTube videos and Facebook groups have criticized the Tibet news coverage, including a Web site called anti-cnn.com, which was set up especially to point out alleged media bias.
Anger has been further stirred by high-profile protests among Tibetans, free-speech advocates and others dogging the Beijing Olympic Torch's passage through London and Paris.
CNN and other foreign satellite broadcasts can be seen only in hotels, offices and housing developments open to foreigners, meaning very few Chinese would have heard Cafferty's original comments.
Censors also block many foreign news sites on the Internet, pointing to an underlying irony of the ongoing protests -- that they profess outrage over foreign media reports that their government does not permit them to view.
The entirely state-controlled media has joined in the vilification campaign, with the criticisms of CNN featuring prominently in Thursday's newspapers and TV shows.
A signed editorial in the Communist Party's flagship People's Daily attacked what it called Cafferty's "verbal violence."
"When people wake up and face the facts, there will be no more market for 'information terrorism,'" the editorial said.
The vilification of Western media has renewed concerns about media controls during the Olympics, when thousands of foreign reporters are expected to be in Beijing to cover the August Games. Beijing has pledged to meet past standards for coverage, but has repeatedly violated those promises by detaining journalists and banning them from parts of the country.
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu rejected CNN's explanation that commentator Jack Cafferty was referring to China's leaders -- not the Chinese people -- when he described them as "goons and thugs." CNN said it apologized to anyone who thought otherwise.
But Jiang said at a regularly scheduled news conference that the CNN statement lacked sincerity and instead "turned its attack on the Chinese government to try to sow division between the Chinese government and the people."
The head of the ministry's information department summoned CNN's bureau chief in Beijing on Wednesday night to deliver a near identical protest.
CNN has been singled out by the Chinese government and unknown activists who have phoned and e-mailed death threats to Western reporters. Most of the criticism of the Atlanta-based network concerns a photograph posted on its Web site weeks ago which cropped out Tibetans throwing stones at Chinese security forces.
Chinese at home and abroad have heatedly accused Western media of biased coverage of violent anti-government protests in Tibet and across western China last month.
Numerous Web postings, YouTube videos and Facebook groups have criticized the Tibet news coverage, including a Web site called anti-cnn.com, which was set up especially to point out alleged media bias.
Anger has been further stirred by high-profile protests among Tibetans, free-speech advocates and others dogging the Beijing Olympic Torch's passage through London and Paris.
CNN and other foreign satellite broadcasts can be seen only in hotels, offices and housing developments open to foreigners, meaning very few Chinese would have heard Cafferty's original comments.
Censors also block many foreign news sites on the Internet, pointing to an underlying irony of the ongoing protests -- that they profess outrage over foreign media reports that their government does not permit them to view.
The entirely state-controlled media has joined in the vilification campaign, with the criticisms of CNN featuring prominently in Thursday's newspapers and TV shows.
A signed editorial in the Communist Party's flagship People's Daily attacked what it called Cafferty's "verbal violence."
"When people wake up and face the facts, there will be no more market for 'information terrorism,'" the editorial said.
The vilification of Western media has renewed concerns about media controls during the Olympics, when thousands of foreign reporters are expected to be in Beijing to cover the August Games. Beijing has pledged to meet past standards for coverage, but has repeatedly violated those promises by detaining journalists and banning them from parts of the country.
