Ann Coulter (Is she hateful?)

Aaaargh. You liberals are so LITERAL. Ann's remark about Oklahoma was not a desire to see people murdered, good grief. She is making a POINT, using HYPERBOLE. She's a polemicist, she exaggerates for effect, she likes to make sensational statements. She IS a humorist, humorists use strong contrasts and sometimes shocking contrasts and similarities, to get their point across. Sometimes a laugh is wrenched out of the sheer audacity of her comparisons. Sardonic wit. NOBODY on the conservative side reads her the way you liberal literalists do. You're no bleeding heart, Dr. A. but it seems to serve you to pretend you are in this case.I'll say she may sometimes exceed the bounds of what used to be called "good taste," but the "hate speech" put downs are just liberals doing their usual huffyhuffy holier than thou number, only in their case it IS hateful and hurtful because it's so deadly pointedly SERIOUS, so witheringly morally indignant about NOTHING, whereas in hers it's just exaggeration. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The video goes into detail in how they interpret the bible which I agree with. People think Christianity is what is said in the red letters in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Those are from Jesus while he was here on earth directed toward a people who were going rule the earth in peace for a millenium. That failed to happen and instead of judgement on his people and on the world, he ushered in the age of grace. Christianity is concerned with the doctrine of that age of grace. It is not centered on what we do but who we are in Christ. That is Christianity. People scratch their heads when they see their particular behaviors (ones that matter the most to them as far as Christianity goes) not being followed in a short time span and with a narrow group of people. They think to themselves that there is no way a Christian could ever behave in a such a way. Yes, according to my view of Christianity, they certainly can. The video explains how.

Thanks, that was much easier than watching the vid, now I know your viewpoint and am much more inclined to view your link.

Seven and a half minutes in and nothing really relevant. The issues are, how you can ignore the Gospel's warnings that works are expected and James' reconciliation of salvation by faith and the need for works.
(It seems really simple to me - salvation is from faith, but works should naturally flow from a living faith - if you behave badly then you don't have that saving faith).Really, I don't think you can get the notion that an arrogant and unrepentant sinner can be saved just by strongly believing the "right" doctrine out of the New Testament without ignoring a whole lot of it.

I don't think I've ever accused Ann Coulter of being sincere. Let us stipulate that she is not.But then what "POINT" was she making, using "HYPERBOLE", if not that she really really hates the people who work for the New York Times? Once we strip off the literal meaning, what remains but the emotional content? --- and what is the emotional content except hate?Look, let's try a non-political example, see how you do.An irate soccer fan once shouted at David Beckham: "Your wife's a whore and I hope your kids die of cancer." Let us stipulate that he was employing hyperbole: that he did not literally think that Victoria Beckham (who is not short of cash) prostitutes herself; and that he felt no particular animus towards the Beckham children.Then what, shorn of its hyperbole, is the meaning of his statement? Is it not: "I really hate you, David Beckham"? Only he wished to phrase it in terms so raw and shocking as to make the intensity of his hatred felt. So, just to get this straight.* If I say that Ann Coulter was expressing hate when she said that Timothy McVeigh should have bombed the New York Times Building, that's just not true, there was no hate in her remarks, because she was not completely sincere. Yes?* I, on the other hand, am being "hateful and hurtful" to suggest that what she said smacked of animosity. Correct?* Presumably, perhaps you could help me with this, the reason my remarks are "hateful and hurtful" is that my remarks are sincere and I am not indulging in exaggeration or hyperbole. If I didn't actually believe what I was saying, I would be cleared of any charge of hatred, as you have explained. OK?* So if you accuse me of being "hateful and hurtful" towards poor old Ann Coulter, are your own remarks (a) hateful and hurtful (b) insincere (c) miraculously exempt from your own logic?* If instead of criticizing her remarks, I had confined myself to saying: "I wish Ann Coulter would be saved from the pain of terminal cancer by dying in a fire", then because this is not a true expression of my actual feelings, you would not now being accusing me of saying "hateful and hurtful" things about the poor woman. Right? That would just be "sardonic wit".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This is a peculiar theology, and I am going to have to take some time to wrap my head round it.Some questions.Did God know in advance that this millennial rule wasn't going to come off, and that all that Jesus said was pretty much a wasted effort directed towards people living in an age that wasn't going to happen? Or was omniscience taken by surprise?What was it that messed it up? Presumably God must have had some sort of reasonable expectation of a millennium of peace, so what prevented it from happening?Where is this doctrine of the age of grace to be found? In St. Paul perhaps? (I'm guessing.) If so, was St. Paul God's plan B? Did God in effect say to himself: "Drat, I sent my only begotten son to tell people the doctrine of the millennium of peace, and now the millennium of peace has been cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances, so I'd better inspire someone to preach the doctrine of the age of grace instead"?

What she HATES is their LIBERAL policies and lies, Dr. A. You know, the printed word of the NEW YORK TIMES. And yes, she hates that with a righteous passion. Not "the PEOPLE of the NY Times" but THEIR LIBERAL POLICIES. You liberals like to make this a personal people thing so you can wring your hands and bleed all over the place for their hurt feelings or get all offended and huffy about us "haters" and look down your noses at us morally deficient Conservatives for our Lack of Sensitivity which seems to be all Liberals care about, or even accuse us literally of murderous intentions. We conservatives on the other hand deal on the level of IDEAS. I TOO would like to "murder" all sources of Liberalism in this country. I try to do it WITH ideas because it IS ideas I'd like to "murder" which is also her desire. But not hate toward HUMAN BEINGS, for pete's sake. Not that we can't lose our temper and want to punch the daylights out of a liberal sometimes, and I'm sure you've wanted to do the same to a conservative -- your clenched fist is in your barbed words you know --, but we don't do we? And not just because we know we'd get the worst of it either. But you guys treat this as if it were a real desire to bomb a building and see people die. I found a liberal's page on Ann's quotes that kept saying how "terrified" he felt of her remarks. You guys are insane LITERALISTS. THAT's scary. This is an absurd comparison which simply demonstrates how you literalize Ann's purely verbal war on liberalism, which she does indeed hate with a fiery passion and would like to see dead and buried. It is not EVER anywhere close to what that soccer fan did to a real human being. The fact that liberals hear it that way is what is scary. And frankly I'm surprised at YOU for thinking this way, though I suppose I shouldn't be, I guess because I usually think of you as a passionately verbal type yourself who ought to know better. No, there was plenty of hate in her remarks, but hate for the ideas which are represented by the New York Times Building, which you liberals seem to fail to grasp. The hyperbole is in the comparisons she makes that liberals stupidly take literally. I can almost not believe that anyone would but I'm finding out that you do. Incorrect because you identify the target of the animosity wrongly. Her exaggeration and hyperbole are in the service of IDEAS. Your accusations of her are hateful and hurtful because you are accusing her of things she couldn't possibly mean because you take her to be targeting people instead of their ideas. "Hate speech" is meant by liberals to attribute literal hatred and violent motives toward other human beings to conservatives who are in fact objecting to ideas and political policies. You demonize, you criminalize the PERSON by such terms because to you it's all about PERSONS. The concept of "hate speech" has already landed some people in jail, for nothing but their opinions, so much for Freedom of Speech, and if the liberals keep it up more of us will no doubt fall under Big Brother's tyrannical desire to eliminate socieiy of all Biblical beliefs and traditional morality and complaints about the tyrannies of Political Correctness. Meanwhile the "speech" that is protected turns the whole concept of freedom of speech upside down. ONLY the speech that condemns "haters" and "reactionaries" and conservative "provocateurs" will be protected, along with the "right" to pornography, but dare quote from the Bible about God's law against sexual sins, all of them but also homosexual sins, THOSE will no longer be protected, because liberals already want them gone. I hope I'm accurately characterizing your words as hateful and hurtfulk, which I believe they are because you are imputing a PERSONAL element to Ann's words which is not there, that's what makes yours hateful and hurtful. I can't find anything similar to Ann's statements in your comparison so I'm not sure what to say. It sounds like a crude literalminded way of hating her ideas perhaps that you can't distinguish from her person just as literalminded liberals apparently can't. Again you are personalizing something that she did not personalize in her reference to the New York Times building.When she personalizes something it's like her remark about John Walker the traitor who I agree with her should have been executed because traitors who conspire in the death of Americans should be executed, and maybe it would serve as a deterrent to others with traitorous inclinations which was her point. But even there what she's talking about is not hating John Walker or the wouldbe traitors so much as the social policy that allows traitors to live and thereby encourages more traitorous people, because it is a betrayal of the innocent and of the nation.You on the other hand in your example would be talking of a personal desire to see Ann Coulter herself die a miserable death, someone who is not guilty of anything even remotely similar to that.I've been writing my heart out today on things that matter to me but I wonder how much good it has done if any, and I'm too tired right now to even review what I wrote here so I hope it's coherent.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Faith,I note that you're tired, and so don't expect any quick response, but I'm really struggling with your distinctions here.Dr A proposes a hypothetical statement that he wishes Ann Coulter die in a fire. I think that we can all agree that such a statement would be a harsh statement.You characterise Dr A's hypothetical statement as: and therefore an attack on the person and not her ideas.In contrast, we have Ann Coulter's statement that Timothy McVeigh should have bombed the NYT building. Again, I think we can all agree that this is a harsh statement.There is no logical distinction between DrA's hypothetical statement and Ann Coulter's - both of them express a desire to see an event occur which would result in the death and suffering of one or more people. You cannot logically distinguish them from each other in that context.And yet you characterise Ann Coulter's statement as an attack on ideas, and Dr A's hypothetical statement as an attack on the person.You have no basis for making that distinction (except of course for the fact that you are a supporter of one person's ideology and not the other's).There's a legitimate debate to be had about polemical hyperbole, and where the boundaries should lie - but you have to accept that they should lie in the same place for everyone, regardless of the ideology of the person using the hyperbole. Moving the boundaries, depending on your personal preferences, will not help to sway the debate.

I see a HUGE HUGE distinction but I'm struggling to get it said clearly and right now I'm too tired to make the effort but I wanted to say this much and I'll have a go at it again tomorrow.

No problems - we'll catch up soon.

It is a theology that appears to be based on a very selective reading of Paul's writings. It is very easy to find Paul saying things that contradict the idea that people who are saved by Grace won't act differently thereafter. Galatians 5 and 6 are good examples of Paul telling us about the actions of people who follow the Spirit rather than the flesh.That said, the intrerpretation does allow avoiding all of that lefty peace and love stuff that Christ actually taught. I can see why some people would find folloeing it attractive. I'm just not sure how you can repent and turn away from sin when there are no rules.

Perhaps you don't understand my position if you think that I do not understand that Christianity has been if not the most horrific, genocidal movement in all of history it is certainly in contention for that honor. Real Christians are very often very, very bad, evil, nasty people.But in my my Chapter of Club Christian it is those little details of morality that are important. As my momma used to say, it ain't what you claim to believe that's important, it's what you do.I have never said nor do I doubt that you are a real Christian.

Let me help out here.Ann addressed her remarks to everyone at the NY Times. The Times represents liberal news, so she really wants liberal news to die in a fiery explosion. Her comment is defused from being a personal attack because it applies to many, many personals.By contrast Dr. Adequates remarks apply to Ann and not to right wing hack pundits in general. Because he has excluded Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. his remarks are personal and hateful. Dr. Adequate needs to make his remarks more inclusive so that we can see them as witty. He also needs to write some books. Also liberals blow chunks and collateral damage to them is dserved.Well I don't buy it.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi Faith,You know, this would be an extremely difficult undertaking for both of us - attempting to discuss an issue without turning the discussion into a shouting match about each other and our "sides," just focusing on the problem and solutions from our differing perspectives. If you're willing to try it, then I am as well. I think the problem here is that we (and I absolutely include myself in this) often "speak factually" when the facts we are presenting need to be supported with evidence because they are not self-evident. I can't just tell you that the Earth is billions of years old, even as I understand that to be an established scientific fact - you certainly don;t see it that way, and just saying it is just another assertion unless I can back it up. Likewise when you "speak factually;" sometimes you're presenting a fact that doesn't match up with my understanding of the facts, and so evidence and argument is needed to show me that it is a fact.We would both do well to remember at all times that neither of us is omniscient or has all of the facts. If the information upon which we build our understanding is wrong, then our understanding will be wrong as well, and that goes for both of us. If we go through with this, I will absolutely take no offense if you tell me to stop, slow down, and center myself on the issue again...and I hope you'll expect the same from me. Neither of us is perfect, and emotions are kind of built in to human minds, so this is really going to be rough. But I'll try to avoid harping about the "Neo-Con agenda" if you try to avoid dismissing my words as a "liberal agenda." And I won't call you a liar even if you say something I think is wrong - I think we can both agree that at worst one or both of us might speak an untruth that we honestly think is true because it's something we've heard or read; we need not be liars if we have ourselves been lied to. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you'll do the same for me. I'm quite familiar with a mismatch between what is intended and what is actually conveyed; I have a tendency to come across as condescending and rude even when I'm just trying to be helpful. I believe you when you say that you don't intend to use "liberal" as some sort of curse, and I appreciate that you accept that this is the way that you're being read even if it's not what you intend.Rather than going point-by-point for the rest because I need to head to work...The examples I gave we just that, examples. They weren't necessarily intended to be debate topics - just to illustrate my points. I'm not particularly attached to using any one of them as the topic for a debate, particularly if you don't feel particularly interested in them.You mentioned what you term the "Culture War." Would you like to pick a specific topic from under that umbrella, something that you see as a problem that our society needs to address, and then we can try to discuss that problem and potential solutions? We could set it as a "Great Debate" if you like, and possibly request moderator assistance if one of us thinks the other is starting to lose focus on the issue. What do you think?

Hi Faith, See Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Cognitive dissonance is the term used in modern psychology to describe the state of people when holding two or more conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.[1] ...

---

Several examples are provided. This is a very real condition, and being able to recognize it in your own reactions as well as in the reactions of others can hopefully lead to more meaningful debate through understanding what is happening. Bringing your emotions under control is not a remedy for the cause of the anger, just a way of "treating" the symptom. If you understand the cause of the anger and can then work to reduce that, then the anger does not occur. People don't get angry when told that 1+1=2 when that is what their worldview also tells them. On the other hand if you are told that 1+1=10 you may feel confused, insulted or surprised, and perhaps get angry if the other person insists that 1+1=10 is true without providing the information that this is due to using binary (base 2) counting (10 in binary ≡ 2 in base 10) That depends on how emotionally you are attached to your opinions\beliefs that are being challenged by contrary information. In the science disciplines we are taught\encouraged to embrace tentative acceptance of ideas and concepts, while in most religions one is taught\encouraged to believe things on their face value or the word of an elder etc. -- this leads to conflicting information when they contradict each other. Actually he said she was a provocateur, someone who says things just to get a reaction. On internet boards her behavior would be classified as trolling: trying to provoke an angry response. She also is very free with the facts. My opinion is that she is deceitful, welcomed by the gullible because of who she attacks rather than because of what she says and whether or not it bears any resemblance to reality. I also think that she tries to be hateful while pretending to be innocent of being hateful.I class her as an unreliable source of information, someone that will say anything to get a reaction, and thus not worth reading or listening to. Actually, you showed that it embraces some liberal views regarding diversity, but not that the university as a whole was liberal. Curiously, I don't see diversity as being excluded from conservative values.liberal and conservative are not black and white, but rather a spectrum. Cognitive dissonance.

[center]1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10
   liberal                         conservative[/center]

When you stand at 3, everything to the right of you is conservative. When you stand at 7, everything to the left of you is liberal, and the two of you will disagree about 4, 5 and 6. When you cannot read a post because your eyes glaze over, your mind rejects the information, and your somatic response move into anger mode, you can either think this is a normal everyday experience or you can understand the problem for what it is.Understanding the problem is the first step in resolving it. The motto of this forum is "Understanding through Discussion" and a distinct part of this is understanding what is going on when there are two different viewpoints in conflict.Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : triesEdited by RAZD, : ...