Ann Coulter (Is she hateful?)

And you are wrong, because what she actually does is lie about them. Or just wish them dead, as when she says ''My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.'' When she said that, was she "exposing" the people who work at the New York Times Building? Was she "accurately calling them what they are"? Or just daydreaming about them being murdered by a right-wing terrorist?Supplementary question: if that isn't hateful, what is?Or when she says: "'If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.'' Now, don't get me wrong, I don't like the man, there are plenty of things one could say about him, but she isn't. Where is she "exposing" him? Where is she "accurately calling him what he is"? She isn't, she's just daydreaming of a terrorist plot of which he will be one of the casualties.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If this happened, which apparently it didn't, it couldn't have happened to a more suitable person. Here's what Coulter has to say about free speech: Again, I would ask, when she calls for the abolition of freedom of speech for her opponents, I would ask --- how is that "exposing" them? How is it "accurately calling them what they are"? She is merely calling for them to be stripped of the rights conferred on citizens by the founding fathers.

Apparently it didn't.http://blogs.ajc.com/...esuits-a-college-invite-is-rescindedUnless, of course, the College Republicans are lying, but do we have any reason to believe that? What "distorted lens"? I believe what the College Republicans say. If I am wrong, then the "distorted lens" is that a bunch of Republicans are lying to me. If they're telling the truth, I'm right.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I thought that not being a not hateful, reactionary, homophobic right winger was exactly what made me a liberal. It's certainly why people who are hateful, reactionary, homophobic right wingers identify me as a liberal.

OK, let's concede your definition. From here on in, on this thread, the word "liberal" is to mean people who are, in your words, "not hateful, reactionary, homophobic right wingers". Now while Fordham College may include some people who are "hateful, reactionary, homophobic right wingers", they are not like that collectively and as an institution, and so the college may be considered liberal.Carry on.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I'm sorry to hear that.

You are quite right, they are foreveryoung's words and I guess my post should have been addressed to him. Nothing. I have never said that Fordham College was not liberal. My only comment on the subject has been to say, fine, let's say that they are. Now you're confusing me with someone else.Let's start again. You're Faith. I'm Dr A. Apart from, y'know, all the facts, which show that no such thing happened. I think the term "liberalism" should be reserved for positions other than mere statements of the bleedin' obvious, otherwise "pure liberalism" will have to include such things as the two times table.

People who can read? People who know who Ann Coulter is?C'mon, foreveryoung, this is not a nuanced question. Here is a woman who said that her one regret about the Oklahoma City bombing (which, if you're too young to remember it, killed 168 people, including 19 children under the age of 6, and maimed over 680) was that the terrorist didn't attack the New York Times building instead. To say that she is spreading hate is in fact to state the bleedin' obvious.The question of whether it is right for her to make such remarks is perhaps an ideological question. Me, I'm one of those liberals, and I think that when a conservative terrorist kills that many men, women and children, then for a conservative opinion-former to point out another more attractive target to her conservative audience ... is less than ideal. A squeamish person might even call it in bad taste. Perhaps you as a conservative support her remarks. That's your right. We could debate about that. But the question of whether her remarks were an expression of hatred is hardly a question at all.

Well, let's have your version. I've told you what she said about Oklahoma City. If she wasn't spreading hate, what was she spreading? Christian love? Mild ennui? Sultry eroticism?I'm afraid it is in fact obvious that she was spreading hate. If you are unable to grasp that then that doesn't mean it's not obvious, it means that you're unable to grasp the obvious.

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"?

Ah, right. Ann Coulter says that she wishes McVeigh had killed the people who work at the NYT, and I am making it a personal people thing. She, meanwhile, was conducting a high-minded discussion of ideas, like the intellectual that she is. No I don't. Do not tell me falsehoods about what I think. In the first place it's rude, in the second place it's stupid, and in the third place it won't deceive me. Explain why the comparison is absurd. This soccer fan was waging a "purely verbal war" on what he "hated with a fiery passion", namely the deficits of the England soccer team as he saw them. It's not like he had any personal animus against David Beckham, Beckham hadn't seduced his wife or run over his dog. OK, so on the issue we were originally discussing, that she was "spreading hate", you admit that I'm right? That there was "plenty of hate in her remarks"? You're still lying to me about what I think. Stop it. Perhaps you should read the question to which you are replying. But what if I am insincere, and I am really targeting her ideas? That would be OK, yes? If I don't really believe that she's done anything wrong, but am just attacking her on partisan grounds because she's a conservative, that would be "hyperbole" and "sardonic wit", right? I'm only in the wrong because you think I mean what I say. Can you give examples of this in the good ol' USA? Ah, paranoia. So, the question of whether I'm hateful comes down not to what is in my heart, but whether I'm right? But I thought that hating her ideas was OK? If I've found a way of hating her ideas, then anything I say in the service of that, true or false, is just "hyperbole" and "sardonic wit", right? No I wouldn't. As I said, if I said something like that, it would be hyperbole. In fact, this is so far from my feelings that I felt sick and dirty just writing that purely hypothetical example. It would not, and never could be, my personal desire.So it would be OK if I said that it was, right? Not so much.I had always thought that it was an expression of hatred to say that one wishes that some person would die a violent and premature death. Indeed, I would have said that if that's not an expression of hatred, I don't know what is and nor does anyone else.But now it's gotten all technical and confusing.Perhaps you could help me. Let's take an example. Suppose a liberal says: "My one regret about 9/11 is that the terrorists didn't target the headquarters of Fox News". Suppose that he does not really believe what he's saying, and is merely expressing his hatred for conservatism.Is that OK? Is that a non-hateful thing to say? And would it be "hateful and hurtful" for conservatives to criticize him for his remarks?

Yes she did. If you're going to claim that she didn't mean it literally, you may do so. But don't deny what she said, that's just lying.

You are lying to us about what we're arguing about.How do you think that's going to work out for you?