Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Critique of Ann Coulter's The Church of Liberalism: Godless
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 46 of 298 (327060)
06-28-2006 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by arachnophilia
06-28-2006 2:37 AM


quote:
lying for the right cause is not honest. it's not when creationists did it on the stand in dover, and it's not when moore does it either.
I agree with both you and Modulous. My impression from many reports regarding Moore was that the right was attacking him making vague assertions that were not supported and then using reference to previous assertions as support for the assertions themselves...sort of how the Iraq war was justified. If Moore lied, he should be taken to task. Particularly since he is of no help to anyones cause if he uses misinformation and disinformation. Why he would choose to mimic this aspect of the right is beyond me since one does not need to exaggerate to excoriciate the extreme right for their low regard for the truth...in principle why would he feel the need to become Ann Coulter?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by arachnophilia, posted 06-28-2006 2:37 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by arachnophilia, posted 06-28-2006 4:18 PM Mammuthus has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 47 of 298 (327081)
06-28-2006 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by arachnophilia
06-28-2006 2:37 AM


it's in the context of "how could bush get away with having fox rig the election" in the first 5 minutes of the film. the sentance out of moore's mouth while the fake article is on screen is "and even if numerous independent investigations prove that gore got the most votes"
Yeah, look. I don't see the lie there. What he's saying is true. And he's cramming some "visual aids" into a talky part of the movie. I don't see where he's portraying a letter to the editor as actual fact. You haven't told me what letter he's showing, or even proved that it actually is a letter to the editor. And if the letter is factual, doesn't that render it moot?
Newspapers do print letters. The idea that something appearing in a newspaper - even on the front page - is an article and not a letter from someone is just your assumption. Since he's not making an argument that relies on a letter being mistaken for an article, we know his intent is not to confuse.
So, yeah, we're gonna need to take it to the thread. This is what I'm going to need from you:
1) The specific disputed "newspaper" you're referring to
2) Proof that what the "headline" actually refers to is nothing more than a letter to the editor
3) Something better than "yeah I just watched the movie and now I know you're wrong."
It's dishonest for a number of a reasons, most which i presented above. but secondary to those misrepresentations of what the source is, is the fact that it's not the number of votes that matters. districting has a very large effect
Not, to my knowledge, in the apportionment of the electoral college, which is done by the statewide totals. If Gore got the most votes in all of Florida, which he did, then he properly one Florida and Florida's electoral votes, and the 2000 elections.
But the Florida elections authority was barred from certifying the correct vote count by the SCOTUS.
it's actually something of an undisputed fact that gore got the most votes in the 2000 election. but that's not how the presidential election is run. ie: moore is also misrepresenting the american democratic process, by oversimplifying it.
That's not Moore's point. It's not that Gore got the most votes nationwide - which he did and no one disputes - it's that Gore got the most votes in Florida, and thus he should have won that state's electoral votes. But because the Supreme Court stopped a full recount, the son of the man who appointed a fair number of those judges was elected President of the United States.
Again that claim is factual. It's not a lie. And districting has nothing to do with that in the American electoral process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by arachnophilia, posted 06-28-2006 2:37 AM arachnophilia has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 48 of 298 (327259)
06-28-2006 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Mammuthus
06-28-2006 5:21 AM


(replied in the other thread. should move the discussion there now)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Mammuthus, posted 06-28-2006 5:21 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 298 (332066)
07-15-2006 8:17 PM


Just finished her book
I just finished her latest book today as a matter of fact, and of course, it was hilarious, as is the rest of her books. I realize that EvC is utterly innundated with those of a more liberal persuation, and by default, they hate her guts. But the woman can write. And no matter whether or not you agree with her particular brand of political affiliations, grant her that much.
I somehow glanced over this this little tidbit, but when I read it, I couldn't help but to laugh out loud.
"Another Abortion Party candidtae for president in 2004 was Howard Dean, a former medical resident with Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States. During a January 15, 2004, conference call with reporters, Dean, being a raving lunatic, said, 'No doctor is going to do an abortion on a live fetus. That doesn't happen. Doctors don't do that. If they do, they'll get their license pulled, as well they should.' (Yes, you're reading that correctly.)" -Ann Coulter (Godless p.86-87)
M'kayyyyyyyyyy. I'm beginning to understand why Kerry beat him out.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Edit to add

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by arachnophilia, posted 07-15-2006 8:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 50 of 298 (332073)
07-15-2006 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2006 8:17 PM


Re: Just finished her book
I realize that EvC is utterly innundated with those of a more liberal persuation, and by default, they hate her guts.
perhaps maybe our dislike of ann coulter has reasons? actually, i think she's pretty funny.
But the woman can write. And no matter whether or not you agree with her particular brand of political affiliations, grant her that much.
actually, no, that's one thing that can be, and HAS been objectively proven wrong -- she cannot, in fact, write. she has to steal other peoples' thoughts, and re-word them. in school, we call that skill "plaigarism"
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 8:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 9:43 PM arachnophilia has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 298 (332081)
07-15-2006 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by arachnophilia
07-15-2006 8:56 PM


Re: Just finished her book
actually, no, that's one thing that can be, and HAS been objectively proven wrong -- she cannot, in fact, write. she has to steal other peoples' thoughts, and re-word them. in school, we call that skill "plaigarism"
To be impartial, I notice that many of her arguments in the new book seems to have a twinge of similarity from another kick-ass book, "Hoodwinked," by Jack Cashill. However, conservative arguments and liberal arguments are always a rehash on any given hot topic that helps to support their view. In fact, there is not a single original argument. This isn't plagiarism though. If it were, then Michael Moore has plagiarized someone else. In fact, according Cashill's book, even Martin Luther King's most famous speech and the author of "Roots," plagiarized in true fashion.
By your version of plagiarism, we are all plagiarizing someone else right now. That just isn't the case.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by arachnophilia, posted 07-15-2006 8:56 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2006 12:45 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 298 (332094)
07-15-2006 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by rgb
06-24-2006 1:58 AM


How Liberal's react to Ann
Ann's outrageous claims. I think she is as ignorant as a six year old child attempting to grasp fields that take people lifetimes to study.
Being that she backs up everything she states and quotes with sources, I don't think you can honestly say that she makes "outrageous claims." She does her homework because she knows that people are going to dig as deep as they possibly can in order to refute her. She dots her "i's" and crosses her "t's" out of necessity. Any good writer, which she is, does.
I also think she has an ego as big as an elephant's erect penis.
Thanks for the visual... Perhaps you could have used another analogy...? Sheesh!
While it is within her right to blow as much hot air out of her butt as she just did with this book, I'm beginning to think that perhaps we should legislate free speech, especially when concerning academic fields where just about every regular Joe out there thinks he can speak authoritively on a subject after memorizing two words out of a text book on that subject.
You want to legislate free speech? Does that entail curbing people's destructively childish penchant for burning flags as a form of free speech? I'm not interested in living in a Gulag-like society, so I'll prefer free speech, however, inane it might be (*see Michael Moore as a referrence*), over legislating free speech. This is precisely what she was arriving at. Liberals only want free speech when it rules in their favor. That isn't in any way, free.
Ann starts out exclaiming that liberals love to boast about their nonreligious commitment and declaring liberalism to be a religion. While I would personally like this to be the case, reality is far from this sensational nonsense.
Straight from the horses mouth, and yet you object to this line of thought?
The liberal community is made up of people of all faiths and beliefs, all shapes and sizes, all ages and eras, and all ethnicity and nationalities. Instead, Ann assumes that liberals are comprised entirely of atheists and heathens.
Atheists and heathens come in all different shapes and sizes.
But directly to the point, many liberals are christians who value the christian ideals and teachings.
For the most part, Liberalism is theologically at odds with Christianity. I mean, who are you referring to precisely? Episcopals, Methodists, or Presbyterians?
The primarily identify themselves as liberals because they look to the future rather than the past, they want to address the dangers of manmade impacts on the biosphere
Its not that a Neocon can't concieve of the effects of pollution, as much as liberals tend to put this Malthusian conspiracy higher on the totem than other aspects that might logically set precedence over the coveted virtue of recycling.
they value universal human rights over traditional bigotry
Did you read her piece on abortion and eugenics?
they respect ALL religions and philosophies rather than just christianity
No, they respect ALL religions EXCEPT Christianity.
Coulter's rants include some rather outright strawmen and ad hominems. She claims that liberals believe through faith the following: "Darwinism is a fact, people are born gay, child molesters can be rehabilitated, recycling is a virtue, and chastity is not."
Question:
1. Do you believe that evolution is a natural occurance that can be verified by scientific scrutiny?
2. Do you believe that homosexuals are born with an innate sense of sexual attraction to the same sex?
3. Do you feel that child molesters should be rehabilitated or punished like any other crime?
4. Do you think recycling is a good thing?
5. Do you believe that "waiting before marriage to engage in sexual activity" is an archaic and antiquated aspect of sociology?
Please answer honestly.
Ann goes on to ask the question "If people are born gay, why hasn't Darwinism weeded out people who don't reproduce?" This question, or rather more of an assertion, assumes that when a person is born something, genetics has to be the reason.
she asks this logical question because the prevailing theory concerning homosexuality and the prevailing wisdom concerning the ToE conflict.
The third thing that's severely wrong with Coulter's assumption is that if it is indeed genetics then natural selection would move against such a trait. As a matter of fact, there is a hypothesis that suggests the homosexual trait(s) helps the family gene to be passed onto future generations. Survival of the fittest does not only include pumping out as many children as you can, damn it! Some species do take that approach while others prefer to have only a few but healthy children. The "gay uncle", instead of worrying about his own children, would help to raise his nephews and neices. Such characteristics have been observed in ape populations where infants in families with gay relatives have better rate and chance of survival and growing up healthy. This hypothesis closely resembles the Grandmother Hypothesis.
You couldn't possibly believe that and still call yourself an intellectual.
But the most important flaw in Ann's logic is her presumption that if being gay is by choice then it is somehow bad.
She's only repeating what God has made clear in His Word. She realizes that people object to God's Law, and the very notion of God, itself. But some things are true whether we want it to be or not. Coulter feels that the homosexual movement, as a whole, is more focused on sex than it is about anything else.
So what if a person chose to be gay? If he/she chose to be gay, then it is his/her right to do so.
Her argument attempts to show that homosexuality is an aberration. And by this simple, "Who cares" philosophy, we might as well eradicate any problem with pedophilia and/or beastiality. Who cares, right? I do.
First of all, not all liberals think child molesters can change. Hell, even some child molesters admit they cannot change.
Child molesters can change. They really can. Her objection is with the some liberal ideology that they need to be coddled instead of thrown into prison for potentially destroying a child's pysche. This is where the objection lies.
Some liberals such as myself believe that kid-loving is a sexuality, just like heterosexuality and homosexuality. And since it is a sexulaity, or so we believe, the mentality of the kid-lover cannot be changed.
Dear God, almighty! You are exactly who she is referencing. "Loving" children and associating children in any kind of sexual way is your first problem. Sexuality and love are mutually exclusive. If you don't believe me, then maybe you don't "love" your grandparents. I love my kids. I love kids in general. That in no way means that I feel sexually attracted to children.
We, however, make a big distinction between kid-loving and pedophilia. Kid-loving is adoration and admiration from a distance.
LOL! That has a terminology too.... They're called, "Stalkers," and its a crime in most states. Wow, stay away from my kids.
In other words, some of us believe that pedophilia is another form of rape. To bunch kid-lovers and pedophiles together is like bunching heterosexuals together with rapists.
Having sex with children is rape, even with consent. And to further elucidate the point, what difference is their in desire and action? Not much. All it takes is for opportunity to arise. And people that search for children, so they can "watch them from a distance," is like placing a gambler in a casino and telling them not to gamble. Its moronic.
Ann's goes on to ask "Why must children be taught that recycling is the only answer? Why aren't we teaching children 'safe littering?'"
That's called satire. Her books are littered with it.
Repeat after me, we do not teach children that recycling is the only answer. There are many possible answers to our future environmental problems.
Ann isn't against recycling or the enviornment. She's essentially saying, "Pull your head out of your ass and get your priorities straightened. If liberals cared as much as they do over abortion as they do over recycling, we'd have a pretty good society." Again, its not her demonizing recycling. I'm sure she recycles. Its about priorities being all out of whack.
I will continue to critique the writings of this anorexic hypocrite at a later time.
"Anorexic hypocrite?" She's anorexic because she has a nice figure or because she's a real anorexic, which I would have assumed you thought to be a real disorder. And everyone is a hypocrite. Knowing it half the battle. That's where Jesus comes in.
Admins, I sincerely hope that this goes into a forum other than the book nook so people can discuss and debate. I'll leave it to you to decide where this will go.

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by rgb, posted 06-24-2006 1:58 AM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Coragyps, posted 07-15-2006 11:22 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 54 by nwr, posted 07-15-2006 11:42 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 60 by rgb, posted 07-16-2006 1:36 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 62 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-16-2006 10:45 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 63 by Coragyps, posted 07-16-2006 10:47 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 72 by lfen, posted 07-16-2006 12:40 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 53 of 298 (332099)
07-15-2006 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2006 11:12 PM


Re: How Liberal's react to Ann
For the most part, Liberalism is theologically at odds with Christianity. I mean, who are you referring to precisely? Episcopals, Methodists, or Presbyterians?
Listen. punk. My grandmother died of typhoid in China. Presbyterian missionary. My grandfather died of beheading/gunshot in China. Presbyterian missionary. My mom and dad spent three years in a Japanese prison camp in World War II - Presbyterian missionaries. She later caught polio in Japan as a Presbyterian missionary and died when I wes three. My dad came back to the US as a Presbyterian minister and preached for racial equality in 1961 or so in Arkansas. They, by all accounts, were pretty nice folk.
Don't attack other members of your faith who don't seem to you to be as Ideologically Pure (TM) as you are. They just might possibly be Christians, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 11:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 11:52 PM Coragyps has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 54 of 298 (332105)
07-15-2006 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2006 11:12 PM


Liberalism and religion
For the most part, Liberalism is theologically at odds with Christianity.
Jesus was a liberal, and he threw the conservatives out of the temple.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 11:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 11:53 PM nwr has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 298 (332108)
07-15-2006 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Coragyps
07-15-2006 11:22 PM


Re: How Liberal's react to Ann
Listen. punk. My grandmother died of typhoid in China. Presbyterian missionary. My grandfather died of beheading/gunshot in China. Presbyterian missionary. My mom and dad spent three years in a Japanese prison camp in World War II - Presbyterian missionaries. She later caught polio in Japan as a Presbyterian missionary and died when I wes three. My dad came back to the US as a Presbyterian minister and preached for racial equality in 1961 or so in Arkansas. They, by all accounts, were pretty nice folk.
First, your personal experience bears no relevance to the topic of this thread. You could say whatever you wished to illicit sympathy for your cause, as could I.
Second, I was not making a sweeping generalization, nor was I saying that Episcopalians, Presbyterians, or other flavors of Christianity are flawed. My first and fundamental point is that liberals do not tend to be Christian. Calling yourself a Christian and attending Church on Easter Sunday and for Christmas Eve doesn't make you a Christian.
Liberalism and Christianity are so diametrically opposed it is almost laughable that a person could claim to be both. Any Bible scholar could tell you that the tenets of liberalism contrast drastically to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Just read the gospels if you do not believe me.
1. You cannot believe that the environment and animals have intrinsically higher value than human beings do and call yourself a Christian. God put us at the top of the food chain.
2. You cannot find the torture and subsequent murder of an innocent, unborn child a socially acceptable practice and call yourself a Christian. God commanded us not to murder each other.
3. You cannot worship money, self, debauchery, or anything else more than God and call yourself a Christian. God commands us to have NO OTHER GODS BEFORE HIM. This is a theme throughout the Bible. Anyone that claims otherwise has not studied it.
I could go on and on regarding the moral differences between Christian tenets and Liberal tenets, but I think you catch my drift.
Don't attack other members of your faith who don't seem to you to be as Ideologically Pure (TM) as you are. They just might possibly be Christians, too.
I was attacking liberalism. When it comes to Christians that are not obeying God's word, I rebuke and educate gently, just as Christ instructed. I follow the idealogy of Christ. Those that do not cannot claim to be Christians, by any stretch of the imagination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Coragyps, posted 07-15-2006 11:22 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by nwr, posted 07-15-2006 11:55 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 61 by Nighttrain, posted 07-16-2006 2:07 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 64 by Coragyps, posted 07-16-2006 10:51 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 298 (332109)
07-15-2006 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by nwr
07-15-2006 11:42 PM


Re: Liberalism and religion
Jesus was a liberal, and he threw the conservatives out of the temple.
Pray tell, how was Jesus a liberal, by modern definition ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nwr, posted 07-15-2006 11:42 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by nwr, posted 07-15-2006 11:59 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 57 of 298 (332110)
07-15-2006 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2006 11:52 PM


Re: How Liberal's react to Ann
I was not making a sweeping generalization
and
My first and fundamental point is that liberals do not tend to be Christian.
You just made a sweeping generalization.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 11:52 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2006 11:08 AM nwr has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 58 of 298 (332111)
07-15-2006 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2006 11:53 PM


Re: Liberalism and religion
Pray tell, how was Jesus a liberal, by modern definition ?
What's the modern definition?
You have probably been reading too much Coulter, Limbaugh and others. They give highly dishonest caricatures of liberals.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 11:53 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2006 11:19 AM nwr has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 59 of 298 (332121)
07-16-2006 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2006 9:43 PM


Re: Just finished her book
However, conservative arguments and liberal arguments are always a rehash on any given hot topic that helps to support their view. In fact, there is not a single original argument. This isn't plagiarism though.
uh, no. it really is plagiarism. really really. i'm not just saying that. seriously. it's all over the blogs -- even the republican blogs. when i said "objectively proven" i meant it.
By your version of plagiarism, we are all plagiarizing someone else right now. That just isn't the case.
it's not MY version of plagiarism, it's the academic definition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 9:43 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2006 11:27 AM arachnophilia has replied

rgb
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 298 (332130)
07-16-2006 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2006 11:12 PM


Re: How Liberal's react to Ann
nemesis jug writes
quote:
Being that she backs up everything she states and quotes with sources, I don't think you can honestly say that she makes "outrageous claims."
Read the book again. Most of the claims she made are unsupported and sensational bullshit. Unfortunately, my copy of her book is on the other side of the planet right now. I'll have to get back to you on the specifics.
quote:
She does her homework because she knows that people are going to dig as deep as they possibly can in order to refute her. She dots her "i's" and crosses her "t's" out of necessity. Any good writer, which she is, does.
That's just it. Most of what is in that book are her outrageous opinions and are meant as sensational rally cries. They can neither be supported nor refuted. But read my original post again. I only looked through the first few pages of her book and I was able to find that many errors.
quote:
For the most part, Liberalism is theologically at odds with Christianity. I mean, who are you referring to precisely? Episcopals, Methodists, or Presbyterians?
Let me guess, you're going to say that these "liberal christians" aren't really christians, right?
quote:
Its not that a Neocon can't concieve of the effects of pollution, as much as liberals tend to put this Malthusian conspiracy higher on the totem than other aspects that might logically set precedence over the coveted virtue of recycling.
And your point?
quote:
Did you read her piece on abortion and eugenics?
Yes. What's your point?
quote:
No, they respect ALL religions EXCEPT Christianity.
Whatever you say, bob. Most of the christians on this forum might want to disagree with you there.
quote:
1. Do you believe that evolution is a natural occurance that can be verified by scientific scrutiny?
I'm a physicist, not a biologist. You'll have to ask a biologist for a more definitive answer.
quote:
2. Do you believe that homosexuals are born with an innate sense of sexual attraction to the same sex?
I'm a physicist, not a psychologist. You'll have to ask a psychologist for a more definitive answer.
quote:
3. Do you feel that child molesters should be rehabilitated or punished like any other crime?
How about both? As a matter of fact, I am at odds with most of the liberals on this board for my views on what we should do with criminals.
quote:
4. Do you think recycling is a good thing?
Good or bad is subjective. I would say that I believe recycling teaches responsibility and a more positive attitude toward our natural resources.
quote:
5. Do you believe that "waiting before marriage to engage in sexual activity" is an archaic and antiquated aspect of sociology?
Again, who am I to tell people what they should and shouldn't do out of their own free will? Besides, I'm not a sociologist.
quote:
she asks this logical question because the prevailing theory concerning homosexuality and the prevailing wisdom concerning the ToE conflict.
Please take a few more years of college biology on subjects regarding evolution before you make this "wise" and "logical" assertion. I have a feeling your understanding of scientific theories are that of a layman's layman.
quote:
You couldn't possibly believe that and still call yourself an intellectual.
I have never called myself an intellectual and I probably am not an intellectual. As a matter of fact, ever since I was in high school I have become less knowledgable and less intellectual everyday.
quote:
She's only repeating what God has made clear in His Word. She realizes that people object to God's Law, and the very notion of God, itself. But some things are true whether we want it to be or not. Coulter feels that the homosexual movement, as a whole, is more focused on sex than it is about anything else.
Oh really? Perhaps you'd like to explain to me the gay couples I have met that have been together for decades? Sometimes, you'd see one old man taking care of his wheelchair bound companion.
quote:
Her argument attempts to show that homosexuality is an aberration. And by this simple, "Who cares" philosophy, we might as well eradicate any problem with pedophilia and/or beastiality. Who cares, right? I do.
Homosexuality involves two consenting adults while pedophilia involves one consenting adult and one nonconsenting minor. I haven't come to a conclusion about beastiality yet.
quote:
Dear God, almighty! You are exactly who she is referencing. "Loving" children and associating children in any kind of sexual way is your first problem. Sexuality and love are mutually exclusive. If you don't believe me, then maybe you don't "love" your grandparents. I love my kids. I love kids in general. That in no way means that I feel sexually attracted to children.
Apparently, you are only capable of feeling one form of the love emotion. Everything has to be sexual to you, doesn't it?
quote:
LOL! That has a terminology too.... They're called, "Stalkers," and its a crime in most states. Wow, stay away from my kids.
Um... you should look this up again. It's not a crime to think or fantasize. Stalking is an entirely different thing. If you don't believe me, just consult your local lawyer or judge.
quote:
Having sex with children is rape, even with consent. And to further elucidate the point, what difference is their in desire and action? Not much. All it takes is for opportunity to arise. And people that search for children, so they can "watch them from a distance," is like placing a gambler in a casino and telling them not to gamble. Its moronic.
Please try to stay on topic while you respond to me. Your entire paragraph does nothing to answer to the portion of my post you quoted.
quote:
That's called satire. Her books are littered with it.
Right... if that's the case than it's my mistake. Just so you know, satires only work if there's some kind of point behind the satire.
quote:
Ann isn't against recycling or the enviornment. She's essentially saying, "Pull your head out of your ass and get your priorities straightened. If liberals cared as much as they do over abortion as they do over recycling, we'd have a pretty good society." Again, its not her demonizing recycling. I'm sure she recycles. Its about priorities being all out of whack.
You sure?
quote:
"Anorexic hypocrite?" She's anorexic because she has a nice figure or because she's a real anorexic, which I would have assumed you thought to be a real disorder. And everyone is a hypocrite. Knowing it half the battle. That's where Jesus comes in.
Nah, I was just being mean to her, knowing chances are she will never see what I wrote.
I wouldn't call that a nice figure. But if that's what you like, more power to you. I find people with a little bit more than just skin and bone more attractive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 11:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2006 12:30 PM rgb has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024