|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Critique of Ann Coulter's The Church of Liberalism: Godless | |||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
otherwise, its pointless to talk to people who have formulated their opinions of her based on what a liberal pundit claimed. i formulate my opinion of ann coulter based on what ann coulter says. (and actually, i think she's pretty funny)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
*shrug*
i really, honestly think she's funny. but probably not in the way she's trying to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I'm half tempted to try and read up some of her stuff to see if she's as great as NJ says or as bad as most of the rest of you say. don't, it'll just make you angry. and then she's won.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
it's not like the classes are hard. yeah. it's not like pottery or anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Look. There are people who mock conservative pundits by taking on the role of one. Steven Colbert is one such example. Do you watch his show, at all? That's satire. Coulter? She's serious. She's earnest. There's absolutely no satire there. shhh, you're distracting me from laughing at how ridiculous she is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ok, i know it took a little backtracking -- but seriously, did you not know those were links to individual articles, and copy/paste removed the formatting and this the links?
here is the article WITH the formatting preserved, which i personally altered by hand to be compatible with the board:
quote: please click the links, and read them, for the specifics. i'm not going to re-post every single one of their articles. i know we're not supposed to argue with links here, but really. just go and read them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I went to Rude Pundit and you just copy and pasted what I already addressed. It gives no specifics whatsoever. it does, that's an index of blog entries. the index contains no specifics, the entries it refers do. with quotes, and sources.
No, it doesn't. Here are the links. Ot of three of the four, they're broken and the last one is irrelevant. no, the links that ARE the dates. see my post above.
Your link was bare and gave no specifics for how or where to referrence any of the claims it made. And being that the same information you gave me is being parroted on other leftist blogs, it gives me no basis to do any homework of any kind. I'd like nothing more than to investigate the matter, but I have nowhere to start! start at one of the links i already gave you. the case they make is fairly convincing -- they present the quotes from the book, and the source. and i happen to understand what plagiarism is in an academic context (ie: what will get me booted from class with an immediate F). i know the conservative blogs are mainly screaming that "minimal matching of words" isn't plagiarism, and "there are only so many ways you can present a fact." but after a certain point, "coincidence" is just not good enough as an explanation. in college, when you use someone else's idea without creditting them, it's plagiarism even if you reword everything completely. and yes, people DO get in trouble for not creditting their sources and backing up their arguments. also understand that published books are held to a higher standard than message board posts, tv appearances, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ok, one at a time then.
Naturally, every one the claims that comes from Coulter are predominantly backed up by Michael Fumento. There is no plagiarism, I have the book in my lap as we speak reading the index. but not the source it's been shown they were taken from?
quote: it nearly matches word for word the illinios website:
quote: coulter's list bears no similarity to fumento's articles. she credits fumento, and does not credit the place she very obviously lifted nearly every word from. maybe it's just an oversight, but it's still plagiarism. and if they're all oversight, then it's darned sloppy writing. Edited by arachnophilia, : subtitle, left out a citation rather ironically
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
if you do paraphrase something YOU STILL HAVE TO CITE IT. even if you already cite it elsewhere. between these two factors, this is the number one way students get tossed from college classes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
That's what Stephen Colbert does. Everybody knows that Colbert isn't really a right-wing pundit. In fact, he's quite liberal, yet he portrays a very conservative right wing pundit on The Colbert Report in order to make fun of the policies and major players on the conservative right. He has often stated that one of the people he has modeled his character after is Bill O'Reilly, for example. the part that really gets me about colbert is that sometimes he'll be debating a scientist or left-winger on his show, and he'll just totally pwn them. i find it amazing that he can make extreme right arguments better than the people really on the right, and make them make sense and sound convincing. sometimes i'm just dumbfounded at how quick this guy is and how sharp his devil's advocate arguments are.
If Coulter were to actually be engaging in satire to make fun of the left, she would have to portray a far-left pundit, and pretend to espouse a far left position. So, she isn't using satire. i believe the word he's looking for is "strawman" not "satire." coulter regularly exagerates the opponent's position to ridicule it. while i suppose that MIGHT be a vague and small form of satire, on whole, no she does not satirize the left at any length or depth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
But all of the compilation of works for the Illinoisrighttolife derive from Fumento's work and Hankook Ilbo, which Coulter cited. coulter's words match the illinois right to life site, and NOT fumento. if you get the data from somewhere, and they got the data from somewhere, you cite the source you actually got it from. it's better to get something from the original source -- but that doesn't involved copying the secondary source nearly word for word and creditting the original source. especially when it's been demonstrated that not all the data came from that original source. if you got the data through a direct quote in the secondary material, you attribute it to the original source, but say "quote in ____" and the source you actually got it from. but the issue is that where the words came from and the source she cites do not match. that is plagiarism. and they tell you this sort of thing in any basic college writing class. if you do that in a college like cornell -- the one coulter attended -- you'd get thrown out of your class with an immediate f.
Far be it from me to point out the obvious, but this quibbling is much-ado-about-nothing in a presumed attempt to detract from the actual points of the argument - which is Adult Stem Cells have yielded far more benefits than that of Fetal Stem Cells. In other words, abortion isn't somehow justified over Fetal Stem Cells. this is not about the argument. this a critique of her book. and "parts of it are plagiarized" is a valid critique. coulter is simply guilty of intellectual dishonesty, whether she is right or wrong. and yes -- i did apply the same standard to michael moore. you'll find that i have also argued that he is intellectually dishonest as well, because he also misrepresents sources. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Hey, Jugs, I agree with you about her satirical humour. Look how Annie spoofs Sharon Stone http://www.3gpclip.com/...nn-coulter-flashing-donnie-deutsch well, that wouldn't happen if she had any thighs. seriously ann, eat something. we bleeding heart liberals are starting to worry about you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
yep. parentheticals aren't hard. neither are footnotes. maybe she just has a problem with parentheses? afterall, she did remove them from the bit she plagiarized from the illinois right to life website...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
There is a song by Hamell on Trail called "Coulter's Snatch" I think you like it. i don't see how anyone could like coulter's snatch.
also, army of darkness rules
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024