Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ann Coulter (Is she hateful?)
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(3)
Message 76 of 274 (679078)
11-12-2012 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by foreveryoung
11-11-2012 7:36 PM


These are the most hateful people i have ever run into in my life. Even when they are trying their best to be polite, they cannot escape the fact that what they believe about conservatives ( they call them reactionaries and they call obama a conservative????) and christian fundamentalists is hateful by nature. Other's don't even try to be polite (Theodoric, Onifre), but they both despise the above categories of people with a vengeance. I think Coulter is only showing these kind of people for exactly who they are. It isn't any wonder then when colleges like Fordham University ban Coulter from speaking at their campuses.
Personally, I think it's never that good an idea to counter hatefulness with more hatefulness. It doesn't help the situation at all, and in fact makes it worse. So, (and speaking to everyone here) try not to get emotional about these types of things. If your position is reasonable, as you likely believe it to be, then reason, and not emotion, should carry the day. (Also, in these online discussions, keep in mind that there are human beings on the receiving end of whatever you say)
Having said that, I find it interesting how fiercely anti-Catholic foreveryoung and Faith are. (In my experience, the most radical fundamentalists tend to be anti-Catholic, and I wonder why)
Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by foreveryoung, posted 11-11-2012 7:36 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 77 of 274 (679081)
11-12-2012 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by foreveryoung
11-11-2012 7:36 PM


Edited by AdminModulous, : Off topic section hidden.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by foreveryoung, posted 11-11-2012 7:36 PM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-12-2012 12:19 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 78 of 274 (679092)
11-12-2012 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by foreveryoung
11-11-2012 9:30 PM


Justification
"Somebody has to give back these A-wipes what they have been giving to conservatives without consequence"
That pretty much sums up your position, doesn't it. When Ann Coulter called the president a retard, it need not be in response to anything President Obama said or did. It is enough that some liberal, say Al Franken, Theodoric or NoNukes, has been rude.
In fact often it is simply enough for Ann that the target of her comments be her opponent. When she claimed that 9/11 widows protesting the Iraq war were gleeful about their husbands deaths, what was Ann's justification?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by foreveryoung, posted 11-11-2012 9:30 PM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by kofh2u, posted 11-12-2012 12:06 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 79 of 274 (679098)
11-12-2012 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by NoNukes
11-12-2012 11:44 AM


Re: Justification
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic - hidden

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by NoNukes, posted 11-12-2012 11:44 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by subbie, posted 11-12-2012 12:16 PM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 82 by Panda, posted 11-12-2012 12:41 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(6)
Message 80 of 274 (679100)
11-12-2012 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by kofh2u
11-12-2012 12:06 PM


Re: Justification
Edited by AdminModulous, : hidden - off topic

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by kofh2u, posted 11-12-2012 12:06 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(6)
Message 81 of 274 (679102)
11-12-2012 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by kofh2u
11-12-2012 11:06 AM


Edited by AdminModulous, : hidden

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by kofh2u, posted 11-12-2012 11:06 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(3)
Message 82 of 274 (679106)
11-12-2012 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by kofh2u
11-12-2012 12:06 PM


Re: Justification
Edited by AdminModulous, : hidden

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by kofh2u, posted 11-12-2012 12:06 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 83 of 274 (679108)
11-12-2012 12:45 PM


We should all feel sorry for poor Ann Coulter. She is still suffering from the all gobs of brown acid she took in the muddy, rain-soaked audience at Woodstock. She is still on a Very Bad Trip. Thorazine could help that maybe still.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(3)
Message 84 of 274 (679110)
11-12-2012 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by foreveryoung
11-11-2012 9:22 PM


Name calling or not name calling has nothing whatsoever to do with christianity.
Let me guess, Matthew 5:21-24 isn't in your bible?
quote:
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
No, Sarah would not be upset. She knows exactly what Ann means by "retard" and whom it is directed toward. She also knows that Ann would never even dream of saying what some liberals have said about her down syndrome grandchild. Now, that is downright nasty, hateful mockery. "retard" is a common word in english slang and Sarah is not hung up on poltically correct usage of words.
quote:
The Obama Administration’s Chief of Staff scolded participants, calling them, F---ing retarded, according to several participants, as reported in the Wall Street Journal.
Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the N-word or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities and the people who love them is unacceptable, and it’s heartbreaking. -- Sarah Palin
source
Of course, that was when a Democrat did it. When someone batting for the same team does it, I don't know what her reaction will be (silence, it seems, for the moment).
It was the president of the college who loudly protested the invitation from the republican club at the college.
I'm not sure how penning an open letter constitutes, 'loud protestation', so perhaps you have more info than me on this subject?
It was this protest that prompted the club to retract the invitation.
Well, technically, it prompted them to research Ann Coulter more, and upon so doing, they decided to retract the invitation:
quote:
Looking at the concerns raised about Ms. Coulter, many of them reasonable, we have determined that some of her comments do not represent the ideals of the College Republicans and are inconsistent with both our organization’s mission and the University’s. We regret that we failed to thoroughly research her before announcing; that is our error and we do not excuse ourselves for it
You don't see that the republican club caving into pressure from the the President of Fordham is exactly equivalent to Fordham banning Coulter?
So no we've established that you are calling the spokesperson for the Republican Club a liar - the next step is asking for the evidence to support your hypothesis that the club 'caved to pressure', presumably having to lie under duress. Or does it just suit your purposes to believe that's what must have happened?

Is Ann Coulter hateful? Maybe, I wouldn't know. I believe she is, or at least has been, quite the influence in American discourse, but here in the UK she is practically unheard of. All I know is from the occasional time she says or does something that makes it onto whatever corners of the blogosphere or the various fora of the 'net I happen to be moving across. And that's generally not good.
America does have itself a serious culture war going on, and Ann Coulter certainly seems a competent warrior for the 'other side'. My impression however, seems to be that her influence is waning and I can't help but think that the Obama-is-a-retard comment was an attempt on her part to still be considered relevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by foreveryoung, posted 11-11-2012 9:22 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by foreveryoung, posted 11-12-2012 2:10 PM Modulous has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 85 of 274 (679113)
11-12-2012 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Modulous
11-12-2012 12:55 PM


modulous writes:
Let me guess, Matthew 5:21-24 isn't in your bible?
Let me guess, you have no idea how to refute my point?
How in the world, does that bible verse refute my claim that name calling is not what disqualifies you as being a christian?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Modulous, posted 11-12-2012 12:55 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Modulous, posted 11-12-2012 2:48 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
ooh-child
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 242
Joined: 04-10-2009


(2)
Message 86 of 274 (679117)
11-12-2012 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by foreveryoung
11-11-2012 7:36 PM


Ann Coulter's secret
Hey FEY - I'll let you in on the sideshow that is Ann Coulter. She doesn't believe half of the stuff she spouts, so if you think she's serious when she's berating liberals then you've been duped yourself.
Back when she decided to parlay her education & contacts into a pundit/book writer in order to support herself, she quickly realized the platform over in the conservative entertainment media arena was much better suited for her looks & expertise. She's an actor, not an acolyte.
Sometimes the real Ann slips out, like when she accurately predicted a Republican loss if Romney was selected as their nominee. But it's not because she's a 'true believer', it's really a function of her need to be mentioned in the next 24 hour news cycle.
She's very good at her deceptions, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by foreveryoung, posted 11-11-2012 7:36 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(5)
Message 87 of 274 (679121)
11-12-2012 2:47 PM


Much of the "debate" thus far has revolved around a basic tu quoque fallacy. The line of reasoning is that Ann COulter's hateful rhetoric is somehow "excused" or "justified" because it is a "response" to other hate from the "left."
This is irrelevant. When you say that you hope or wish for someone to die, when you call someone a "retard," you are being hateful. Whether your target was or was not previously hateful is irrelevant.
Ann Coulter is absolutely hateful, or rather, she espouses hateful rhetoric.
quote:
I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm... so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions.
quote:
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.
quote:
Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslimsat least all terrorists capable of assembling a murderous plot against America that leaves 7,000 people dead in under two hours.
quote:
I think [women] should be armed but should not vote ... women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it ... it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.
quote:
When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.
quote:
My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.
quote:
Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do.
quote:
It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact.
I could go on. Generally what she's doing it an attempt to "humorously" phrase her arguments, and typically she's addressing a specific audience - "preaching to the choir," basically. The primary audience of Fox News likes to get all riled up against "liberals," not entirely unlike how a lot of liberals (myself included) used to enjoy getting a little riled up by Olberman when he was on MSNBC (though, to my recollection, Olberman never suggested that an entire subset of Americans lose their right to vote, or expressed a wish that Fox News would be bombed).
Is there "hateful rhetoric" on "both sides?" Of course there is. We all call each other idiots and worse. Some of us are worse about it than others.
But at the end of the day, what matters is not who said the most insulting words, or who was more angry.
What matters are the policies themselves, and the world that they would bring. Politics, especially American politics, has long been something like competing soccer hooligans, a simile I've used often. We have our sides; what the other side says is wrong, and what our side says is right, and we don;t really think at all about what's actually being said so much as who said it and in what way.
Look at the Presidential debates - we hat talking heads going on for hours about how the electorate would respond to which candidate was too nice or too mean, as if that matters one bit for the running of the country, whether the government should be able to regulate environmental emissions, the future of the "War on terror," or how best to continue or speed up economic recovery!
The only way to stop all of the partisan bickering and nonsense is for everyone to recognize that we really do all have the same goal: we want the country we live in to prosper, and we just have different ideas about how that can be achieved.
Pursuant to that, we need to sit down and talk about actual discrete policies and their measured results. We need to think about our support of policies beyond the basic snap-judgement used in politics today, and actually look at the effects of a policy. We know with certainty, for example, that "abstinance-only" sex ed does not work; rather, counties using "abstinance-only" suffer from significantly higher teen pregnancy rates than do districts teaching sex ed in a more comprehensive manner including use of condoms. It's not a matter of moral judgement, you enforce your morals on your children as parents, not as voters for the school board. It's not a matter of condoning teen sex. It's a matter of deciding which world you'd rather live in: the one with more, or fewer teen pregnancies. That's it.
Choose your policy based on the results you want, and to hell with which "side" thinks what.
Focusing on which political blowhard is the "most hateful" just feeds into the cycle and worsens the distraction away from actual policy decisions and their expected results. We're choosing the politics of personality instead of intelligently analyzing policy proposals and determining our support through the use of projections created with the use of real-world data.
Of course, I don't think humanity as a species is ready for that. Our culture thrives on the drama of personality politics and tribalistic separations. There is "us" and there is "them." But I'd really, really like to be surprised.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 88 of 274 (679122)
11-12-2012 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by foreveryoung
11-12-2012 2:10 PM


Let me guess, you have no idea how to refute my point?
It's too early to tell, you didn't address the alleged refutations.
How in the world, does that bible verse refute my claim that name calling is not what disqualifies you as being a christian?
I wasn't addressing your claim that name calling is not what disqualifies you as being a Christian. If you had made that claim, I would have agreed with it. I was just pointing out that Christianity does indeed have something to say on the matter of getting angry to the point of name calling, so saying it has 'nothing whatsoever to do with christianity' is just not true. I would agree that Christian teachings don't spend a lot of time on name calling, but its not so absent as to say that it is 'nothing whatsoever to do with' it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by foreveryoung, posted 11-12-2012 2:10 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by foreveryoung, posted 11-12-2012 3:20 PM Modulous has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 89 of 274 (679129)
11-12-2012 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Panda
11-12-2012 5:10 AM


Re: evidence / Fordham conservative? Ha!
OMA provides a variety of resources to help facilitate an engaged campus community that proactively explores topics of diversity, including race and ethnicity, gender, culture, sexual identity, socioeconomic status, religious orientation, ability, international concerns, social justice and oppression.
...and a conservative college would not explore those things?
Do conservatives have no interest in socio-economic status?
Are conservatives uninterested in international concerns?
Are conservatives against social justice?
Do conservatives lack culture?
Do you think that conservatives do NOT actively explore topics of diversity, including race and ethnicity, gender, culture, sexual identity, socio-economic status, religious orientation, ability, international concerns, social justice and oppression?
What exactly are you claiming??
First of all I'm claiming that those terms are liberal flag words, right out of the Political Correctness handbook. "Multiculturalism" "gender" "sexual identity" "social justice and oppression" straight from the Liberal Agenda.
Oh not that they don't have ordinary meanings for ordinary naive people, which perhaps you are, but a conservative recognizes them as PC flag words for the Liberal Agenda, otherwise sometimes known as Cultural Marxism. I guess the propagandists have done their work well since you don't even know these are liberal terms.
As for what conservatives do, or conservative universities, conservatism is in such disarray these days there may be no such thing any more, and they may do all kinds of liberal things in their confusion.
But I don't know.
The old fashioned sort of extracurricular list would have had a more academic focus, you know, Honor Society, French Club (or Latin or Greek or German), Arts Club, Writers Club, Music Club, Computer Club, Science Club, Debate Club, Community Service Club, Political Science Club and so on.
instead of sitting around "exploring" personal attributes and situations and making a fetish or a "cause" out of them.
I guess liberals don't know they are liberals these days.
Edited by Faith, : add signature

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Panda, posted 11-12-2012 5:10 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by foreveryoung, posted 11-12-2012 3:24 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 136 by Panda, posted 11-13-2012 7:15 AM Faith has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 90 of 274 (679131)
11-12-2012 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Modulous
11-12-2012 2:48 PM


modulous writes:
I wasn't addressing your claim that name calling is not what disqualifies you as being a Christian. If you had made that claim, I would have agreed with it. I was just pointing out that Christianity does indeed have something to say on the matter of getting angry to the point of name calling, so saying it has 'nothing whatsoever to do with christianity' is just not true. I would agree that Christian teachings don't spend a lot of time on name calling, but its not so absent as to say that it is 'nothing whatsoever to do with' it.
Yes, the bible says alot about getting angry and the use of the tongue, but the original point that I was making was in response to the following from subbie.
subbie writes:
My question to you is whether you consider the kind of name calling the GOP does to be Christian?
Name calling is neither Christian nor buddhist or muslim or whatever. It is a human behavior shared by all. It has nothing to do with what Christianity is all about. That was my point. I'm not saying Christianity has nothing to say about the subject. Name calling is not a distinguishing characteristic of Christians. Avoiding name calling is not a distinguishing characteristic of Christians. It is a distinguishing characteristic of those who are always polite no matter what the circumstances. If is more of a distinguishing characteristic of some than others, but whether one is christian or not does not make them any less likely to name call especially under extenuating circumstances. I could have answered subbie better with something like this:
Name calling is not the calling card of the GOP and lack of name calling is not the calling card of the Christian so the question is ridiculous and moot and is merely antagonistic in nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Modulous, posted 11-12-2012 2:48 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Modulous, posted 11-12-2012 4:14 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 96 by Genomicus, posted 11-12-2012 4:29 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024