Intolerance at websites.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GePap
Boris, that's a lot of words to waste on Ben, you know?

I know.

It's a wonder why I bother, since he won't address the real points, anyway.

[GePap]

Bill Maher is a Liberterian.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I know.

It's a wonder why I bother, since he won't address the real points, anyway.

That's why I stopped posting in such threads. When you get to the multiple-threads-in-one-thread stage, it's time to call quits.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by JohnT

They have gone above and beyond the normal level of vitriol of the past few decades since '94.

:counts on fingers... 1... :

Uh, Che?

Past few decades would be the 60s through the 80s.

[Odin]

Scarbourogh is full of himself thinking he knows everything about Red America and Carlson is preppy tw*t (get rid of the bowtie for God's sake).

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I have new respect for Apolyton because it is one of the few locations where people can intelligently debate most issues without things degenerating into outright flamefests and name calling. Everyone knows about far right wing sites which spout ignorance and attempt to silence debate but I'm surprised at the large number of suposedly enlightened leftist websites which are equally intolerate. Mention that you're an Iraq war vet at these sites and you get called a baby killer and a militarist before people even find out what you did or what you political positions are. Heaven help you if you disagree with any of their dogma no matter how well reasoned or presented your case may be.

It's to bad because many of these people seem like intelligent well informed people but they seem to have thin skins which just won't tolerate any questioning or honest debate about their sacred cows. Sad really.

I just wanted to give poly a shout out for being better then these other places.

* In the following posts :










.....

[Lonestar]

Stardestroyer.net's board is great...although some of you pansies may be offended too easily.

MarkL started posting his usual tripe there, and was quickly smacked down. The population there has a low tolerance for dumbasses.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ming

What about Real Time with Bill Maher

I suppose Jon Stewart is a stalwart Republican.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
Bill Maher is a Liberterian.

More like Anarchist.

[Ben Kenobi]

IE deleted my reply to Boris.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you don't consider it influential because it's not something you like? Wow, what a revelation. I don't watch baseball, ergo it must not be a popular sport.

What you watch and personally like has no bearing on the rest of the world.

Granted, but it also exposes some of the narrowness of the definition that influence is in being a nationally syndicated columnist and being the best seller. I think my definition is broader, and less subject to the vagarities of current popularity.

Above most? So she isn't the only one who poisons the debate. Looking at gepap's list, there are plenty of liberals, and it confirms Ming's statement that the liberals are just as guilty as the conservatives. Who is to say that Ann imitated Rush anymore than she has imitated Al Franken?

As a sidenote, Dennis Miller a conservative?

Very few conservatives, overall, rely on reading folks like Will, Buckley, Brooks, etc. That's because most Americans get their news and commentary through major media outlets--cable news--and the internet. So most of these folks are seeing the Coulter-types pontificating, not the Will types. So what is it they dine on most? Coulter and her ilk.

Through mainstream media? I say ask again, and ask that you ask the majority of conservatives here on Apolyton. Since you aren't one yourself, how do you know that conservatives get their news from the mainstream media? Most of the ones that I know have checked out and rely upon independent sources that are more representative of their viewpoints than the mainstream.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/809110/posts

A quote of an entire article? That's not what I had in mind.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...24/171128.shtml

Better, but this would be better evidence right here, something I am going to do now.

The reason I liked it is that Grove quotes me – and the quotes are things I actually said! That is stunningly rare.

Whereupon Coulter goes on to demonstrate how many folks decline to actually quote her because they feel tainted by doing so.

And is a glowing article from that oh-so-unimportant conservative rag, the Wall Street Journal, perhaps evidence enough that conservatives find her influential?

For her style, or for what she has to say? It seems to me they quote her because of her points, rather than just for her style.

Thank you Boris.

No, Ben, already covered this: that doesn't mean anything is substantive. Popular does not equate to substantive.

Thank you. Then the fact that she is popular among conservatives says nothing about whether there is more substance than style. It is entirely irrelevant.

Funny how you singled out the one word "sober" and ignored the rest. Typical. No, that was just one aspect of the whole.

People use words like that for a reason, they aren't throwaway words.

In order to be substantive, one must present original ideas that merit discussion. Coulter doesn't--she just presents old ideas with new vitriol, and the few supposedly "new" ideas she's had (or at least, "unique") are hardly revelatory or worthy of debate (like, McCarthy was a swell guy, or we should be forcibly converting Muslims to Christianity, or conservatives should be threatening liberals with violence to shut them up).

I know she didn't say that because I actually read the article you are alluding to. Where did she say that Christians ought to forceably convert Muslims?

More hairsplitting. Pardon me if I see little different between "refute" (which is what I said) and "counter." At any rate, they have "countered" her, as the links I gave show. Your harping on pie-throwing by a very small handful of people as somehow indicative of a lack of counterargument is one of the more ludicrous fallacies I've seen you come up with.

Once again, answer the question! Why would they feel the need to pie Ms. Coulter, if they felt she had already been decisively refuted? All you have given here is a BAM, that because you posted links claiming to refute Ms. Coulter, that therefore it must be true.

Who knows? Frankly, pie throwing is a world of magnitude away from shooting people.

Thank you. Than your comparision of pie throwing to shooting abortion doctors is inflammatory and without merit.

I can present you with many choice quotes from Coulter that I would hope, at least, you would find repugnant. But all I see here is adulation from you for her. Should I take it you agree with her more purient notions, since you've not bothered to disagree with them yet?

An argument from silence? That since I have not disagreed with Ms. Coulter that I must agree with her. Cite one of these more 'prurient' and offensive comments, and see what I have to say.

As for adoration of Ms. Coulter, I think I have been rather evenhanded.

But it's pretty obvious to any thinking person that someone who goes out and murders an abortion doctor or bombs an abortion clinic is "prolife" in the sense of being against abortion.

Excuse me, but that's a double standard. If the liberals get to decide who counts as 'liberal' and who counts as a commie anarchist, then so do the prolifers. The prolifers say that it makes no sense to defend life by killing other people. Prolife is not about being against abortion, as they are labelled by the media. It would be the same as saying that if the prolifers are anti choice, or anti abortion, that the pro choice folks are anti life. You can't have it both ways. If the prolife folks are anti abortion, then the prochoice folks are pro abortion.

That's a big duhh.

Not at all.

Huh? I used the term prolifer. What the hell are you talking about? False accusations of deliberate evasions on my part from you are funny, considering your own evasion. See below.

You even use quote marks around prolifer in your last statement? Why?

[quote]
No, Ben. Simple logic--you claim that, out of frustration of their not being a refutation of Coulter's arguments, liberals resort to throwing pies. So any refutations of her arguments--from liberals or otherwise--counters your claims. [quote]

Actually, I claimed that liberals did not have a refutation of Ms. Coulter's argument. Get it right. Non partisan sources are irrelevant.

Secondly, if I were to post that Ann Coulter sucks, would that be considered a refutation? No. Yet you say here:

The point of showing a site that was non-partisan was also to show that refutations of her noxious writing exist outside of a supposed liberal bias against her.

What refutations? It's easy to demolish a strawman as you have done in this thread by quoting what you wish Ann Coulter said, rather than what she actually said.

I answered the question, Ben. You ignored it, as usual. First, pieing by a few radicals is in no way indicative of their being a lack of refutation. The logical connection just isn't there, since those who are in the trenches of political discourse don't have a jot of control over free-wheeling radicals and what they choose to do.

Ah, so all these pie throwers are just free wheeling radicals with no connections to the established liberals who are above that sort of thing. Like Dennis Miller I suppose, eh?

What are the motivations behind those throwing pies? To express frusteration? To try to silence Ms. Coulter? What are they thinking Boris?

Second, you haven't shown in any fashion that the liberal columnists do approve of pieing.

Seeing as you have said my tacit lack of statements in favour of Ann Coulter means that I must accept her, I also do not see any condemnation of the pieing by the liberal columnists. Therefore, in their silence, they must really think pieing her was a good thing.

Thirdly, now to your own evasion. You didn't answer the question. If, as you have claimed, Michael Moore has been so cogently rebutted, to conservatives still issue death threats to him? If you think pie-throwing is indicative of a paucity of argument, I would only hope you would think at least the same of death threats.

Agreed. I didn't know they had issued death threats against him, and that is completely out of line.

Bull****. Is Tom Cruise popular? I would say so. Does he enjoy popularity amongst 50+% of the population? Highly doubt it. As I said, popularity is just having a large enough following to sustain a visible persona and peddle one's identity and wares. I'd say having four NYT best-sellers is indicative that one is popular.

At any rate, by your standard, there's no such as a popular conservative, anyway. So Coulter still comes out ahead of the rest in the popularity stakes.

Are their any popular liberals? That's an interesting question. I would suspect fellows such as Ronald Reagan would be considered popular even my by more stringent definition.

[quote]
No, the problem is that I don't give a rat's ass what Coulter says about morality because she doesn't even live up to her own standards. I'll listen to the Pope, though I disagree with what he says. I never said a thing about Coulter's arguments being wrong because of her behavior--merely that it means she has no moral authority on which to make such statements.

Nope. You said she was wrong because she didn't live up to her own standards. But now that you have changed your statement, then I have nothing further left to say. Saying that she has no moral authority, I can't very well disagree.

I do know he HAS received death threats. And that one from a radio host was pretty prominent. This to me seems to be the conservative mode of attack. Helms gave a vague threat to Clinton should he visit NC, Right-wing nuts blow up federal buildings and shoot abortion doctors, or they send death threats (see how many Judge Greer in the Schiavo case got).

Don't forget the unabomber, or how every single terrorist in the united states is a card carrying conservative. How liberals all have their hands clean of such atrocities, and never would do anything wrong to their opponents.

I have said earlier, and I will continue to say it. Violence achieves nothing. Violence cannot further any cause, rather it will hinder things in the long run. When Malcolm X says that the time has come for radical change, that change is not happening fast enough, I am not inclined to brand him a conservative.

All the prolifers condemn the bombing of abortion clinics, and the violence against abortion providers, and yet, you have, in one statement, condemned all of them, tarred them with the same brush, because of the actions of one person.

You say it is indicative of conservatives to issue death threats, and I say that you are fooling yourself.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I know she didn't say that because I actually read the article you are alluding to. Where did she say that Christians ought to forceably convert Muslims?

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." - Anne Coulter, September 13, 2001 National Review Column

-------

"ALAN COLMES (co-host): Would you like to convert these people [Muslims] all to Christianity?

COULTER: The ones that we haven't killed, yes.

COLMES: So no one should be Muslim. They should all be Christian?

COULTER: That would be a good start, yes."
- Anne Coulter, October 4, 2004 on Hannity and Colmes


Edit: Oops, here's another one:

"I am often asked if I still think we should invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. The answer is: Now more than ever!" - Anne Coulter, in How to Talk Like a Liberal

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Granted, but it also exposes some of the narrowness of the definition that influence is in being a nationally syndicated columnist and being the best seller. I think my definition is broader, and less subject to the vagarities of current popularity.

Your position is unsubstantiated to this day, however, by anything other than your assertion. And you just dismiss my support for my position because you don't want to believe it. Do you have any support for what you say?

Above most? So she isn't the only one who poisons the debate. Looking at gepap's list, there are plenty of liberals, and it confirms Ming's statement that the liberals are just as guilty as the conservatives. Who is to say that Ann imitated Rush anymore than she has imitated Al Franken?

Barring the fact that Franken is a humorist, not a pundit--when has Franken ever attacked the children of people on the other side, as Limbaugh has? When has ever called conservatives traitors?

I don't think any of those liberals on the list can hold a candle to Coulter, Limbaugh and Hannity in the vitriol department.

As a sidenote, Dennis Miller a conservative?

Do you even watch him? He's a staunch Republican.

Through mainstream media? I say ask again, and ask that you ask the majority of conservatives here on Apolyton. Since you aren't one yourself, how do you know that conservatives get their news from the mainstream media? Most of the ones that I know have checked out and rely upon independent sources that are more representative of their viewpoints than the mainstream.

Most of the ones I know watch Fox News, read the Drudge Report and listen to Limbaugh on the radio. Considering these sources outperform all other conservative opinion outlets by miles, just what, besides personal incredulity, do you have to base your argument on?

For her style, or for what she has to say? It seems to me they quote her because of her points, rather than just for her style.

So will you admit the WSJ quoting her is a sign she is an influential conservative, finally?

Thank you. Then the fact that she is popular among conservatives says nothing about whether there is more substance than style. It is entirely irrelevant.

I never said it did--so this is yet another straw man. I emphatically said this wasn't the case.

People use words like that for a reason, they aren't throwaway words.

I didn't say otherwise, but you took the word out of it's context. That's dishonest.

I know she didn't say that because I actually read the article you are alluding to. Where did she say that Christians ought to forceably convert Muslims?

Once again your "knowledge" is circumspect. Thank you, Kontiki, for the actual quotes. Tell me, what weaseling will you have for that? That even though she's advocating invading them and killing their leaders, the conversion itself will be peaceful? Right.

Once again, answer the question! Why would they feel the need to pie Ms. Coulter, if they felt she had already been decisively refuted? All you have given here is a BAM, that because you posted links claiming to refute Ms. Coulter, that therefore it must be true.

What are the motivations behind those throwing pies? To express frusteration? To try to silence Ms. Coulter? What are they thinking Boris?

A BAM to refute a BAM is so bad for you? You've offered nothing but your own assertion--sans any proof--that this is the reason for pie-throwing, and you've refused to answer the same question as it relates to people making death threats on Moore.

I don't know what motivates the pie-throwers (we're talking, what, 5-6 people? Maybe 10, tops?). Nor do I care. It's probably different for each thrower. The point is, whatever it is has little relation to the status of existing refutations to Coulter's arguments, and you've failed to show any connection.

Thank you. Than your comparision of pie throwing to shooting abortion doctors is inflammatory and without merit.

Oh please. I don't think

An argument from silence? That since I have not disagreed with Ms. Coulter that I must agree with her.

You really have gall. This is EXACTLY what you're accusing the liberal pundits of doing! And it's exactly why I mentioned it! Your own logic leads to the above conclusion, not mine.

Excuse me, but that's a double standard. If the liberals get to decide who counts as 'liberal' and who counts as a commie anarchist, then so do the prolifers. The prolifers say that it makes no sense to defend life by killing other people. Prolife is not about being against abortion, as they are labelled by the media.

You even use quote marks around prolifer in your last statement? Why?

Blame the media for what MOST people who call themselves Pro-life believe? That's rich. Richly absurd.

Look, Ben: Like it or not, most people who call themselves "pro-life" aren't "pro-life" in the sense you mean. Most of these people are perfectly happy about the death penalty and also happily supported Bush's march to war. That's the difference, because commie anarchist's aren't considering themselves liberals. These people *do* consider themselves pro-life, and they make up the majority. Sorry, you don't get to decide that--it's the truth about the movement. Randall Terry, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed--these are all the posterboys of pro-life in America, and they are also pro-Death Penalty. Whining about it changes nothing.

So a guy shooting an abortion doctor who believes he's doing God's work to save unborn babies can certainly be "pro-life." After all, he believes his crime will ultimately save more than it harms.

Does his act mean the entire pro-life movement is wrong? Of course not, since a movement can't control what a few individuals do. (Ding ding ding, that's a major point there, if you missed it.)

It would be the same as saying that if the prolifers are anti choice, or anti abortion, that the pro choice folks are anti life. You can't have it both ways. If the prolife folks are anti abortion, then the prochoice folks are pro abortion.

This is absolutely stupid logic. Care to try again? Research "false dichotomy."

What refutations? It's easy to demolish a strawman as you have done in this thread by quoting what you wish Ann Coulter said, rather than what she actually said.

This isn't about the actual refutations, and I have no desire to delve into them, given how long and pointless this is already. I let the links I provide, and more that exists on the net, as they are. Read them instead of just whining about them. Unless your purpose here isn't to actually, you know, fairly consider her points, but just to score argumenting points.

That's why your complaining about the ONE (out of several) non-partisan link just doesn't hold up. If, as you believe, pie-throwing is dependent on whether or not there are refutations to Coulter's arguments, then it simply doesn't matter WHO makes the refutations. That you demand it just be from liberals is a senseless goalpost.

Ah, so all these pie throwers are just free wheeling radicals with no connections to the established liberals who are above that sort of thing. Like Dennis Miller I suppose, eh?

Do you have any evidence as to who or what they are? You whine about associating abortion doctor shooters to your movement sans evidence (which I only did to illustrate a point, not to say I really believed it), but just assume the pie-throwers are all of a particular stripe. But you don't know, do you?

Anarchists, communists, socialists, libertarians--all are also possible candidates, since Coulter represents values they all find repugnant. How do you know the aren't pie-throwers?

Seeing as you have said my tacit lack of statements in favour of Ann Coulter means that I must accept her, I also do not see any condemnation of the pieing by the liberal columnists. Therefore, in their silence, they must really think pieing her was a good thing.

Oh man! How on earth could you lose track of the argument so badly? Do you even read before posting?

Ben, I will yet again spell it out for you: YOU first claimed that the lack of condemnation from liberal pundits meant tacit approval. I countered that by saying that such logic would mean you therefore must accept all of Coulter, since you don't condemn the bad things she says. Same law of tacit approval. BUT I don't really believe it, I was just illustrating why YOUR logic was quite, quite flawed. That you've now turned around and said this is just the proof I needed! Thank you so much!

Are their any popular liberals? That's an interesting question. I would suspect fellows such as Ronald Reagan would be considered popular even my by more stringent definition.

Reagan's dead--sorry to break the news to you. And he hadn't been making any waves for a while, anyway. This is completely irrelevant to who is the most influential among current conservative pundits.

Don't forget the unabomber, or how every single terrorist in the united states is a card carrying conservative. How liberals all have their hands clean of such atrocities, and never would do anything wrong to their opponents.

I have said earlier, and I will continue to say it. Violence achieves nothing. Violence cannot further any cause, rather it will hinder things in the long run. When Malcolm X says that the time has come for radical change, that change is not happening fast enough, I am not inclined to brand him a conservative.

All the prolifers condemn the bombing of abortion clinics, and the violence against abortion providers, and yet, you have, in one statement, condemned all of them, tarred them with the same brush, because of the actions of one person.

You say it is indicative of conservatives to issue death threats, and I say that you are fooling yourself.

You do it again! I challenge your own logic by simply reversing it to the other side, and now you get in a hissy over it! Could you shoot yourself in the foot any worse?

No, Ben, I don't really think it's indicative of conservatives. I was simply illustrating the point that flipping your logic to the other side yields these results. But you obviously can't hack it when the shoe's on the other foot!

I honestly didn't intend this as a trap for you, but it seems you've made it one just the same. I never knew you couldn't grasp hypotheticals at all...