Here's a description of the contents of her newest book:
Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion itself. In Godless, Ann Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us:
- Its sacraments (abortion)
- Its holy writ (Roe v. Wade)
- Its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal)
- Its clergy (public school teachers)
- Its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free)
- Its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland)
- And its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)
Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted. But Coulter neatly refutes the charade that liberals are rationalists guided by the ideals of free inquiry and the scientific method. She exposes the essential truth about Darwinian evolution that liberals refuse to confront: it is bogus science.
How many lies can you count in that?
Now here's the best part: guess who is her source on matters of evolution?
I'm happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism.
That is so typical of Coulter's research: find the most wrong-headed fool around and parrot his ill-informed opinions. This is going to be world-class suckage. This book is going to be a black hole of reason—reading it is going be like sticking your brain in a Cuisanart. What we're going to find in there is all the lies and nonsense we can expect to hear echoed back at us for the next decade, the dishonest crap that every clueless wingnut bozo is going to absorb instead of real science.
And I'm going to have to read it. For I so love the world that I will sacrifice my neurons to bring my people rebuttals.
- Log in to post comments
That has to be the most absurd book ever. I would honestly not be surprised if one day she said "Okay, I made it all up. I am really a liberal democrat and I just wrote books like this to satyrize the conservative christians and make money off them at the same time."
If I may point out, a decent single malt scotch provides an ablative layer around the neurons. A few shots of Lagavullin should be able to save at least 50% of the neurons, given that you limit your exposure properly.
And the Lagavulin won't cost any more than the Coulter per neuron destroyed, and the experience will be far more pleasant.
Out with those old dependable neurons, in with the new mindlessness:
My brain is dead, long live Ann Coulter!
I [a public school science teacher] am a clergy member?!? What sort of benefits do I get with that? Can I perform marriages? Funeral rites? How does this affect my 1040 (I know, little late for 2005).
This Coulter person is another Jerry Springer variant...just in written form.
(One of many good reasons not to subscribe to Human Events.)
Shit like this bugs me because it seems designed to provoke reactionary rightward moves by the Dems. Without tripe like 'Godless' we'd probably see less foolishness like Melinda Barton's column on Raw Story, and most of the stuff Amy Sullivan writes on religion.
You're going to have to bathe your neurons in someting after that. Single malt scotch might be enough. I recommend multiple treatments.
I do not intend on reading it. I hope, when you do, that you're going to check the book out of a library. I'd hate to see her get any money out of your review. :)
Think I'll just let MarkCC do a little talking for me, since he's so good with Dembski's bad math:
Dembski, King of Bad Math
One "Last" Stab at Dembski
Q&A Roundup
Dembski and Displacement
I do wish that she had played the part of Elle Driver in Kill Bill, esp. vol II.
Just to hear Michael Madsen refer to her as a "hateful bitch" with a "bony ass," would not only be true, it'd be an artistic triumph.
Maybe the character was patterned after Coulter. Except for the eyepatch.
Mumia Abu Jamal? I haven't heard that name since I was about 16. Is that really the best she can do?
Look on the bright side - at least if you end up in a comatose state with a liquefied brain, the right-wingers will, presumably, fight their hardest to keep you alive.
If liberalism "bears all the attributes of a religion" then that's good, isn't it? I thought the rightwingers were in favor of faith-based communities. Could it be that when the shoe's on the other foot, they actually recognize that dogma is a poor substitute for reason?
I just wonder whether is this stuff real, or is it an overworking induced hallucination ?
Excellent observation, PaulC. It's one of those things that's so obvious, I can't believe I missed it.
I heard a lot about Mumia Abu Jamal -- I lived in Philly, after all. And as liberal as I am, I was convinced that he committed the crime, and was rightly convicted.
Of course, I do oppose the death penalty.
I think that Coulter should be a technical unit for neuron loss. Every lost neuron counts as 1Co. You read this book, and you loose 3MCo.
Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith,
She hasn't been to a lot of the churches that I've been too. The church I use to go to in Berkeley was very strongly politically liberal. The one I used to go to in Nashville practically took an acceptance of socialism as a sacrament.
There are *lots* of liberals out there who are not only religious, but who see their religion as leading them to their liberal political philosophy.
-Rob
Sigh. Cornell should just send Will Provine to her house to tear up her diploma.
And I'm going to have to read it. For I so love the world that I will sacrifice my neurons to bring my people rebuttals.
I know I'm not alone in my appreciation for this effort, but how obvious does the downward spiral of her limp career have to be before she no longer merits this sort of attention?
(Incidently, Shakespeare's Sister has a link to a description of Coulter's Hate-a-thon at Loyola-Chicago.)
I have a coworker who can't resist needling me about my belief in "astrology" (I'm an amateur astronomer), and every time, like an idiot, I swallow the troll hook and lash out. I feel the same way with AC. I know she can't believe this crap, but I just can't let stupidity slap me in the face unchallenged.
Please forward this to Coulter ...
By all her definitions, I'm a "liberal".
But she makes one fundamental mistake.
Liberalism IS NOT A CHURCH.
It contains many different views, and it has NO Sacraments, other, perhaps that the voice of reason, rather than "revealed truth" be heard.
She is a deliberate public liar.
P.S. I would recommend large doses of anything ( in the nature of the Water of Life ) from Islay, or alternatively, a lot of Talisker, to dull the pain of realising that cretins like her are loose on this planet!
Shit like this bugs me because it seems designed to provoke reactionary rightward moves by the Dems. Without tripe like 'Godless' we'd probably see less foolishness like Melinda Barton's column on Raw Story, and most of the stuff Amy Sullivan writes on religion.
Moderate that comment up! You're exactly right, JP, and that tactic is most definitely a major part of the right's strategy.
Who believes that Jesus would really be behind a foul-mouthed, hateful woman who only says what gets her ratings?
Also, she says "Its sacraments (abortion)." Wouldn't that sacrament [singular], not plural? Well, I guess Jesus didn't check his grammar either.
What the hell is it with right-wingers and blondes?
I saw Ann Coulter in Al Franken's new film, God Spoke. That woman is wound so tight, she carries herself like a compressed bed spring. She came off as tense, humorless, and downright bitter. I don't understand the extreme love-hate that she invites. (Even Franken exulted about her blond locks, during one of those obligatory, Sunday-school-circle questions requiring them to each say what they "like" about the other.)
I wonder, does she talk about her own faith God in her new book, or just criticize the godlessness of others? Because I cannot imagine her praying or asking any deity for anything. Maybe she bitches at God to get His f-ing act together every once in a while, and calls that religion, but for some strange reason I can only imagine her "losing her religion" all the time.
What the hell is it with right-wingers and blondes?
I'd tell you, but that would invoke Godwin's Law.
This is the first time this poor naive sap has seen a book about politics use a religious pseudoscience to proclaim standard science bogus. I guess astrology makes astronomy bogus then. In fact this reasoning makes pretty much all science bogus. Nice going, Coulter.
So I must agree with the brain loss measure coulter [Co]. (Being SI the full unit should begin with a small letter.) Can we sue Human Events since they make the contrafactual statement that reading their crap is "completely risk-free"?
Hoot mon! I stuck my brain in a cuisinart and it cured my embarassing verbal tics. Anne should try it sometime soon.
Paul wrote:
"Are you ready for Coulter?"
First of all, I don't give a rat's ass about anything Ann Coulter says. I agree with Eric Alterman:
""Time's cover story/whitewash of Ann Coulter will make it impossible for serious people to accept what the magazine reports at face-value ever again. It is as if Time had contracted a journalistic venereal disease from Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and is now seeking to lower itself to their level in pursuit of their ideologically-obsessed audiences."
Why anyone even listens to these morons is beyond me.
But you are using her despicable book to attack your real target: Bill Dembski.
Now I don't give a rat's ass about Bill Dembski either and I certainly do not defend his views on religious creationism.
But "Intelligent Design", is nothing more than a convenient "straw man" for you and other neo-darwinian evolutionists.
You seem to think that if you defeat Behe and Dembski's premises and the thinking of the Discovery Institute that all of your problems will go away.
I do not represent the Discovery Institute, I am not a religious creationist and I do not defend Michael Behe, Bill Dembski or the "Intelligent Design Movement"
And you have been unable to address my criticisms, choosing instead to ignore them.
But they will not go away. There is still no empirical evidence that provides any support for the view that a neo-darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection is the mechanism that was responsible for the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems that are found in living organisms.
At best, we can conclude that changes have occurred over time, that living organisms are related to each other and that there is some evidence to suggest the possibility of a common origin.
But there is not one shred of empirical evidence that a neo-darwinian mechanism was responsible or that this evolution was not simply the unfolding of an algorithm, a set of instructions, that were programmed into the genome when it first arrived on earth.
Since development of the adult organism from its first few cells into a functional entity with countless structures, processes and systems is known to be controlled by a set of instructions embedded in the DNA of the genome, why is it so difficult to envision that the evolution of life on earth is not similarly controlled by a pre-existing set of instructions?
I may pass on to my reward before this issue is resolved, but resolved it will be, unfortunately, not in your favor. My suggestion to you is to think ahead of the curve. Denounce neo-darwinism and learn to live with the fact that at the present time, we just do not know the answer.
OT: From Monday's New York Times:
"Baker, Bush Family Fixer, Will Advise President On Iraq"
http://tinyurl.com/mr43q
Sometimes the most important news is buried on the back pages.
Books like this are what happens when you get ahead by screwing around with the boss (read: Dick Scaife).
As with every other time I have to deal with any of Coulter's idiocy, I ask the same thing: "Where the hell are Sigourney Weaver and a forklift when you need 'em?"
I have a gut feeling Charlie is one of those people who didn't do his homework. And that his last name is "Wagner".
Is it just me, or would being injected with sodium pentothal and pancuronium bromide would be a far more enjoyable and constructive thing to do than read Miss Coulter's book?
Bronze Dog wrote:
"I have a gut feeling Charlie is one of those people who didn't do his homework. And that his last name is "Wagner".
It is indeed Wagner. I can't seem to get this registration thing right. My profile (which I carefully filled out) is not showing either. Hard cheese!
And I have done my homework. Go to Google Groups and search for all my posts for the last 10 years.
Charlie that was the most reasonable post I've seen yet during the admittedly short period of time I've monitored the wacky world of PZ Myers & Co.
And for that reason I believe you are correct in your assumption that it is destined to be wholly ignored.
Because for all of the work that is done by PZ and his readers to reassure themselves that they are indeed the possessors of THE TRUTH, the amphigory they rely on to convey that message to each other must by it's inherent nature rely on the rhetorical devices more properly employed by THE CONFUSED and THE FRIGHTENED (logical fallacies and most prominently ad hominum for instance).
I really can't add to what you've provided but I thought it was important that you know that it did reach an audience, however small.
I may pass on to my reward before this issue is resolved, but resolved it will be, unfortunately, not in your favor. My suggestion to you is to think ahead of the curve. Denounce neo-darwinism and learn to live with the fact that at the present time, we just do not know the answer. - Chuck
Ok, is it just me, or are there some contradictory assertions in this paragraph? Which is it, buddy? Do we know the answer or not? I think you think you know the answer, but since you can't substantiate that, you're only going to assert that the rest of us don't know the answer. Or something. Sort it out and come back and explain it to us.
Well, you still made Creationist Claim #CA202. Unless you'd like to provide me with a direct link demonstrating value behind that claim, don't bother making me Google for you. It's hard enough sifting through your longer posts for anything that's not inherently fallacious.
Besides, you must understand that in the present issue before us (Coulter) the fact that there is a woman who is so much smarter and more successful than they (not to say better looking) has to be an especially bitter pill for these folks to swallow.
Pity.
So Charlie Wagner's is the most reasonable post on Pharyngula, while Coulter is smart and good-looking.
I get it--it's Opposite Day!
The problem I have with people like Coulter is that they base their arguments entirely on propaganda tactics like straw men, sweeping generalizations, and The Big Lie, specifically, in this case, Dembski's bad math.
I know I'm guilty of generalizations plenty of times, but my brushes are nowhere near as broad as Coulter's seems to be, and I'm always open to correction.
And I'm going to have to read it. For I so love the world that I will sacrifice my neurons to bring my people rebuttals.
Properly documenting and rebutting all the lies in this book is going to be a full-time job and will probably result in its own book. You'll have to take sabbatical from your job and a hiatus from blogging for at least a year. See you again in mid-2007!
Coulter is just what Limbaugh would be if he was slim, female, and blonde. It says much about the quality of our society when people who with nearly every breath exhale hate and venom are so popular.
If I may point out, a decent single malt scotch provides an ablative layer around the neurons. A few shots of Lagavullin should be able to save at least 50% of the neurons, given that you limit your exposure properly.
Are you still waiting on a certain someone to pay off on a bet?
Besides, you must understand that in the present issue before us (Coulter) the fact that there is a woman who is so much smarter and more successful than they (not to say better looking) has to be an especially bitter pill for these folks to swallow.
Yes you've nailed it on the head. Great job Dr. Laura.
Let me guess: JMcH? That's at about the level of civility and intellectual integrity that he's become famous for. That would be a low blow even if it wasn't a bald-faced lie.
As for Ann Coulter, she's about as intelligent as the feces she flings. Beyond her many egregious errors of fact and logic (already covered at length by other commenters; I try to avoid redundancy, even if my opponents predictably fail to avoid red herrings) she seems to systematically provide aid and comfort to public figures who encapsulate the additive inverse of American values (you know, all that stuff in the preamble of the document the Republican party has been using for toilet paper since the mid-80s at the latest). She defended McCarthy and Nixon, ffs. I bet by 2020 she'll have a book out extolling how Adolf Hitler was the victim of liberal propoganda and conspiracies, and that's why he's so villified today.
Considering that she relying on Bill Dembski's dodgy, deliberately obfuscating math says that she's not "much smarter" and/or very dishonest herself. Unless Bill's come up with some new, honest, and airtight attempt at a smackdown I haven't seen yet, that's where I'm standing.
And, of course, this whole "they're jealous" thing is just a red herring designed to distract people from the arguments and make them focus on the completely irrelevant topic of the arguers.
"As for Ann Coulter, she's about as intelligent as the feces she flings."
An interesting choice of metaphor Az., since it is in fact Coulter's detractors who, after having had their ears pinned back (rhetorically speaking) have been reduced to throwing things.
No one could accuse Coulter of subtlety, but it is not often that she has been knocked from her position by attempts to debate it rationally..hence the childish fits of anger.
udargo wrote:
"Ok, is it just me, or are there some contradictory assertions in this paragraph? Which is it, buddy? Do we know the answer or not? I think you think you know the answer, but since you can't substantiate that, you're only going to assert that the rest of us don't know the answer. Or something. Sort it out and come back and explain it to us."
I thought I made that perfectly clear. We do NOT know the answer to the question "what is the mechanism of evolution. We have many hypotheses however, cosmic ancestry, neo-darwinism, "god did it" etc. No one mechanism has accumulated sufficient empirical evidence to be considered "most likely".
Things like the words "straw man". It's called rational discourse, and part of that is pointing out logical fallacies.
To quote a devilishly pretty friend of mine, "If liberalism is a church, somebody owes me an altar boy."
"Considering that she relying on Bill Dembski's dodgy, deliberately obfuscating math says that she's not "much smarter" and/or very dishonest herself."
I have not read Dembski(yet), so I cannot speak to his alleged dodgy-ness. However I have read quite a bit of what PZ has had to say and honestly, I cannot help but notice that his arguments tend to run long on red-hot emotion and quite short on verifiable refutations of his opposites positions.
In fairness it must be pointed out that there is really not much room to go anywhere else at this time when debating "creationism vs. Darwinism" since both sides lack any definitive proofs.
"How many lies can you count in that?"
How many words were there?
PZ wrote:
And I'm going to have to read it. For I so love the world that I will sacrifice my neurons to bring my people rebuttals.
Don't worry; we appreciate the sacrifice, and we love you back.
If you want a refutation of one thing you've just said, klystron, click here.
Of course, I have a gut feeling you'll be raising the standards of "definitive proofs" to mean of pure mathematical certainty, in which case, you might as well become a solipcist, since you can't prove your computer's existence to such a degree.
What I find interesting (in a dweeby academic sense) about the Coulter persona is that, here's a thin blond who favors crotch-length minskirts, who's getting on in years without a husband in sight, and yet three of those 7 "main points" of her book prey on fear of sexuality, and particularly, women's sexuality. When, say, Phyllis Schlafly delivered a nearly identical harangues, at least the messenger seemed to fit the message.
Bronze Dog wrote:
"Well, you still made Creationist Claim #CA202. "
I did not. This claim is that evolution cannot be proven.
You fail to distinguish between the process of evolution, which is strongly supported by the evidence and therefore highly likely and the purported mechanism of evolution, variation and selection, leading to new structures, processes and systems which is unsupported by any convincing evidence.
I make 2 claims:
1. The process of evolution has occurred
2. variation and selection (neo-darwinism) is not the mechanism.
I can understand why you might want to preempt any use of mathematical certainty BD..it scotches your refutation pretty completely before it even gets out of the gate:
"Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty."
Further, the response I read defended the theory of evolution, but does anything to disprove the theory of intelligent design.
should have read doesn't provide anything to disprove..
Ugh, gross. The trolls are double-teaming. See, this is what happens when you feed the trolls. Let's hope they don't multiply.
2. variation and selection (neo-darwinism) is not the mechanism.
Okay. What do you propose is the mechanism and what is the date supporting it.
Further, the response I read defended the theory of evolution, but doesn't anything to disprove the theory of intelligent design.
Well, that's because, having no evidence or date to support it, intelligent design cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a "theory" in scientific terms. Therefore, biologists and those serious about scientists aren't required to "disprove" a claim that gives no evidence to back it up, nor provides any area of falsibility. There's absolutely no way to prove an unseen "intelligent designer" had any hand in the development of life on earth. You simply can't prove or disprove something like that, so it doesn't fall under the heading of "science".
Unless you have evidence to the contrary that there was an intelligent designer - and not just questions within the theory of evolution itself, but something concrete - I'm not real sure why intelligent design should be considered anything but rather dodgy theology.
Ahh, ad hominum, right on time. I guess this concludes the civil discourse portion of our program; in any case it does for me.
Good evening all.
One can only hope that while the trolls are wasting electrons here, they aren't doing anything to screw up human civilization elsewhere.
Ahh, ad hominum, right on time. I guess this concludes the civil discourse portion of our program; in any case it does for me.
Is that a promise?
I guess you were just too subtle for us, once again.
BTW, 'ad hominem' does not mean 'someone said something mean to me'.
Hey, did you remember to rat out PZ to his boss?
Coulter, the Bella Abzug of the right, but without the brains, or charm, or looks.
Mr. Wagner is a little too subtle for me, so I tried using better understood terms to help me out.
You fail to distinguish between the process of transportation, which is strongly supported by the evidence and therefore highly likely and the purported mechanism of transportation, internal combustion used to turn wheels when then propel a vehicle, which is unsupported by any convincing evidence.
I make 2 claims:
1. The process of transportation has occurred
2. Internal combustion and rotating wheels is not the mechanism.
Okay, so what is the mechanism?
In fairness it must be pointed out that there is really not much room to go anywhere else at this time when debating "creationism vs. Darwinism" since both sides lack any definitive proofs.
For your sake, klystron, I hope you're just being disingenuous and you're not really that stupid.
But, uh, I'm not holding my breath.
Incidentally, klystron, by any chance are you the same person as JMcH or Swiftee? You sound just like them.
Its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland)
This is especially amusing, given the hordes of republican winged monkeys that automatically sail forth in defense of Bush, Coulter, Malkin, et al whenever anyone says anything negative about any of them.
"- *EVERYBODY* expects the Wagnerian Inquisition!
"The Wagnerian Inquisition:
- EVERYBODY expects the Wagnerian Inquisition!
Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: dullness, repetition, ruthless disregard for known evidence beyond reasonable doubt, an almost fanatical devotion to the Cause, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn!
[To Cardinal klystron] I can't say it - you'll have to say it.
klystron: What?
- You'll have to say the bit about 'Our chief weapons are ...'
klystron: [rather horrified]: I couldn't do that..."
Between Tom Delay whining about how he was being persecuted for being a Christian and this...
I really think the religious right is at least approaching the shark. They may well have jumped it.
Coulter's a vile ignorant facist who worships McCarthy along with the associated witch hunts. She thinks one's a traitor if one speaks out - right or wrongly - in disagreement with the [Bush] government, and that some of those alleged traitors should be summarily executed to silence the rest of us.
She has a right to say and believe these things, but I wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire.
Hey, Klystron and Charlie - why are you posting comments about ID here in Coulter's thread, rather than a few posts down in the DI thread, where they would actually be on topic? Unless you really do want to fit the troll mold, that is...
Ann Coulter is about as intelligent as roadkill. This is not an ad hominem attack but rather a statement of fact. She has all the emotional maturity (and world knowledge) of a six-year-old child. I would never dream of spending a dime on her self-indulgent tripe.
-Klystron
....
-Klystron, Klystron, Klystron, Klystron, and Klystron.
Anyone whose previous statements oozes arrogance and petulance--not to mention contains as many sneering personal jabs at one's opponents--the way yours do crosses the line into bad comedy when they criticize others' supposed lack of civility. Also, identifying you as a troll isn't an ad hominem attack, it's a convenient classification based on your behaviorm, which perfectly matches the dictionary definition below (for it to qualify as an ad hominem fallacy, the "he's a troll" thing would have to be deployed as an argument against your position rather than as an unconnected criticism of your delivery thereof or a caution to others about responding to it in the fashion you're obviously hoping for).
2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. - Jargon File 4.2.0, via dictionary.com
I've known many trolls who announce that they are flouncing off in a huff, but because they have poor impulse control then have difficulty staying away. If poor Mr Klystron needs help sustaining his departure, I can easily add him to the banned list. Just ask, Klystron!
Don't waste your time. Wait and see if it has any influence. If it does, there is time enough to shoot it down. If it is ignored, don't give it free publicity by trying to refute it now.
Please, do not feed the trolls! It only encourages them.
I've entirely given up reading certain comment sections because of the overwhelming volume of trolling and counter-trolling. The latter is especially infuriating because it can't be filtered out, and is very likely just old hat to most readers sympathetic to the anti-troll position.
I don't subscribe to the flypaper theory -- tying up trolls doesn't prevent them from other nefarious activities; they most likely don't have any.
How many liberals actually know who Mumia Abu-Jamal is?
Seriously, PZ: Good God (er...), don't read this thing. It's okay to save yourself once in awhile!
No, I am not ready for more Ann Coulter. I imagine Ann in 50 years, a sad wreck of her former self, with a bunch of hateful books to show for her time on the planet. And I sincerely don't care that she is sad about this when she looks in the mirror. She's making her bed, she can lie in it. Let's ignore her.
I've entirely given up reading certain comment sections because of the overwhelming volume of trolling and counter-trolling. The latter is especially infuriating because it can't be filtered out, and is very likely just old hat to most readers sympathetic to the anti-troll position.
I see your point and fully sympathize, but one upside to countertrolling is that some trolls will leave and stay away (at least for a while) if you harass the living shit out of 'em. I know, I've seen it happen and done it a few times myself. You have to admit, that's better than having them just live here day after day.
For an antidote to this book, here is another book that is about to be released that might have a protective effect on brain cells, if not the national welfare.
I thought I made that perfectly clear. We do NOT know the answer to the question "what is the mechanism of evolution.
No, Chuck, you didn't make it clear at all. Because you were saying stuff like "renounce neo-Darwinism" and that the questions would be resolved "unfortunately not in your favor." So you obviously don't really believe in keeping an open mind. You've already decided what you believe in, without any evidence to support it, and the only card you have in your losing hand is to pretend we're all as irrational and faith-based as you are. Which isn't true, no matter how much more comfortable you'd be with yourself if it were.
But then, you're all about choosing comforting lies over challenging truths, right? I think you've established that.
Coulter and her like would be hilarious if they weren't so dangerous. USA is going down the tubes in many ways but these bloody pop-conservatives distract us with this crap. Distractions in time of "war" are dangerous!!! Time spent wringing hands about or defending things like gay-marriage, abortion, smut, soft-drinks, genetically engineered products, etc. etc. -- some on the left -- some on the right - are all stupid distractions -- waste of brain cells and energy taken to the level we are lead to take them to. But most real participants here know that.
Point I wanted to make is not the above exactly (sorry - I got distracted - lol), but this: Trolls like "Charlie" that fling about statements that boil down to an assertion that evolution is at the same level as ID and vice-versa need to do the 'splaining!" Should be really simple to do, since they seem so cock-sure.
SIMPLY oh wise ones - start publishing 1000's of legit SCIENTIFIC articles with things like experiments, that have testable and falsifiable evidence. Publish them in legit scientific publications. Subject your work to HONEST peer review by legit SCIENTISTS that are accomplished in the respective field(s) being addressed. You know, like REAL EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS have done through 150 years, and we'll listen. Until then - tell it to the hand!!
Oh, please don't feed us the line about how you all are banned from publication by the evil band of lying conspiratorial scientists for no reason but to hide your so absolute truth. Give Myers evidence of that and I bet he'd defend your right to be heard to the nth degree. REAL SCIENTISTS follow the evidence and live to find holes that make more scientific research necessary.
REAL SCIENTISTS are NOT like you! They mostly cherish the truth and seek it every day - and NEVER feel they've achieved absolute truth or all answers. They want to be the one to disprove something and find another answer in its place. REAL SCIENTISTS do NOT want to trust anything - even themselves. They love doubt!
Way I read you, on the contrary, intelligent though you be, is that you are a "preacher," a purveyor of the mantra: "Children, you don't understand? Have doubts? Not 100% certain? Well little children, look no further! FAITH cures the PAIN of doubt! FAITH has all answers! FAITH makes you whole!" Trouble is lots of us here know that that is just plain laughable crap; however articulate you are at conveying the crap!! Good night.
Dembski is trying to apply his Explanatory Filter to the age old question: does the carpet match the drapes?
It gets lonely down there in Texas.
Sorry one more comment good people:
Trolls are NOT posting to convince us or add to the discourse. Their game is to ensure their flock is distracted from logic and scientific "truth" by being drawn to and encouraged by what they spout. They do NOT want us to effectively engage the flock that wanders in. They are very good at their game I think. I mean they have several thousand years of practice in obfuscation and mind-control.
Off-topic: The William Dembski link points back to this article. Was this done intentionally, or was it an accident?
On-topic: I really wish that killfile script would work in real life, so I would never have to listen to Ann Coulter again. I consider her a real-world troll, and not even a very good one at that. Most of the junk that comes spewing out of her mouth is nothing more than "HAY GUYZ LIBRULZ R TEH DUM LOL!" or "TEH MUZLIMZ SHUD B BOMBZORED!". It's really better just to ignore her.
O Ann, I am your only faithful fan.
Conservatives may buy your books, but they
Don't see your ploy, your pocket-lining plan
To market pseudoscience to your prey...
Coulter's Only Faithful Fan
It's truly a sad commentary on the state of this country when so many people think they have the answers and yet are so unbelievably blind to reality, they shut themselves off.
I was listening to Thom Hartmann today, and he had the senior editor of the right-wing CNS new service on. On every point this guy dodged Thom's facts and threw up straw man arguments, and went on and on about how evil Venezuela is, and conflated them with China, and more of the usual.
He really put a bullet point on the fact that conservatism cannot exist without a perceived evil force against it. Such as sad way to go about your life...
Also don't forget that simply banning trolls gives them the false illusion that they are threatening us by exposing the "truth" that we allegedly cannot handle. Better to let them stay and expose their own idiocy.
"He really put a bullet point on the fact that conservatism cannot exist without a perceived evil force against it. Such as sad way to go about your life..."
Exactly. At its heart, conservatism is and always has been merely reactive. It cannot exist without something to bitch about.
Just an observation, but according to the criteria there, buddhism wouldn't be considered a religion. Neither would hinduism, and probably a few others.
Lots of religions don't have sacraments, or a holy writ, or martyrs or clergy, or churches even.
Not the most original idea, I know, but it seems she's embedded herself in a faux-Christian paradigm there. Who would have thought.
And I'm going to have to read it. For I so love the world that I will sacrifice my neurons to bring my people rebuttals.
More brave than me/More blond than you. At least promise us you'll take it in small bits, have someone watching you for signs of psychosis or catatonia. I've heard you can get that, in extended periods of absence of intellectual stimulation. Plowing through too much such pablum in one setting may well prove the equivalent of an extended stay in solitary. Thus, I fear for you. I can picture you pounding the walls, begging for a single argument that follows, a tiny shred of reasoning, the faintest hint of evidence... Anything to remind you of the world you once knew outside...
Dembski is just getting all giddy because a girl is finally paying attention to him.
One thing liberals must understand is that people like Ann Coulter do not care what is real and what is fake. As the Bush official once told the press, they make their own reality, and you're just a bit part in it.
Everybody needs to get this in their heads ASAP and stop asking why conservative nutjobs don't recognize reality. They don't want to. I don't think we are addressing that as a counter movement. The simple fact is they appear to not care, so long as they achieve whatever end they are after, whether it's anti-environmentalism, anti-choice, anti-evolution.
Seriously, don't trouble yourselves with the why, just keep yourselves informed and active against their very real threat to this society. Our actions reqalized through legislation and the helping of others will expose them for their wanton greed.
I will never, ever understand how anybody named Coulter as "one of the top public intellectuals." She's a creationist?? OK, immediately that means, with respect to relevant scientists, she's hopped into bed with 0.15%, shunning the evolutionist 99.85%. Is that really a comfortable place to be?
Hell, in the realm of science, even being a theist isn't all that prevalent. I read that, at the National Academy of Science, only 7% believe in a personal God, while 72.2% are overtly atheistic. For a Christian warrior like Coulter, that must be a bit disconcerting. After all, NAS is the most prestigious scientific organization in the country. And it doesn't want anything to do with Dembski or Behe - for it has both intellect and taste.
Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion itself.
So this means that religion is bad?
I never got an answer. Well, blow me down.
Coulter is scary like a crazy person mumbling to themselves on the sidewalk and making jerky movements is scary- you're pretty sure they're harmless but you can't be sure because they're clearly not following the same rules of behavior as everyone else. I've said it before but I think it bears repeating: the worst thing idiots like coulter can imagine to say about their opponents is that they're acting like a religion- which is something they hold up as a virtue in people on their own side. That they're also blatantly wrong makes it just that much more pathetic. And of course she attacks teachers- the more people actually understand about the world we live in the less they'll listen to people like her.
There is something here that gives me pause. There are always angry people-- but why are so many of them so popular on the right today? The U.S.is (issues of distribution aside) the richest society the world has ever seen-- certainly the angry voices on the right are all doing exremely well for themselves. They are (Coulter's body type aside) truly fat and sassy. Yet they talk, and act, as if they had their backs to the wall with everything on the line. The desperation in their attitude (and the fact that it resonates so well in a large segment of the population) suggests to me that despite their wealth, there are an awful lot of people out there who really don't know how to enjoy life at all. It's a shame. They should take up actually doing science, or even just taking long walks and looking at the world. We'd all be better off, and they'd be a lot happier.
Did anyone else hear the bit on Stephanie Miller's show last week where they sprinkled little Coulter sound clips over Zappa's Valley Girl? Hye-larious! She really does sound like a whiny teenager. "Gag me with a spoon! The democrats haven't had a new idea in like 20 years, I'm sherr."
Not only does this book sound like Coulter's a waste of a frontal cortex, it threatens mine too. I just lost a few neurons reading the excerpt. Ack.
"Dembski is just getting all giddy because a girl is finally paying attention to him." He's actually married. Kids. Wonder what his wife thinks. But then, I wouldn't be too threatened by Ann Coulter. Something is definitely wrong when I honestly do not want to look like a tall, blond woman.
Well, if it helps, I don't really think of her as a tall blond woman so much as a tall blond chupacabra with a raging heroin addiction.
One day, she'll overdose and we'll be rid of her.
Coulter is my second most fav crazie to go after ... for instance, http://curbstonecritic.blogspot.com/2006/04/anns-da-man.html and it gets harder to outdo your last book of craziness. Wasn't it at UW that she got pied? Cream Custard, as I recall. How appropriate. Perhaps you should have given the link to your previous about the male fish who parasitizes his gonads to the female ... and then send it to him/her. Ann would like it ... from both points of view, the male and the female.
the worst thing idiots like coulter can imagine to say about their opponents is that they're acting like a religion- which is something they hold up as a virtue in people on their own side.
Just like the word 'duckspeak' in orwel's 1984. It was an insult when said about opponent, and a praise if said about someone on your side...
Hey, Dustin:
Well, if it helps, I don't really think of her as a tall blond woman so much as a tall blond chupacabra with a raging heroin addiction.
One day, she'll overdose and we'll be rid of her.
Ok, I just spewed my first cup of coffee all over my screen! Thanks for the comic relief.
How could anyone that sneering be considered "hot" in anyone's world is beyond me. Although I'm sure a psychologist could have a field day with the slut/madonna war raging in that brain. "you're all bad sinners...look at my legs!"
The argument about her intelligence is moot. Being able to regurgitate neo-con, christinazi vitreol at will makes you no smarter than....say king george. (I'm the decider...koo koo ka choo; and is our children learning?)
Please, pz...if you must do this, scotch and thorazine aside, please take it out at a library! Not one penny to the coffers of this harpy.
Ok, I'm off to read roe v wade in preparation for my daily sacrement abortion rituals now...INDEED!
Is there a link to that "Valley Girl" bit? I would love to hear it.
Goodness. Either she's a complete idiot, or she thinks her readers are.
She's excellent proof though that religion does not improve people or prevent them from being vile liars obsessed with money.
When my order arrived, I noticed that my copy of her book was a little different.
Speaking as a non-American, I used to find it hard to believe Ann Coulter really existed. Then I came to the conclusion that she is a liberal mole whose job is to render right-wing American politics completely ridiculous.
Oh My Gahd, Mike Nilsen that was freaking hilarious!
Perfect parody!
Bryson Brown:
I've noticed this too. My term for it is "sore winnerism" at least when it comes to Republicans. They have, at least for the moment, a majority in congress and a GOP president, but instead of approaching it as an opportunity to buckle down and do whatever it is they are trying to do, they express anger that there is anyone left in US politics who dares to disagree with them.
Sometimes I think that an American conservative, no matter how rich, lies awake at night at the thought that there is a pile of money somewhere that they're not allowed to own, which is why they hate the idea of public lands. No matter how many Americans have bought into Reaganism, they get ulcers considering that there might be an unreconstructed liberal out there thinking "The Great Society was a good idea if only it had been approached rationally, protected from race-baiting, and given a chance to work."
I'm not sure what a sore winner does if they ever succeed in wiping all of their opponents from the face of the earth. I imagine that doesn't make them happy either--more likely just lonely and lacking in purpose.
HappyPig: Coulter went to Cornell?? Darn. As if I needed another example of injustice in the world ...
Blake Stacey: The problem is these days everyone has a multitasking computer, so sitting at your desk while answering blog posts can also allow one to have another window open to spam, DoS, hack bank web sites or whatever else ...
Bryson Brown: The "distribution" is exactly the point. The elites with the money have to do something to prevent the masses (whose wages are stagnating at best) from rising up against them. One way to do that is to refocus their anger into other targets. "libruls, gays, evolution'sts" are the selected targets and Coulter, Limbaugh, etc. are the folks who have found a niche working for the elites to do this retargeting.
paulp127: The problem is that there's so much redundancy ... any large system like the plutocrats in the US has dozens of backup systems and failsafes to ensure the craziness thereof.
The most fascinating aspect of Godless? Probably the fact that liberals are already going crazy over a book that is not even being released until June 6, 2006 (666). The above comment of calling a source "wrong-headed" without providing us any insight on why the alleged "wrong-headed" is incorrect in the first place, is exactly why Coulter's books will continue to sell, exactly why liberals will continue to obsess about her, and exactly why liberals will continue to "love to hate" her.
If anything, Ann Coulter has again proved that by holding a mirror up to liberals, it gets them to run around in circles screaming about injustice, hate, racism, homophobia, etc. Coulter knows its fun to watch them do that, as do I, or any other conservative. It's like trying to rationalize with your little brother (who's still in kindergarden).
The fact that this is causing such a stir in April already is pretty indicative of the probability of Godless's success matching the massive breakpoints of her four previous books.
I say, let the the liberals keep crying!
We've been all over Dembski here; he's an anti-evolutionist crackpot.
I've said this before (maybe in this forum; if so, my apologies for the redundancy), but one thing I would really like to do if money were no object would be to hire a really good private investigations firm to find out if Ann Coulter, the Limbaugh brothers, and certain others:
1) actually belong to a congregation somewhere
2) attend services with any regularity
3) contribute money
4) contribute time (serve as a deacon, etc.)
I have a pretty good idea what the results would be, but it would be nice to have empirical evidence.
"The above comment of calling a source "wrong-headed" without providing us any insight on why the alleged "wrong-headed" is incorrect in the first place, is exactly why Coulter's books will continue to sell, exactly why liberals will continue to obsess about her, and exactly why liberals will continue to "love to hate" her."
As PZ pointed out...Dembski has been repeatedly pilloried on this site and others. To do it again would simply be boring for those of us who actually bother to read up on and familiarize ourselves with the issues.
Coulter's books continue to sell because they "make sense" to people who like to read snide, hatefull stuff...and then repeat it ad nauseum until it becomes a meme...and so idellable a part of our environment that nobody questions it...no matter how much it deserves to be questioned.
This is frustrating to people who like to ask questions, and not all of them are "liberals". Getting frustrated that a fascistic cocktail waitress is the decorative centerpeice of a major political movement in our country isn't exactly "crying"...but if anyone should be crying, it's conservatives. Their grand tradition of being the voice of caution and stability in this coutry is being replaced by a woman who promotes McCarthyism while pouting and giggling and tossing her hair like she's talking about her naughty prom date.
Your milage may vary...but if you're conservative, chances are you brag about how little you get per gallon.
steveinchicago:
You're absolutely right. We should maintain an open mind; after all, Coulter may have been secretly conducting scientific research that will totally blow evolution out of the water! Surely her highly trained mind will have some novel insights that we haven't heard 8 million ti--
After 150 years of dedicated searching into the fossil record, evolution's proponents have failed utterly to substantiate its claims. And a long line of supposed evidence, from the infamous Piltdown Man to the "evolving" peppered moths of England, has been exposed as one hoax after another. (NRO)
Oh. Never mind.
Since my browser got nasty, I won't repeat everything I typed, but I will include my link to my comment where I posted four links to a deconstruction of Dembski. Obviously, some commenters didn't bother looking. Dembski's dishonesty has been shown over and over and over and over and over. MarkCC's apparently experiencing fatigue with Dembski. I can't blame him, since Dembski just seems to be pulling the same tricks he always does.
Dembski is one of the Uri Gellers of the evolution world. Bending a spoon with your fingers is a very simple trick. Dembski's bad math is a very simple trick. Yet both of these people have blinded followers who refuse to pay attention when we expose their trickery for the world to see.
Boy, did I get longer-winded than I originally planned.
I'd just like to say I hate Ann Coulter because she's a stupid git who lies, not because she's smarter than me or better looking. Coulter's books and others like them feed the ignorance of the American people, and ignorance is the bane of my existence. Besides, feel that I am more intelligent than her, and I have it on good authority that I'm better looking. Also, I try not to sling hateful lies at people just to sell books!
I'm with August Pollak on this -- Coulter's new book is going to be a time for loud and enthusiastic guffawing at her. This is her last hurrah before she has to move into a trailer park.
Okay, I know this was waaaayyy upthread, but:
Sigh. Cornell should just send Will Provine to her house to tear up her diploma.
Posted by: HappyPig
This made my day! Will Provine is my Bio advisor here and the thought of him tearing up Ann Coulter's diploma brings a big smile to my face. She was supposed to speak here on Monday but cancelled, thank GOD (thank abortion? I forget what I'm supposed to believe).
You do know that Ann Coulter is an alien, don't you? This picture on her website proves it (check out her alien hand).
All this talk about liberals is just a front - she's actually trying to destroy all of humanity.
I've read enough Coulter columns (she lies. A lot.) and Cal Thomas columns and heard enough Limbaugh shows to know I don't need to buy this book.
And I don't even think she's pretty. Roots just aren't that attractive to me. Go figure.
I must have missed that part. I'm not a big reader of Coulter's work, but I recall her making various inflammatory statements about "swarthy" middle easterners, expressing her deep abiding love for notorious red-baiter Joe McCarthy, and explaining how God ordered us to "rape" the earth.
I do remember her using the word "liberal" from time to time, but it appeared to refer to a creature existing entirely in her warped imagination, like some toddler waiting up in the middle of the night screaming that the giraffes were going to get him. It hadn't occurred to me that we were supposed to map this non-standard use of the term to liberals in the conventional sense.
That mirror Coulter is using is made of straw, and is very unreflective.
LOL, wow. The love of the scientific types baffle me. Speaking of "love", has it ever been scientifically documented? Speaking of "anger", has it ever been scientifically determined "tangible" and scientifically explainable?
The one element that Christians have is "faith".
Let's just assume for a minute that "God" is a real deal. Or "creation" is the real deal. In terms of scientific research, do you honestly think there would be any scientist who could supercede the intelligence and magnificience of God? Perhaps the reason that no scientific research is available is because there will never be scientific resources sophisticated to support God's existence, or the theory of "creation". I think it probably has something to do with that God fella expecting us to have the faith to not be led by Earthly nonsense.
I never quite understood anti-God or anti-religious crowds. Taking a look at Christianity for example, the worst thing that I can think of is the fact that it establishes a spiritual framework for the simple morals we were all born with. Confirming the simple behaviors that all of us should be adopting on a day to day basis seems to me the one thing liberal types are annoyed by.
Saying that we demand scienfitic proof of God or creation; or saying that we don't believe in religion is not a "nonconformist trendy" position that many non-believers take - it is indeed simply an excuse to make up our own shifty values to avoid having to live up to any standards of behavior above that of a german shephard or coyote.
To act as if Coulter's ONLY purpose is to spew hate after knowing this woman graduated an Ivy League school with honors, has written thousands of columns, been on TV thousands of times, written 4 (going on 5) MASSIVE New York Times bestsellers is a position in and of itself that consists of very little "scientific" research.
You can't use science to back up an air-headed theory and then ignore it when making such vague statements about Americans who have the power to make a huge effect on our country. If you disagree with that assertion, then you might want to ask yourselves why we are already debating about a book that hasn't been released yet.
It's only when you see real right-wing nutjobs in action that you realise how bang-on Stephen Colbert's parody of them is.
Actually, wouldn't that be the ultimate showdown - Colbert v Coulter?
steveinchicago:
Yup. What rock have you been hiding under? Emotions are empirically detectable, reproducible in humans from all over the world, and a focus of many studies. Today, you can even measure the locus of brain activity for emotional responses using imaging technology. Moreover, there are numerous plausible models of why humans, a social animal, would possess emotions as an adaptive trait. They are as real, as observable, and as important as anything--if not "tangible" in a literal sense.
Are they "fully" explained? Obviously not. Actually, little is fully explained. You can write Schrodinger's equation for a hydrogen atom, but when you're done, it's understandable if you throw up your hands on finding a full explanation of anything more complicated. That's why science makes progress through empirical studies. There is no explanation from first principles for something as simple as what weight of engine oil to put in your car in the winter--but this can be determined scientifically using rigorous empirical methodology. The same methodology can be applied and has been applied to human emotions.
Once again, what rock have you been hiding under?
This is Chewbacca. (Yes, they're explainable as a collection of brain states, but what does that have to do with the topic?)
How's that any different than Last Thursdayism?
I'm not anti-God. I'm pro-truth. Morality has nothing to do with deities.
Chewbacca is a wookiee. And The Big Lie continues. Of course, I've seen plenty people use God as an excuse to act savagely.
The note on her motives is a conclusion based on her behavior.
Because, given the records of the author and her source, Dembski, we can conclude that the book will likely be filled to the brim with lies. Lying is wrong, and I don't need a magical sky man to tell me that. You need to have your moral compass magnetized.
STEVEINCHICAGO: Holding up a mirror?????
I'd honor that with a response of my own, but Im busy in my Roe v Wade holy writ study class, run by public school teachers; lighting candles to kop killerz and preparing my ritual abortion altar!
And up later, Im gonna try and mate with my closest relative, an ape......to provide bones I'll secretly bury later to fool everyone into thinking its the missing link.
Buwahahahahaha
PS: I am wayyyyyyyy better lookin than her, and don't have to speak valley girl to be liked. Cuz progressives and liberals are just much more EVOLVED in the areas of intelligence and general feelings of well- being!
jeez, nobody's quoted the best part (from Dembski's post):
Writing with a keen appreciation for genuine science, Coulter reveals that the so-called "gaps" in the theory of evolution are all there is -- Darwinism is nothing but a gap.
After 150 years of dedicated searching into the fossil record, evolution's proponents have failed utterly to substantiate its claims. And a long line of supposed evidence, from the infamous Piltdown Man to the "evolving" peppered moths of England, has been exposed as one hoax after another. Still, liberals treat those who question evolution as religious nuts and prohibit students from hearing about real science when it contradicts Darwinism. And these are the people who say they want to keep faith out of the classroom.
Liberals' absolute devotion to Darwinism, Coulter shows, has nothing to do with evolution's scientific validity and everything to do with their refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force. They will brook no challenges to the official religion.
steveinchicago-
Almost everything you wrote is wrong. When we assume god is real for the sake of argument, why should we assume that one or several of the Christian versions of the story is real? If you want to believe in a creator of the universe, there are an unlimited number of variations on the theme. Why assume the Christian line is the correct one? For the sake of argument, it's no more valid than any other 'story of creation'; none are supported by the observable facts. The faith of a Hindu that her beliefs are correct can be equally strong and certain as a Christian's belief. Which is correct?
Why do you classify humanity's scientific endeavors as 'Earthly nonsense'. Is it all nonsense, or just the parts that conflict with your beliefs?
Christianity may provide a framework for for morality, but even you admit that we are 'born' with those morals. Many aspects of common morality do derive from our evolution as social animals; they were not handed down on stone tablets by a higher intelligence. What value does the Christian framework add? One criticism of religion might be that it predisposes people to believe they exist in a world which does not quite correspond to the real one, which can lead to all sorts of semi-solipsistic violence. People can use the excuse of divine will or mandate to justify some pretty awful behavior.
Gotta go now, I hope I can continue later.
I can already forsee the publisher's blurb on the second printing of Coulter's newest trash. "In the left hand of the right wing -- over one million copies made sticky."
Quoth Bill Hicks: "Ever notice how people who believe in creationism tend to look really unevolved?" Still holds true.
Wait a minute? What is to stop Jerry Falwell or Ann Coulter or any Christian for that matter to insist that the presence of Christ (which goes hand in hand with the theory of creation) is "empiracally detectable". The defintion of emperical is "relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory", which means: NO scientific proof. What one observes as a result or effect of point A. causing the effects of point B. varies by the individual.
I know "emperical" sounds like a great big ole word like "admonishment" (another word liberals like to overstate) but in the end it means absolutely nothing in regard with what is scientifically documented on the books.
Don't you think Ann Coulter had to pass various scientific courses to graduate Cornell? What about Dr. Laura Schlessinger who's main degrees are in biology, science, and physiology that think the evolutionist theories are crap? Is she just crazy? Not qualified enough? Well, I beg to differ, her life experience and textbook knowledge of atoms is emperically confirmed.
"The one element that Christians have is 'faith'."
Correction: the one element that Christians have is the ability, if you want to call it that, to find new niches for "faith" when science embarasses religion again and again. If the worst that Christianity does, in your opinion, is establish a moral framework, try hanging around some "You're sick because you're sinful" or "you're going straight to hell which is why I'm out to save you" types sometime. (I was stalked for three years by a glossolalia-spouting nutjob.) No one's interested in superceding God. No scientist gets out of bed and says, "I think I'll disprove God's existence today." What scientists are interested in are tangible results to specific material questions, not mystical mindfartiness.
And I hope you're not typing your responses on one of those wicked, earthly, nonsense computers invented by evil scientists out to deceive us that we can't just send our thoughts to each other via angels.
And Jerry Falwell, Ann Coulter, and Dr. Rahr-Rahr having degrees in biology? "Her textbook knowledge of atoms?" "Empirical detection of Christ?" Please!
Chicago Steve:
actually neither "emperical" nor "empiracally" are very impressive as big ol' words.
Scientific empiricism aims explicitly to remove the subjectivity of observation that you think is so damning. Measurements. Quantification. Reproducibility. Replication.
Please return to your sublithic lair.
Oh, and yes, Dr. Laura is, in fact, a freakin' nutjob.
About the link to Coulter's photo above: is it just me, or anyone else thinks her hand and arm are typical of Marfan syndrome? If so, she really should cut back on the hate speech, 'cause it sure isn't good for her aorta.
steveinchicago:
I suspect that this only scratches the surface of your limited understanding of many things.
So I guess it doesn't bother you that the framework is based on a number of incorrect or--worse than incorrect--unfalsifiable assumptions. If I were a betting man, I'd say your insouciance is a large part of why you don't understand scientific types. On the other hand, you might just be an idiot.
So, what simple behavior should I carry out today? Should I give up all my possessions to the poor and follow Christ? (Matthew 19:21) There's a notion with its heart in the right place, but how about if you go first? Or if my eye caused me to sin today, should I pluck it out (Mark 9:47)? I agree it's a simple solution, but is there something a little less drastic? Or should I look in the book of Revelation? It seems to be about various kinds of horned and winged beasts opening scrolls and blowing trumpets causing terrible things to happen. Are those the "simple behaviors" you're referring to?
In all seriousness, there is some overlap between Biblical morals and the traditional notions of virtue everywhere in the world. As a result of my upbringing, I'm influenced by Christian ethics and I personally don't have a big problem with it. But to suggest that that is "all" there is to Christianity or that somehow this is the chief objection of secularists misses the point entirely.
CCP hasn't done his homework, either. Oh, and I admit to "the possibility of God as a guiding force", but I still don't see any evidence for it. Just like with psychic powers, homeopathy, my blog partner's [hiney] gnomes, etc. They're possible, but they're so improbable, I don't bother entertaining them until someone comes up with evidence, which people like Dembski are adamant about not doing.
Oops. I think my sarcasmometer malfunctioned.
OK, now you've stumped me. Is it (a) because they know how to spell or (b) because the statement is factually incorrect?
Oh... too easy. It's clearly (a), because (b) has never stopped them in the past.
Diane said:
"PS: I am wayyyyyyyy better lookin than her, and don't have to speak valley girl to be liked. Cuz progressives and liberals are just much more EVOLVED in the areas of intelligence and general feelings of well- being"
Who's speaking valley girl? The evidence of liberals' intellectual capacity is apparent when you take into consideration the "intelligent" acts of throwing pies at a woman to replace the intellectual arguments that this party promises. The liberal party is so intellectual that they finally had to adopt the "progressive" moniker. It's like the trimmings for a beautiful garden on the foundation of sand. When "progressives" go to the mic at a lecture and bust out in complete Tourette's tantrums rather than giving us some of their brilliant intellectualism - all they have left to do is to: throw food.
The "I'm way better looking" line is very persuasive as well. Hey maybe Crown publishing would like to publish your authorings over Coulter's! C'mon show em some of the liberal intellectualism!
BD:
no I was not being sarcastic...even better, I was QUOTING DEMBSKI
And once again, steve ignores everything we've been saying, instead offering up some royally bad examples, pretending they're the gold standard. Nice way to obfuscate, and one of the varient forms of straw men: Debunking the weakest argument and pretending you've debunked the strongest.
What is to stop Jerry Falwell or Ann Coulter or any Christian for that matter to insist that the presence of Christ (which goes hand in hand with the theory of creation) is "empiracally detectable"
There's nothing to stop them from saying it, however, reality does prevent them from being correct.
The'empiricism' thing kinda implies that anyone could detect the presence of Jesus, anytime, whether they believed in the whole shtick or not, and conclusively demonstrate it to others.
PaulC it was a scientific experiment to get your scientifically expected response ;-). Can I empirically document it? Or should I scientifically document it? Geez, you're so technical. ;-).
I noticed how you brushed over my display of the actual definition of the word "Empirical", and how it doesn't support science or vice-versa. Moreover, how it fits hand in hand with the average Christian's lived experience of what they perceive as "the power of Christ".
What makes the empirical proof of love closer to the link of science than a Christian's empirical proof of Christ?
Objectivity and reproducibility.
I'd like to see one of those, sometime.
As for definitions, whatever word you want to use for the types of evidence science collects and methods for analyzing them, it's in a far better league than "faith" and unverifiable experiences.
But Broze and PaulC, what do you have against faith honestly? Let's put aside the repartee for a second.
Okay, we're having lunch (preferably in a mexican restaurant) and we're talking.
I ask you both the question: How does faith harm the human race? How does a belief in a higher being harm the human race?
Take into consideration that Ann Coulter's book might be a response to the vitriolic attitude of the left whenever the word "God" is mentioned. Christians have the right, as do you...but they shouldn't be treated disrespectfully for thir beliefs.
I could care less if you guys convert, or never change your views or what have you. But why can't the other side have a funny and intelligent spokesperson to represent the battle of ideas?
Lastly, if someone is nuts, we tend to ignore them. If liberals and progressives REALLY believe that Ann Coulter is nuts, why does she get such a reaction?
Is it possible that Steve Flesher is a caricature, planted to make all gay conservatives look retarded?
I noticed how you brushed over my display of the actual definition of the word "Empirical", and how it doesn't support science or vice-versa.
Empirically gathered data and empirical techniques are not the opposite of 'scientific', they are not incompatible with scientific method, they are a vital part of it.
Read: Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for the investigation of phenomena and the acquisition of new knowledge of the natural world, as well as the correction and integration of previous knowledge, based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning.
"Is it possible that Steve Flesher is a caricature, planted to make all gay conservatives look retarded?"
Is that "liberal intellectualism" that's kicking in? I'm thankful that you leave room for any conservative (not just the gay ones) to be described without the "retarded" add on.
That's what I call "progressive".
Faith harms the world because it gives people poor excuses to hurt others.
I don't react with a hostile attitude "whenever the word "God" is mentioned." I react to unfounded hostility and ignorance. That's what I'm reacting to now, but you refuse to see it. Ignorance and falsehood versus truth and fact is the real issue, and you're just trying to distract people from that by pointing out that God is a likely casualty.
That's perfectly fine. But Coulter is neither funny nor intelligent. She is dishonest, or at least one of her major sources is. Dishonest people deserve to be exposed for what they are.
She gets a reaction because she's dishonest, and had the public ear. The public deserves to be spoken to in an honest manner.
Christians have the right, as do you...but they shouldn't be treated disrespectfully for thir beliefs.
Funny. That's what you do with us, every time.
But why can't the other side have a funny and intelligent spokesperson to represent the battle of ideas?
"Funny"? "Intelligent"? "BATTLE OF IDEAS"? Quick, someone get the Haldol.
Lastly, if someone is nuts, we tend to ignore them. If liberals and progressives REALLY believe that Ann Coulter is nuts, why does she get such a reaction?
There are harmless nuts and dangerous nuts. The guy clutching at invisible butterflies is the former. Reconstructionists and neocons are the latter. So is Coulter and the psychotic wannabe theocrats she is with.
steveinchicago:
Who said I have anything against faith? I do think that it's a weaker basis for belief than facts and logic--so does Coulter, it seems, since she refers derisively to liberalism as having the attributes of a religion. Actually everyone seems to agree on this. Notice how the big creationist put-down is to call evolution "just another religion" but no scientist would call creationism "just another science" or consider that a put-down. Faithful and infidels agree: faith is a poor substitute for reason!
But, sure, I have plenty of working assumptions that have little rigorous grounding and yet affect my behavior. That's roughly equivalent to "faith" and it's a necessary stop-gap in the face of insufficient evidence. I just don't go around bragging about it.
Who's speaking valley girl?
It was a point in case, my dear, the subtlety lost on the reader, I assume.
The "I'm way better looking" line is very persuasive as well.
Was a response to your fellow troll above, who claimed we were all jealous of her looks and intelligence.
The whole tone of my post was indeed, satirical...to counter the fact you said Coulter is holding amirror up to the average liberal.
Gee no response to my ritual abortion altar.
Please, if her premise, and your blind support of it as factual isn't pie-throwing, nothing is.
LOL
It's just the same old middle-school rhetoric and playground tactics: jealousy of "them geek scientist types who think they're so smart," the snide resentment against those who can actually use and define "great big ole words," the schoolyard bully's delight at watching a bug squirm on a pin: "it gets them to run around in circles screaming about injustice, hate, racism, homophobia, etc. Coulter knows its fun to watch them do that, as do I, or any other conservative."
Guess what: middle school is over with, and you are living in the adult world now. The "brainiacs" and "nerds" you were so jealous of in school are earning good money and working hard to make people's lives better. Scientists justifiably get a lot of respect. Deal with it; you won't be able to "take us down a notch" regardless of how many crazy books Coulter publishes.
Okay the scientific method consists of all of those elements. But, the empirical element on it's own relies on observation and experience (which are personal) alone without the due regard for system and theory.
You need all of those elements to make it up. The proof of love however being substantiated alone by the empirical element alone does not qualify it to be substantiated by the scientific method.
These definitions and explanations can be found at www.m-w.com
"Guess what: middle school is over with, and you are living in the adult world now."
I'm so glad, now tell that to the liberals who are throwing food at Ann Coulter instead of countering the arguments with their intellectualism that Diane promises ;-).
To begin with, I don't believe she's nuts. I think she's a rational opportunist who knows that she can make a buck with her act. And if she really thinks Joe McCarthy was a great American hero, then she's despicable, but still not nuts.
Apart from that, I don't think about her except when these kinds of threads come up. I think she's been marginalized since NRO fired her in 2001, and I find it kind of amazing that anyone cares about her. The most dangerous rightwingers are the ones who appear moderate and reasonable but quietly go about gutting every reform since before the Pure Food and Drug Act. Those are the ones to watch carefully.
Coulter's just kind of a grotesque sideshow--at about the level of Louis Farrakhan. Ann Coulter per se doesn't bother me as much as the fact that people take her seriously at all.
Is that "liberal intellectualism" that's kicking in? I'm thankful that you leave room for any conservative (not just the gay ones) to be described without the "retarded" add on.
That's what I call "progressive".
Actually, I'm fiscally conservative, socially liberal, neither an Objectivist nor a Libertarian. To be honest, I don't know who the hell to vote for, as neither party looks worth a sh*t in a shoebox to me. Further, I know quite a few intelligent conservatives, including scientists, economists, theologians, and writers.
Anyway, every gay man I know is intelligent and moderate-to-liberal. You are the first gay conservative I've ever dialogued with [albeit on a shallow level], and you display poor comprehension of the definitions of empirical, science, faith, funny, and intelligent. From this poor understanding of how to define such terms [eg, the latter two being ascribed to Coulter], you stumble and blunder your way around political and scientific discourse like a pole dancer in 7-in stilettos walking on cobblestones.
I wouldn't have realized how retarded you were if you'd kept your flapper zipped, but your brains spilled out early on, and the small sticky blob belied your intellect.
Do you care to recover by telling me what about the conservative agenda at the present moment is superior in its aims or effects to the liberal agenda? I noted on your webpage that you apparently defend DeLay and the FEMA response of our government, as well as the war in Iraq being "just". From those three things alone, I recognized your IQ must fall far out on the western plain of a Gaussian distribution. You just reinforced on here what I'd already realized.
There is no 'proof' in science, only in mathematics. Science only provides the best current explanations for natural phenomena, not proof. Anything that claims to do better is a load of codswallop.
We don't have "proof" of evolution. We don't have "faith" in evolution. We just have a LOT of reasons to be confident in evolution.
I hope steveinchicago is a monk, because being a homosexual is clearly not a value that mainstream conservatives endorse.
I always find it fascinating how conservatives will act against their own best interests. By supporting Anne Coulter, Steve is acting against gay marriage, and even gay relationships.
After all, the conservative opinion on sex is, "Not until marriage, and not if you're gay." Coulter has been very vocal against gay marriage.
It's no wonder, Stevie, that you're so wrong on so many things. If I were in your position I'd be suffering from severe cognitive dissonance too.
------
Greco - wouldn't myopia be a symptom of Marfan Syndrome? Where's Anne's glasses?
"And its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)"
Sort of like Ann Coulter's adams apple.
SDaniel, I suppose your questions would have to be more specific in regard to my defense of Tom DeLay or FEMA's response, yada yada. These can be discussed at great length and there are many debatable aspects to each issue. In ending though, I have a feeling that it might be my resistance from buying into every single liberal allegation of hate, corruption, and bigotry that might have you going straight to "he's stupid" or "he's crazy" to avoid having the full discussions required to determine such strong ajectives. (It's okay I'm used to it).
Calladus: You'd be surprised to find out that most conservatives could give a lick about the "want" for gays to marry. The firestorm is derived from the politics at hand that is possessed by other hot social topics such as: abortion on demand. The fact that judges on the Supreme Court are convoluting amendments to invent rights that never existed in the first place is where the trouble is forming. Issues like abortion or gay marriage are not ones that should be decided and thrust upon society by way of gavel-slamming but rather exercising the democracy that we live in to allow people to have a say in the matter. The reason "progressives" are terrified at "democracy" is because they have different interpretations of what "progress" is. It isn't the job of an American President, a supreme court justice, or a right-winged commentator to grant the right of gay marriage. It is their job to encourage the democratic process and I guarantee you, Coulter and Bush are not at all nervous about what the majority of this country would vote for in terms of the two topics I have mentioned. The government should provide "opportunity" and not "outcome". It is up to us to determine our own outcome by the equal opportunity provided to us. If gay activists and aborton right's acivists are strong about their positions, then they need to focus on gaining their victories under the democratic platform that our nation rests upon.
Bronze: you said: "We don't have "proof" of evolution. We don't have "faith" in evolution. We just have a LOT of reasons to be confident in evolution."
Great! However; who's to say that a christian does not have "reasons" to be confident as well?
As I said before: I think Coulter's position in her book is a response to the hullaballoo over the simple mention of the word "God". The response is what she wanted (especially the response you guys are giving). It serves in her best interest in terms of book sales.
I enjoy satire, and the debate of ideas. We have a leftist coliseum of satirists like Al Franken, Michael Moore, and Katrina Vandenheuvel who blather in and out. The right has Ann Coulter who has single-handedly enraged more people in masses than all 3 of the above mentioned. The ideas of conservatism have not changed - though the message and process of delivering the ideas has. Coulter is the equivalent to them, no more no less.
I see that in the description of Coulter's book, they list the lefts' clergy as 'public school teachers'. Actually, I kind of like that idea. Class is Mass and tests are Confession!
Slight clarification: Good reasons, such as quality evidence. I'm curious as to what Christians have, since I have yet to hear a good reason from them.
Just like psychics use the hullaballoo raised by skeptics like James Randi to boost their sales. Anyone can pretend to be a victim to fool the public into thinking there's some content to their arguments.
The appeal to pity is a logical fallacy, and that should be denounced just as strongly, since propagandists love exploiting that very human weakness.
You think wrongly.
Additionally, the triumph of evil requires only that the good do nothing. I don't intend to let untruths go unchallenged, even if my challenges are repeatedly ignored.
Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with the facts that a) she regularly "jokingly" advocates violence including murder against her political opponents, and b) she gets put on the cover of Time magazine and paraded around TV pundit shows as if her cynical incitement of hatred against liberals had some merit. You can understand why this might annoy us.
Okay Bronze, I could accept that explanation to the extent of it being 'your opinion'. That's it. There are many different standards put forth by the citizens of this country that could constitute their reasons being "good". Quality evidence is a nice phrase, but the evidence's quality for a Christian who has internal faith and an internal feeling of God's love and presence is just as important to them as your "quality" reasons of historical textbook study.
That is just to explain to you the power of opinion on the other side of it.
If the left had not been so hell bent on making these "studies" apparent in trying to destroy or tear down the overall faith of 75% of this country by taking away a child's right to pray in school, by stripping Ten Commandments plaques off of buildings, I have a hard time believing that Ann Coulter would have had anything to write about in the first place.
Nobody told you that you had to believe anything, so why can't we just all believe what we believe and let the topics of personal spirtual avenues rest among the individual? Your side could put this fire out by opting out of Christian faith but at the same time respecting the majority of this country that does believe.
The appeal to pity can be applied to every person who blames Christianity for the seed of the Islamic war right now. All arguments here work both ways.
Without the original opposition and the level of degree enforced on us by people like the A.C.L.U., Coulter would have had no subject matter at all.
Sounds like the subjectivist fallacy going on here, but that's not all.
Sorry if the evidence suggests you're wrong. Them's the breaks.
And here we go with the deliberately dishonest straw man. Children still have the right to pray. We're defending their right not to be forced to pray. steve gets upgraded in my book from victim of propaganda to propaganda monger.
You mean tearing down unlawful attempts at coercing religion on children.
She'd instead be twisting the truth of some other perfectly fine event into some marketable lie.
I never said anything against that. Nice straw man. We should engage in rational, civil discourse, rather than propaganda campaigns.
I respect it in the same way that I respect a person's opinion that his wife is beautiful. And I disagree, and nothing's going to stop me from expressing my disagreement. Nothing's going to stop me from pointing out lies told to falsely bolster a belief, either.
This is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a wookiee.
Since her "subject matter" is based on propagandistic lies, she's already using an absence of subject matter.
Coulter is possiblly the most heinous liar not actually employed by this Administration in our entire country. Everything she says is a lie.
friggin coulter is nuts.
steveinchicago:
The courts have never taken away the right to pray in public schools. They have upheld child's right not to be subjected to the establishment of religion through official prayer. This establishment clause is not only for atheists, but for practioners of other religions, who are likely to be far more offended than most non-believers at having an alien faith foisted on them.
Look up "constitutionally protected prayer" before you trot out another strawman like this. E.g. http://www.bridge-builders.org/RCW2.03.html
"I'm so glad, now tell that to the liberals who are throwing food at Ann Coulter instead of countering the arguments with their intellectualism that Diane promises ;-)."
Or maybe they were making commentary on bad entertainment. And steven, are you really suggeesting conservative groups, (you know, the ones that reports professors who happen to be liberal, to their freep lists to be harassed with death threats) are angels? Throwing food at an idiot, who by the way chose to make that appearance for public consumption, does not come close to reporting someone to your discussion group so they can start threatening people and their children. Ann does not say truthful things so much as stand on meaningless technicalities and generalities to confuse issues and play to prejudices. There isn't one thing Ann has said that hasn't been concretely shot down once the research and the facts are known.
You like to believe that liberals are against religion, but that is a mental fallacy you choose to see above other evidence. I was brought up in a (sort-of) conservative Roman Catholic household in the midwest, not far at all from where you are, and attended private Catholic school 12 out of 13 years of my young life. I spent 1 year in a public school and heard not a single anti-religous statement, or witnessed any attempt by those public school administrators to denounce religion. In fact my teachers there were quite good, and the classwork was definitely challenging. This public school was in a suburb btw. Another thing: almost nothing separated my classmates and their general discipline between either school type. The only difference was I wore uniforms in one and not the other. Students were about equally unruly and/or disciplined.
You are intentionally mistaking putting everyone on an even keel with oppression of your religion. I am Catholic and have never once felt oppressed by anything or anyone in this country. Maybe that's my life experience, but that doesn't make it false. In fact the people who scare me, as a Catholic, are the very people you are defending, who insist that the 10 Commandments are all real laws (which they aren't). Are you saying that if a Muslim group wanted to put up on of their writs in a court somewhere in the US, you'd defend them? What about a Jewish group? If you would defend them, then we can talk about this issue more intelligently. If you would not defend those efforts, well then you're just being an opportuist.
And I don't buy this crap about the Christian majority. You're the majority, yet there's this huge force oppressing you? Who is this majority? Please explain that to me, because it sounds like instilling unverifiable fears in people to achieve opportunistic ends. You know who else doesn't buy it? My extended family. Where are they? The midwest. Sounds to me like people are starting to understand the insipidity of what passes for Republican arguments.
"You are the first gay conservative I've ever dialogued with"
Which is a nice way of calling Steve a liar.
~~~~
"If the left had not been so hell bent on making these "studies" apparent in trying to destroy or tear down the overall faith of 75% of this country by taking away a child's right to pray in school,"
here we go again. No one took away the right of brainwashed children to talk to their imaginary sky-daddy. They took away the right of adults with the same imaginary friend to force everyone to talk to it. Grow up and stop the "pity us poor persecuted xians" garbage. No one buys it.
"by stripping Ten Commandments plaques off of buildings,"
Which isn't legal. You do realize this is America, right?
" I have a hard time believing that Ann Coulter would have had anything to write about in the first place."
Which is why she lies, Steve. Catch up.
http://www.atheists.org/publicschools/faqs.prayer.html
Thats a great article to read on behalf of your beloved atheists about how prayer AS A WHOLE is being discouraged by left-America and the ACLU. You're right, certain liberties exist that still protect that right, however, can you honestly tell me that you and other atheists support the few remaining liberties left?
In addition, the characterizations are sweet and genuine and certainly show me the light in terms of atheists' love and contentment. For instance Lya said: "No one took away the right of brainwashed children to talk to their imaginary sky-daddy"
Saying, "no one took away the right" was not enough, throwing in the characterization of "brainwashed" and the new characterization of God as an "imaginary sky daddy" is precisely what Ann Coulter is answering in this book.
Then this one tops it: (regarding pies being hurled at Ann Coulter) "Or maybe they were making commentary on bad entertainment."
So, now, liberals are not required to act on an intellectual level in engaging in political discourse (no matter how vitriolic the aggressor it) whatsoever because the characterization conveniently switches for liberals from "political dialogue" to "bad entertainment". This would lead to my question of why Michael Moore has never had to dodge pies (and he's asking for them) or why Al Franken has not been doused in salad dressing (as opposed to Pat Buchanan) or physically attacked like Bill Cristal or David Horowicz has.
College Republicans are not attacking or throwing food, college liberals are. So, someone again please explain to me how the laws of intellectucalism are playing within the liberal party who are being doggie-leashed along by Howard Dean and John Kerry; but don't quite have the panache to actually formulate coherant arguments?
Were the other college attacks results of "bad entertainment"?
LOL Gotta love it.
This is one Christian that thinks it's time for liberals to start debunking this "persecuted Christian" psychological complex-cum-movement. It's been blown out of proportion (or rather sold through books based on false premises?) from criticizing a few understandably bad decisions made in extreme cases to making a generalized assumption that there is this negative force out there that's oppressing religious people.
If that's the case, how come I don't hear Hindus or Buddhists complaining? They are religious, yet are not claiming persecution from a mass of unheard and unseen scapegoaters.
Seriously, it is childish and assanine. I don't see Christians being fed to lions, or rounded up en masse by police, or being mocked openly in TV shows for being such. Someone expressing differences with Christians faiths does not equate to Christian persecution. I equates to their opinion. Somehow the very religious conservatives that denounced the idea of "political correctness" want exactly that for their own little world.
Funny how steve's link doesn't seem to say anything he says it says.
In other words, it's bad to point out how absurd things are by making fun of them. Whee. Bye-bye First Amendment.
Way to hide a person's actual argument behind a straw man.
More strawmanning of a different sort: Stop attacking the weakest argument, and deal with the actual ones. Like the mathematical takedowns of Dembski I linked near the start of the comment thread. Can't you deal with the real issue, or can you only hide behind the silliest of "liberals", instead of the people who are actually here, and actually presenting real arguments?
"College Republicans are not attacking or throwing food, college liberals are..."
You're right probably on that point...but you forgot to add that college Republicans are reporting their teachers to right-wing blogs and individuals in the Bush administration for purposes of public retribution. Sounds like one party ain't so open to differing opinions as they claim.
An Coulter does not engender civil political discourse. She is not practicing one of Christ's rules: treat others how you want to be treated. Maybe they shouldn't be throwing pies at her, but then she shouldn't be publishing books on why liberals are apparently enemy number 1 in our society. She's openly slandering people, and she doesn't care, so why should she get respect where she does not return it? I'm not saying pie-throwing is right, but if yo get punched in the face, wouldn't you want to throw back?
Your argument is again opportunistic.
As for liberal rebuttals to her arguments, they have been made by many astute individuals. Al Franken is one of them. If you're not too afraid, why don't you try and read what he has to say?
I know what Ann's arguments are. She uses every little opportunity to voice them. She just happens to be historically wrong...on everything.
steveinchicago said:
Issues like abortion or gay marriage are not ones that should be decided and thrust upon society by way of gavel-slamming but rather exercising the democracy that we live in to allow people to have a say in the matter.
So if the Tyranny of the Majority outlaws your way of life, you'll quietly accept it because it was done by democratic vote?
The reason "progressives" are terrified at "democracy" is because they have different interpretations of what "progress" is. It isn't the job of an American President, a supreme court justice, or a right-winged commentator to grant the right of gay marriage. It is their job to encourage the democratic process
Let me cut through all the strawmen in that sentence to point out that one of the functions of our country's laws, and the supreme court, is to ensure equal treatment under the law.
If that means equal education for minorities, equal pay for women, and equal treatment for people of diverse sexual orientations, then so be it.
No matter what the majority says. This is America, where everyone is supposed to be treated as equals.
and I guarantee you, Coulter and Bush are not at all nervous about what the majority of this country would vote for in terms of the two topics I have mentioned.
I completely agree with that sentence. They are both quite comfortable with the probability that the majority in this country would vote you right back into a nice, safe closet. "Don't ask, Don't tell."
The government should provide "opportunity" and not "outcome". It is up to us to determine our own outcome by the equal opportunity provided to us.
You've just contradicted yourself. There is no equal opportunity without protection from a tyrannical majority. Whether that majority be religious conservatives, big business, or some other monopoly.
If gay activists and abortion right's activists are strong about their positions, then they need to focus on gaining their victories under the democratic platform that our nation rests upon.
So you would hold the position that the modern civil rights movement was wrong to lobby for government action via Brown v. Board of Education?
Perhaps they should have just waited for a majority vote in Alabama for everyone to be treated equally?
Oh boy, could I get a pony and some flowers too?
"Can't you deal with the real issue, or can you only hide behind the silliest of "liberals", instead of the people who are actually here, and actually presenting real arguments?"
Of course steve can't deal with it, because he is using the same mindset the Republicans have willfully adopted for everything: find a bad apple in any opposing group, and harp on that 24/7/365 with complete disregard to the majority positive effect that group otherwise has. It's not politically expedient for conservatives to argue facts anymore, because hedging technicalities that confuse people is so much more fun.
College Republicans are not attacking or throwing food, college liberals are.
So just because a few college kids toss a pie at Coulter a la the Biotic Baking Brigade means that all college liberals are irrational fools. Can you say "straw man," Steve?
One other thing: If you can successfully explain to me what "intellectualism" is I will buy you an eBeer. Heck, I'll buy eBeers for everyone (of legal age, natch).
Thats a great article to read on behalf of your beloved atheists about how prayer AS A WHOLE is being discouraged by left-America and the ACLU.
Discouraging!?! Those animals! How dare they discourage something they don't like. If I want to run around and assault people, you have no damn right to come along and discourage me. The nerve! The CHUTZPAH! :)
There will be prayer in schools as long as there is algebra.
PZ, I applaud you for the sacrifice you will make by reading this book. Somebody has to do it, and I sure won't. Drink lots of water, and hide any belts or rope that might be near your favorite reading chair. I look forward to reading your review.
To jump in on one of the arguments here, steveinchicago said:
"Lastly, if someone is nuts, we tend to ignore them. If liberals and progressives REALLY believe that Ann Coulter is nuts, why does she get such a reaction?"
Say what? Conservatives *ignore* left wing people they think are nuts? Bullhonkey! If you guys find a nutty left winger, you make them out to be our messiahs! Are you suggesting that conservatives don't think Cindy Sheehan is a nut? Geez, I'm solid left, and even I'm sick of Sheehan after she got all cudly with Jugo Chavez. But you guys call her "nuts" and then parade her around as if she's our next presidentail candidate.
After making a public statement outlining some of the evidence for evolution some time ago, I was inundated with hate mail (electronic and snail) and death threats almost continuously for ~2 months. In addition to the four-letter words and threats against myself and my family, each and every hate mail, without exception, included a vitriolic dose of flaky right-wing politics. None of those mails addressed the *science* in any way; instead it was all political rants, violence and conservative religious preaching.
A simple outline of evolutionary biology prompted these kooks to call me a "liberal," "radical feminist," "Satanic atheist," "commie radical," "left-wing hippie," "dirty bottom-feeding geek" and a hundred other bits of dreck I won't reproduce here. In addition to the usual "damned to hell" scenario, one said he was praying I would die soon, and another repeatedly harassed my boss and colleagues, demanding that I be fired.
This, my middle-school friend, is what scientists face *every day* in this polarized era, when we step into the public spotlight to clarify the evidence in favor of a well-established scientific theory. I can only imagine what shows up in PZ's mailbox.
And you think college kids throwing food at Ann Coulter is soooo horrible? Give me a break. The kooks, bullies and sociopaths are on *her* side.
With the quotes calladus dissects, it seems someone is unaware of the fact that we live in a constitutional democracy. The majority rules, but cannot and should not be able to override the rights of the minority.
This ain't a country of mob rule and lynchings... At least I hope not.
Blueindependant,
Christians screaming 'persecution' in this country while beating on secular scapegoats seems too much like a Carol Burnette Show sketch to me.
It sounds like Madam Pomfrey's gotten a great deal more "discouragement" than steve could ever whine about.
Glad you've survived it, Madam.
Bronze--thx. Believe it or not, my experience was fairly mild compared to that of other scientists who have been "in the fray" longer and more publicly than I have. I heard from one Colorado biologist who answers science questions on a radio show there and gets ongoing daily death threats. It takes a thick skin and serious commitment to keep plowing ahead, which is why I salute PZ.
That link to the atheists.org FAQ on school prayer doesn't seem to me to be the smoking gun that you think it is.
Repeat after me: students are allowed to pray whenever it is not disruptive. The only things not allowed are teacher-led or otherwise public prayers. Really, isn't there something wrong with your Christian humility when you have to do your prayers in big groups led by someone or otherwise make a big ostentatious display of it? Check Matthew 6:5-6 some day.
And please stop conflating liberalism with atheism.
What's the "strawman" implications all about here?
Calladus disputes as follows:
"So if the Tyranny of the Majority outlaws your way of life, you'll quietly accept it because it was done by democratic vote?"
Nobody wants to "outlaw" my way of life. If there are a few religious extremists that want us to walk around in cloaks and eat meat on certain days, then you and I both know and understand the overall view of people like that. They don't worry me. If the majority of the people vote that "marriage" is to be kept "man-woman", then so be it...unlike Ruth Bader Ginsberg and her constitution convolutions, it is simply a fact that MARRIAGE is not a "right", it's a seperate union. Don't confuse the two and start throwing out sentences of victimization where they does not belong.
"Let me cut through all the strawmen in that sentence to point out that one of the functions of our country's laws, and the supreme court, is to ensure equal treatment under the law."
Exactly! Equal treatment individually, that we all are heard, and that all perspectives are respected and taken into consideration. HOWEVER, making up laws for abortion and gay marriage does not fly into that category of INDIVIDUAL rights. Simply because there are no aspects of "oppression" in either one existing on the opposite side of the debates.
"No matter what the majority says. This is America, where everyone is supposed to be treated as equals."
That's right! I think we agree on more than what you think; however, again this does not mean "rights to abortion" or "rights for two men to marry". Individually you and I have the rights to go out and do anything else that any other individual in this country has the right to do. A "gay couple" denied the option to marry under the same jurisdiction as a man and woman is not an "individual right" issue. (Now who's setting up a strawman?)
"You've just contradicted yourself. There is no equal opportunity without protection from a tyrannical majority."
Once again, I'm gay, you are 'whatever you are' - individually you and I have the same rights to pray or not to pray, speak out against government policy, wear yellow pants, whatever we want. Individually, neither of us gets anymore than the other. But, the democracy we live in grants us the right to convince the majority in anyway we see fit. The majority agrees with me on how abortion, gay marriage should be dealt with. It also agrees with me in God's existence, perhaps you should exercise your right to try and change it.
"So you would hold the position that the modern civil rights movement was wrong to lobby for government action via Brown v. Board of Education?"
Not at all. This was an individual rights issue. Abortion on demand and gay marriage are not "rights" that affect one sole individual or oppressing them from doing anything else that any other individual is doing. The decision in Brown is not a decision that surpasses the boundaries of individual rights into the territory of "governmental imposition".
Hope that explains it :-)
"And you think college kids throwing food at Ann Coulter is soooo horrible? Give me a break. The kooks, bullies and sociopaths are on *her* side."
I'm not sure if you are being 100% honest about your embellishments of your specific situation. I am sorry you were attacked for having an opinion.
However, I guarantee you, it is ONLY conservative speakers on college campuses getting attacked by liberals. No liberal needs security on a college campus, or in any speaking environment whatsoever.
Coulter being attacked as "Hitler" or calling her "Mann Coulter" or throwing pies at her, among the other very clever things liberals come up with, and deterrants from having to debate honestly. Simply because liberals have been strung along their whole lives by their idiotic superiors.
"And you think college kids throwing food at Ann Coulter is soooo horrible? Give me a break. The kooks, bullies and sociopaths are on *her* side."
I'm not sure if you are being 100% honest about your embellishments of your specific situation. I am sorry you were attacked for having an opinion.
However, I guarantee you, it is ONLY conservative speakers on college campuses getting attacked by liberals. No liberal needs security on a college campus, or in any speaking environment whatsoever.
Coulter being called "Hitler" or calling her "Mann Coulter" or throwing pies at her, among the other very clever things liberals come up with, are deterrents from having to debate honestly.
"I'm not sure if you are being 100% honest about your embellishments of your specific situation."
What a f***ing loser. Doesn't want to hear the truth, so he accuses me of lying.
Typical troll.
"And please stop conflating liberalism with atheism"
Sure, when the arguments for both groups become less disingenuous on the basis of phony scientific discoveries and phony approval rating polls, I'll insult them seperately. LOL.
Yes, the link I provided shows a strong discouragement for prayer in schools by insinuating the "secular" dimensions of schools. While there are few liberties left for it, it's still hugely frowned upon by overbearing (but underpopulated) atheists and the A.C.L.U.
"What a f***ing loser. Doesn't want to hear the truth, so he accuses me of lying."
Not at all! I'm simply suggesting that there is actual proof out there implicating the insanity among liberals on college campuses. Ann Coulter, Bill Cristal, Pat Buchanan, David Horowica HAVE ALL benn physically attacked my liberals who cannot argue.
You can google any of the instances right now.
I also told you I was sorry for being attacked for your opinion.
Too much going on here to comment on, really. But two things.
1.) steveinchicago: Your Merriam-Webster definition of 'empirical' is obviously misleading you; and I think, as such, it is a poor definition. You conclude from the definition of empirical as 'relying on experience or observation alone without due regard for system and theory' that empirical detection does not provide scientific proof (since it is "wihout due regard for... theory"?) or perhaps even evidence for scientific conclusions, and that since experience/observation are private and subjective, that even whether a causal relationship exists between two things is a matter of opinion.
A better definition of empirical would be either of these two, also found at Merriam-Webster:
1. Originating in or based on observation and experience. (as in the case of empirical data, which is, of course, what we're concerned with in science)
3. Capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment. (as in the case of empirical laws)
Extrapolating from these two, I think it is clear that the sense in which the empirical 'relies on experience or observation alone, often without due regard for system and theory' is just the sense in which an empirical claim is justified on the basis of observation of the world, not on the basis of its coherence with previously accepted scientific theories. But quite obviously this does not cut against the suggestion that empirical observation might itself provide grounds for accepting or rejecting scientific theories. And obviously it does.
What's more, observation-- contrary to popular belief-- is not subjective, although experience is in some sense. Even Merriam-Webster gets this right. To observe something is to note a fact, and facts are just the sort of things that are the case whether our experience shows them up or not. Facts are objective. And plainly, we shouldn't believe something is objectively the case because it seemed to us, on some occasion, as if it were so (as in the case of someone who has some experience that suggests the presence of God to her)-- because we are eminently fallible-- its one of our better qualities. But we have to try to overcome our fallibility if we want to achieve any certainty about how things really are, and one way to do that is to enlist others in checking our claims-- and we can't do that if our evidence is some private, subjective feeling.
Obviously, that doesn't deny the feeling or even that the feeling is accurate-- but it does put the feeling on a level with hallucinations, rumors, and hoaxes, as far as its epistemic credentials are concerned. And that's the critical point. Objectively speaking we have far better reason to believe our scientific theories than we have reason to believe in God. Again, that doesn't mean you can't trust your private feelings and believe in God-- but you do have to realize that in doing so, you're going way out on a limb (which is, of course, why it's called faith), and that, in fact, you don't really have any license to conclude facts about the empirical world based on the testimony of your subjective sense of God's existence, especially if empirically discerned, well-tested theories contradict those conclusions. Likewise, you haven't got a thing to say to the atheist who does not believe that God exists, other than, "Well, it seems to me that he does." Which is obviously unlikely to win you any arguments. Tough cookies.
2.) I think the claim about Christianity providing a spiritual framework for the morals we're born with is also suspect. In the first place, I strongly doubt that we have a highly developed sense of morality that is innate. Obviously, most of us are predisposed to live according to a moral code, but what moral code we abide by seems rather variable-- this seems, at least in part, to be a product of some social conditioning. In the second place, if Christianity supposedly provides a spiritual framework for morality, it's not clear that spiritualizing things is helping anyone. On the one hand, one is liable to remain with an immature view of why certain immoral actions are immoral (i.e. because they will incur divine punishment). Furthermore, taking one's particular morals to be the edicts of some supreme divinity seems liable to encourage feelings of self-righteousness and arrogance, and to minimize one's ability to rationally deal with moral conflicts and ambiguities. In short, if the purpose of Christianity is to provide a spiritual framework for morality, then Christianity ought to be abandoned, because spiritual frameworks for morality are, in general, a very bad idea.
3.) I would be very interested to see how Ann Coulter responds to the cosmology supposedly held by all libruls. I mean, when an (atheistic) liberal claims that, in fact, man's existence is an inconsequential accident (really, only the latter is true, obviously mankind's existence is consequential, and certainly detrimental if you take the health of the planet to have worth in-itself), she is presumably stating a fact, or some extrapolation from fact, about how events in the world actually transpired. It's hard to see what the force of an objection to this would be other than one of the following two possibilities:
A.) One might say-- rather honestly-- that this is somehow an inattractive picture of man's place in nature, to which the response is obvious-- i.e. tough break, facts are facts. I doubt Coulter would go this route.
B.) More likely, she'll stick with the old standard: 'the librul thinks mankind is an inconsequential accident...which the Bible says is false. QED.'
Actually, on rereading the blurb, it seems like the rejection of librul cosmology and the endorsement of ID probably go hand-in-hand. I suppose that at least shows intelligence enough that she thinks one empirical description has to be refuted by another, superior one. The trouble is that she seems to think that she probably takes the one to be superior to the other on the grounds of either A or B.
"The trouble is that she seems to think that she probably takes the one to be superior to the other on the grounds of either A or B."
Hey Noema, regardless of your motive, that was a fabulous post!
However, we should not disregard the trouble of liberals taking another to be superior on the grounds of "C or D" (I know there was no C or D, but I am sure you could think of a couple, right?)
These types of discussions are fascinating to me. Overall, I had a nice time with it.
Let's chat after the book is released!
Individually you and I have the rights to go out and do anything else that any other individual in this country has the right to do. A "gay couple" denied the option to marry under the same jurisdiction as a man and woman is not an "individual right" issue. (Now who's setting up a strawman?)
WTF? Here's an "individual right" for you. As a heterosexual, I have the right to enter into a marriage contract with the person of my choosing [and the state!].* If I were homosexual-- if the person of my choosing were different, and of the same sex as me-- why should I be denied that?
Now here's another one. As a citizen of this country, I have the right to make informed, autonomous decisions about my healthcare. Why, if I were a woman and pregnant, should I be denied that right?
If you wish, you could take the opportunity to clarify your sense of the term "right" -- or why "individual rights" are somehow especially salient. Because, as yet, it's not clear what those terms are supposed to mean.
* I'm taking "person of my choosing" in a de facto sense here, i.e. as the person I would actually choose to marry, i.e. my fiancee, who, as it happens, is a woman. Just a quasi-logical point, to prevent against misconstrual.
steveinchicago: Nope, sorry. You're wrong again.
Is Ward Churchill nominally liberal? Is he met by protests nearly everywhere he speaks, including college campuses? Does he require campus security when he speaks? (Does "two SWAT team members" count?) http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=62902
Protests may be appropriate in Churchill's case--though it goes without saying that there is no justifying the many death threats he's received. I haven't really studied the man or his views and do not speak on his behalf. I just poked around in google for a few minutes and found facts contradicting another one of your strawmen. It might serve you well to do this kind of homework yourself some time.
BTW, I don't advocate throwing a pie in Coulter's face, one because it is a form of assault (though rather mild) and therefore unjust and illegal and two because it's counterproductive.
As to the matter of promoting "honest debate," I'd say that's a lost cause once Coulter shows up.
In other words, "when I cease to be too lazy to actually check the sources of the arguments and analyze the content of the arguments." Keep in mind that "secular" is not a dirty word, nor is it the same thing as "atheistic". Banning authority-led prayer in schools has benefits in the form of not excluding or ostracizing students on the basis of religious practices that are really irrelevent to the teaching of reading, writing, arithmetic, and etc., but if you want to think it's bad because it "discourages prayer", then go ahead, whatever floats your persecution complex. There are plenty of other places and times for kids to pray.
And as far as "bogus scientific discoveries" go, you've already proven your fundamental lack of understanding of science, so I'd suggest you drop that line of criticism.
Oh no, I just discouraged speech! Call the police!
steve continues to ignore the overall reality and focus solely on a few silly capital, cursive L "liberals", while continuing to dodge the real issue. Coulter lies. Dembski lies. That is the issue. Yes, there are probably some ultra-silly liberals that fit Coulter's absurd mold. That says nothing about liberals or liberalism as a whole, but she and steve seem to claim it does. Meanwhile, steve has derailed the thread from legitimate criticism (and some entertaining ridicule) of the prospective contents of her book with enthymeme claims that criticism isn't protected by the First Amendment.
Steve:
False statement. Many religious conservatives want to either make you invisible, or 'cure' you. Both of which I would assume you oppose.
I really don't give a flip what a religious person wants to do with him or herself. What bothers me is when they decide to use religious laws to regulate my way of life. For example, 'dry' counties, or local laws that require a business to close on Sunday, or laws that give special privileges to churches that other businesses cannot have.
There are a lot of people who would return to the old Comstock laws if they could get away with it. And many of them are in powerful positions - like Don Wildmon of the AFA.
If the majority of the people vote that gay sex is illegal, then you're fine with that. There are still state laws on the books that DO outlaw your way of life - and the only thing that keeps you safe is that an 'activist' Supreme Court ruled in your favor on Lawrence v Texas.
Justice Antonin Scalia was of your opinion. He said he has nothing against homosexuals promoting their agenda through normal democratic means, but in ruling for the plaintiffs the Supreme Court was actively helping promote the 'homosexual agenda'.
Of course, there's another Supreme Court decision to be challenged that holds that there is no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse outside of marriage. But I'm sure that won't bother you since you're so sure the majority will vote to give you gay marriage.
But you are being victimized, and you're standing up for the very people who are screwing you over.
Please reference that the majority agrees with you about gay marriage. (Are you for, or against it?)
And so what if they do? If the majority decided to make you wear a pink triangle, would you just take it?
Assuming you're correct and Brown v. Board of Education is an 'individual' rights issue, but gay marriage is not, would you agree that having the liberty to live as a gay man is an individual rights issue, and is a right that should be protected by law?
Do you agree with the Supreme Court in Owens v. State that you have no right to have sex outside of marriage? Do you think the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence V. Texas should overthrow Owens V. State, (like the 'activist' judges they are) or do you just want to wait for the benevolent majority to vote you a favor?
If the majority decides that you should not be a practicing gay man, would you go with that, or ask for equal protection under the law?
Just a hint, people.
Look at the post. Ann Coulter says batshit insane things. She writes whole books calling liberals traitors. She's a racist, a hater, a monster.
Steveinchicago says some stupid kids threw a pie at her.
What are you talking about? It's not that crazy parasite, Coulter. Notice how easily everyone was derailed?
I plead guilty to feeding the trolls. I'll try to do better in the future.
Well, if it helps, it was my utter hatred of Ann Coulter, after saying that the only thing she has against Timothy McVeigh was that he didn't bomb a building in Manhattan or something, that got me blogging in the first place.
Whenever I see her on TV I hiss and boo like she's the villian in a vaudeville melodrama.
I think she eats whole live mice like the lizard people on that 80s TV show "V". Plus, she makes pies out of kittens.
That was probably his plan to begin with. I've been trying to keep the topic on Coulter's book, and Dembski's bad math.
I can understand the temptation to give into the derail. steve does seem to have a great deal of internal contradiction.
Plus, I have the sneaking suspicion Andy Kaufman's not really dead, and Ann Coulter is him dressing up in drag. It's the only logical explaination.
Doubtful. Andy Kaufman had more curves.
Point taken, PZ. But I do think there is a serious debate to be had about pie throwing... or, not about pie throwing per se, but about how we non-racist, non-hater, non-monsters ought to respond to Coulter. And that debate is important because many of the ways in which self-styled liberals have responded to Coulter have been used, in turn, to make liberals (in general) look bad. So we wring our hands about whether we should argue against her (which is a lot of work, given the sheer magnitude of crap she spouts, and besides which makes her claims and arguments appear more legit than they are), merely deride her (which gets used to claim that we have no legit response to her claims ourselves), or simply ignore her (which could allow her influence to grow unchecked, and besides which could be taken to legitimate her illegitimate claims, etc.).
I think the lesson of the above is that we should respond however we feel like and not second-guess ourselves. Obviously everything we do will be used against us-- and its effectiveness against is us doubled when we admit that, "Oh, well, maybe doing x was a bad idea." As such, I'm going to take a bold stance: barring legal classification of pieing as assault, I believe the pie in question landed right where it belonged: the pieing of Ann Coulter was a fully justified and moral thing to do. While we should in general discouraage such unruly behavior among the young'ns- and we should of course claim to be against pieing in all its forms and flavors-- we should, at the same time, laugh and remark casually amongst ourselves about how much she had it coming to her. This may be an unpopular stance, but I think it is the right one for we Coulter-detractors to assume. Barring ordinary illegalities, there simply is no wrong way to refute, embarrass, or ignore Ms. Coulter. We should do all three of these things, as much as possible, and with scant apologies (if any).
If she were interested in conducting a rational, civil political discourse, that would be one thing. But she's already rejected those rules. The perpetrators of the pieing should thus rightly claim they were fighting fire with fire, or anyway, it's close relative: custard.
There. I said it. I'm vehemently pro-pie.
I think the pie-ing was entertaining, though, of course, not civil. Better than death-threats but still not civil. Of course, steve's fetish for the scenario is even worse: It shows an unwillingness to discuss the issue, and instead go around in circles about one bad example that he can use to make absurd generalizations.
But, back to the book: When you're done with it, PZ, be sure to give us some juicy gems of anti-science. It'd be helpful for me, since I intend to throw in my own two cents. I'm typically not political, so I'd like to see a focus on the raw data (or lack thereof), rather than some "There goes one of those crazy conservatives spouting off again."
Of course, those are just suggestions. After all, you're one of the two major guys who sent 4,200 hits to my blog that day, so you probably know more about how to keep an audience. ;)
Er, point out some juicy gems of anti-science said by Coulter and Dembski.
Out of curiousity, when you start typing your responses to different quotes, are there any massive explosions of pure energy coming out of your computer?
There. I said it. I'm vehemently pro-pie.
But as a liberal, are you objectively pro-pie? :-)
You're right. I went astray and was trolled and (inadvertently) laid out troll-bait. Sorry about that.
"I feel so funky!" - Dr. Venkman
SteveinChicago: You appear to be insinuating several things here. Let me break them down as I see them:
1. College campuses are "insanely liberal".
2. People like Ann Coulter and David Berkowitz have a right to free speech.
3. Throwing pies at right-wing psychos like the above-mentioned is a growing trend taking place at the afore-mentioned "insanely liberal" college campuses.
I find your logic spurious, and let me tell you why (and yes, I am a liberal):
1. College campuses do have a tendency, in general, towards leftism. And why shouldn't they? Intellectual discourse and higher learning generally liberates the mind from fundamentalism, irrational nationalism, and/or racism. However, it would be disingenuous to make the leap in logic by stating that college campuses are, on the whole, "insanely liberal." That is nothing more than a biased ad-hominem attack.
2. As loathsome and rationality-challenged as I find Ann Coulter, David Berkowitz, and others of their right-wing ilk, they do have a right to express their opinions. No one is arguing to the contrary. Just because some people get upset hearing these vapid opinions getting flung around like feces does not mean that they genuinely desire to see such demagogue's voices stifled.
3. Throwing pies at people you disagree with is juvenile and wrong. Bear in mind, however, that the people doing the pie-throwing were young college kids. Their actions do not and should not be construed as being exemplary of the left in general or of collegiate leftism in particular. To do so would be an unwarrented leap in logic and would make the claimant look like an idiot.
What noema said. The appropriate response to Coulter (note this does not apply to other equally ostensibly insane righties like Horowitz who do not gleefully incite violence) is to make absolutely clear that she is outside the bounds of reasonable discourse. It's an utter disgrace that her hate-filled screeds and jocular incitement to violence is given so much publicity in "respectable" media outlets and liberals should not be afraid to voice that outrage. Throwing a pie is not civil, but it's the very least she deserves. She does not deserve to be treated as a reasonable political opponent whose ideas deserve a response. Her comments are borderline criminal incitement, for the flying spaghetti monster's sake. There are plenty of right wing pundits whose arguments we can and should tackle reasonably without giving a platform or legitimacy to her fascist or pretend fascist ranting.
Ann Coulter strikes me as being distinctly undemocratic - her values seem to run counter to those that are the hallmarks of democracy. Sure she makes use of the privilege of free speech, without accepting any of the responsibilities. So remind me again why so many in the land of the free and home of the brave (or whatever) love her so much?
Ahh, steveinchicago, you create so many opportunities for a smackdown. But PZ doesn't want us to derail the thread (too much). But I will pick on one comment of yours from way up thread, just for the hell of it - Mexican restaurant blah blah, how has faith hurt anyone blah blah. If you read Mein Kampf you'll note that Hitler viewed his mission to annihilate the Jews and other undesirables as ordained to him by the Christian god. A lot of people were hurt because of this man and his faith. Strike one.
People like Ann Coulter and David Berkowitz have a right to free speech.
I, uh, think you mean David Horowitz. David Berkowitz was the Son of Sam killer in New York back in the late 70's, and a slightly less likable character than Horowitz.
After further consideration, intellectual integrity demands that I retract one of my prior statements. Ann Coulter is not, in fact, likely to ever endorse Adolf Hitler, for reasons that should be obvious. Namely, he was born in Austria.
Now if he were a Texan, and not dead, I don't doubt that she would be begging him to father her children. As long as they don't get too deeply into economics during the pillow talk (Hitler reportedly supported some degree of state economic planning, while Coulter and other wingnuts believe that the government should only intervene in the economy to repay their cronies for campaign support and to add baculative force to the hypocritical moralizing of groups like, say, the RIAA), and weren't too specific about which Semitic group received the brunt of their hatred, and didn't name the country they felt so passionately about, they would likely agree on virtually everything.
Now, David Berkowitz I can see her defending...
(from a long time ago)
What the hell is it with right-wingers and blondes?
Obviously they're great admirers of the Nordic political model. You know, like those paragons of free market liberalism in Sweden.
Or maybe they just appreciate good ice hockey.
Bob
steveinchicago:
There you have it, folks, plain as day: self-declared "conservatives" are unjust, hateful, racist and homophobic because it's just so damn much fun! Especially the part where they pretend that they're not unjust, hateful, racist and homophobic!
Clearly, the atheists are to blame.
"Thats a great article to read on behalf of your beloved atheists about how prayer AS A WHOLE is being discouraged by left-America and the ACLU."
*yawn* Someone clearly didn't read his own link.
"You're right, certain liberties exist that still protect that right, however, can you honestly tell me that you and other atheists support the few remaining liberties left?"
Which would be? Are you always vague and obtuse? I suppose that would help you lie a lot more.
"the characterizations are sweet and genuine and certainly show me the light in terms of atheists' love and contentment."
So one person's opinon is suppose to speak for all? Yeah, that's not pathetically stupid at all.
" For instance Lya said: "No one took away the right of brainwashed children to talk to their imaginary sky-daddy"
"throwing in the characterization of "brainwashed" and the new characterization of God as an "imaginary sky daddy" is precisely what Ann Coulter is answering in this book."
My opinion. As this is America, I can have it. Just like you can worship the imaginary sky-daddy. Not all atheists feel this way, though don't allow that truth to interupt your hatemongering.
"So, now, liberals are not required to act on an intellectual level in engaging in political discourse (no matter how vitriolic the aggressor it) whatsoever . . . ."
I hope you're enjoying the debate environment neocons have set up for us. Not so fun when you're on the receiving end isn't, poor little Stevie?
"College Republicans are not attacking or throwing food,"
Nah, they're suing for the right to discriminate. That's better. And besides, food is a hell of a lot better than bullets, wouldn't you say?
"So, someone again please explain to me how the laws of intellectucalism are playing within the liberal party who are being doggie-leashed along by Howard Dean and John Kerry; but don't quite have the panache to actually formulate coherant arguments?"
So, someone again please explain to me how the laws of intellectucalism are playing within the neocon party who are being doggie-leashed along by Idiot Bush and Douchebag Cheney; but don't quite have the panache to actually formulate coherant arguments?"
Lya Kahlo:
How can a statement of fact be a lie [or be insolent, ala Orac]? It was the first time I dialogued with a gay conservative. That's an insult? On your drive through non sequitur city, you claim that this is accusing him of either: 1) not being gay, 2) not being conservative. I did neither, and asked him to support his position with anything that "conservatives" have on their agenda which is better for us than "liberals". He of course neatly laid aside the issue. I would especially love to hear our troll pontificate on how the "liberals" are bad for the gay community, but "conservatives" are looking out for them...but I won't hold my breath on that one.
Ann Coulter just came here to UF to speak a couple weeks ago. I didn't have the selflessness to sacrifice neurons to do an online review of her talk, but reading the reports, my favorite quote of the night had to be:
"A college campus is the last place you should send someone to inculcate them [with] the values of America," she said.
Right. Inculcation of values is best done in church, and through home-schooling. Who the hell wants to be exposed to multiple perspectives on culture and politics? Then you might be tempted to see your worldview's weaknesses and stupidities. Sunlight is a harsh disinfectant to pathogenic minds like Coulter's.
Her pseudo-arguments were dissected in this letter to the editor.
Ann Counter is clearly a Democratic deep-penetration agent, whose mission is to destroy conservatism from the inside. 'Treason', her first book, was pitched to be red-meat to less-educated conservatives, but to alienate anyone with more than a passing familiarity with the history of the 1950s. Her new book will obviously get the fundies all excited, and will utterly disgust the few remaining conservatives who are scientists. This, the GOP loses anyone with an IQ above 100, and becomes even more a party of know-nothing, knee-jerk, angry reactionaries.
My prediction is that this will be her last book. At 45, she's losing what looks she had, and in another few years she'll be totally unable to induce rednecks to think with the slightly smaller of their two heads. Like David Brock, she will come out of the closet, settle down with her life-partner, and lead a quiet existence of living off her royalties, and campaigning for abortion and animal rights.
Hey PZ, hope you dont mind, I cross posted this at POAC and My Left Wing. I linked it at the first, and someone else did it for me at the second (Im new there as well, and didnt know how to link on that site)
Enjoy the plug, man & keep up the good work!
http://www.myleftwing.com/userDiary.do?personId=3173
http://oldamericancentury.org/bb/index.php?showtopic=8412&hl=coulter
Steve wrote:
"To act as if Coulter's ONLY purpose is to spew hate after knowing this woman graduated an Ivy League school with honors, has written thousands of columns, been on TV thousands of times, written 4 (going on 5) MASSIVE New York Times bestsellers is a position in and of itself that consists of very little "scientific" research."
Isn't it odd that this fellow thinks that scientists or those that support science should conduct 'scientific research' in order to have opinons or - in this case - to draw fairly obvious conclusions.
Writing a best seller is not indicative of one's intelligence, insight, or relevance. All it means is that people buy the books.
And when one consioders that right-wing "think tanks" and similar groups often buy such books in large quantities and later give them away or sell them at a loss to 'true believers', the 'best seller' aspect loses much of its sheen.
-steveinchicago
In a similar spirit as my retraction above, I should point out that this man is, in fact, telling the truth. Coulter does indeed accomplish many things beyond hate-mongering and slander.
For instance, her filth-gushing mouth alone provides a home for billions of bacteria.