WARNING R rated for language.
Bill Maher is not a scientist, not an educator or even a weatherman – he’s just a comedian, but a lot of people hang on his every word about global warming. So, it’s good for the dumbed-down left to be exposed to the truth when we catch Mr. Maher telling a big, fat, whopper!
BILL MAHER: No, I know why you’re happy. It’s because you’re indoors. It’s hot outside. Not as hot here as it a lot of places in the country. Do you know that 29 states are under what they call a heat advisory? When I was a kid this used to be called, “Get the f–k inside.”
But, I mean, they’re triple-digit temperatures. It was 123 in Minnesota. How far is Al Gore going to take this global warming hoax?
[Laughing, cheers and applause]
Before we get to the stupidity and/or dishonesty on display, Maher followed this up by making another tasteless joke about Marcus Bachmann:
MAHER: 123 in Minnesota? Minnesota? Michelle Bachmann’s husband went in the closet just for the shade.
[Cheers and applause]
Oh, I kid Michelle Bachmann. . .
Here are some true record temperatures:
State Temp Date Location Elevation
Calif. 134 July 10, 1913 Death Valley zero feet
Colo. 118 July 11, 1888 Bennett 5,484 feet
N.Y. 108 July 22, 1926 Troy 35 feet
Minn. 114 July 6, 1936 Moorhead 904 feet
Vt. 105 July 4, 1911 Vernon 310 feet
Ohio 113 July 21, 1934 Gallipolis 673 feet
Neb. 118 July 24, 1936 Minden 2,169 feet
Rush Limbaugh said on Wednesday that news outlets were hyping the heat wave gripping much of the nation by reporting the heat index rather than the actual temperatures. That’s what Maher did too, proving Limbaugh was on track again.
I hate to be the one who says your wrong but you guys at PS are 100% wrong!
Obama is a comedian, Harry Reid is a comedian, that idiot Joe Biden is a comedian. Maher is a nasty, little man, not a comedian.
When I was a kid it was called summer time. I have spent summers all over this Country and without fail they were hot some were hotter than others but it is summer. They are acting as if heat and humidity are new to the East coast. Hello, DC was built on a swamp. When it hits 110 or so here in Chico do you ever recall the media going crazy over it?
Toby I stand corrected, you’re absolutely right!
Toby I have a different take. You are a comedian and quite funny!
I’d say politically Obama is a dangerous, ridiculous clown, Harry Reid is a disingenuous, lying snake oil salesman, and that idiot Joe Biden is a relatively harmless, court jester!
“Maher is a nasty, little man…”
Yes! On this point we all agree. I don’t find him funny in any way so I can’t call him a comedian.
The heat index is something useful to locals but deceptive when issued as real temperatures reported in national news.
Tell a Montanan that the wind chill temperature is 45 below and he’ll know to toss a wool blanket and some water and snacks in the car before a trip just in case the car breaks down. Same with the heat index…locals know they need to take precautions.
These temperatures are useless to anyone else…and quite deceptive when linked to GW.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I thought he was telling the truth!
You guys at PS do us a tremendous service. How else are we to know when a comedian is only exagerating?
He may have been considered a comedian at one time, but no longer. Now he just spews hate in the guise of satire.
“Bill Maher is not a scientist, not an educator or even a weatherman – he’s just a comedian, but a lot of people hang on his every word about global warming.”
A lot of people? Who?
I didn’t even know a lot of people watched his show.
What’s funny is that you follow up by citing Rush Limbaugh, who is also not a scientist, an educator, a weatherman, or even a comedian. Yet a lot of people DO hang on Limbaugh’s every word about global warming, including you.
How is the heat index “false?” As I understand it, the heat index takes into account humidity, which is an important factor. Of course, I don’t think heat index temperatures shouldn’t be reported as actual temperatures. Who else did Limbaugh accuse of doing this, other than Maher?
I don’t like Bill Maher. His style of comedy is often far too hostile and mean-spirited, and he has said things that I consider very offensive. But Marcus Bachmann deserved that joke. Bachmann has made a living trying to force gay people back into the closet–I’m sorry, I mean to “cure” them of their “disease” with prayer. In case it isn’t obvious, this practice has been condemned by the APA as psychologically damaging. I can’t get offended by Maher questioning the sexual orientation of a man who uses taxpayer money to question and attempt to change the orientations of others, all the while telling them that if they don’t change, they’ll go to hell. A little joke seems pretty harmless compared to the amount of harm Bachmann has done to the lives of his patients.
Chris: “What’s funny is that you follow up by citing Rush Limbaugh, who is also not a scientist, an educator, a weatherman, or even a comedian. Yet a lot of people DO hang on Limbaugh’s every word about global warming…”
Mr Limbaugh doesn’t pull his opinions about GW out of thin air. In fact, Mr Limbaugh has spoken with quite a number of different scientists, some of whom have called his show, others he has known for years. It is a BIG mistake to think Limbaugh talks about things without consulting with people who are experts in the field and it is a big mistake to believe that all highly credentialled scientists agree with Al Gore on the subject of GW.
“But Marcus Bachmann deserved that joke. Bachmann has made a living trying to force gay people back into the closet–I’m sorry, I mean to “cure” them of their “disease” with prayer. In case it isn’t obvious, this practice has been condemned by the APA as psychologically damaging.”
Mr Bachman and his wife are the target of a typical left wing Saul Alinsky target and trash game. Your information is not accurate, Chris:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44823
“…it is a big mistake to believe that all highly credentialled scientists agree with Al Gore on the subject of GW.”
Perhaps not all, but a vast majority of scientists agree that man-made global warming is real. And the evidence is on their side.
I may have been wrong about some of the details of the Bachmann’s clinic, but my main point stands. Even if people are voluntarily coming in to get treatment in order to change their orientation, the clinic is perpetuating a fraud by telling these people that they can achieve this. And they are using Medicaid money to do so, which makes them giant hypocrites on top of everything else.
Marcus Bachmann has also referred to gay people as “barbarians.” Michele herself has accumulated a huge list of anti-gay quotes. She has called homosexuality a “sexual identity disorder.” She has falsely charged that schools want to teach kids to “try” homosexuality. She refuses to acknowledge the problem of anti-gay bullying in her own district and opposes anti-bullying initiatives to deal with this problem.
People are entitled to their own beliefs, but they are not entitled to use my taxpayer dollars in their quest to perpetuate bigotry. It’s also important to note that the only Biblical condemnation of homosexuality comes sandwiched in between archaic and tribally specific dietary restrictions that virtually zero Christians actually follow, so citing religious objections to gay rights is unconvincing to me.
The next president of the United States must represent all Americans and help guide our country into an uncertain future. Michele Bachmann, with her regressive contempt toward a certain segment of our population, her opposition to scientific evidence, and her inability to tell the truth (she has never received higher than a “False” on Politifact) is clearly not up to that task.
Chris, Maher has some pretty big ratings and many consider him a master of his trade. Many people think Maher’s jabs and stabs are right on – they love his mocking! Unfortunately it would take some time for me to travel around the nation collecting their exact names and addresses along with their sworn affidavates for you to inspect as proof of my claim “that many people hang on his every world”, so if you choose not believe, well, I understand.
It’s not odd that I followed up naming Rush at all. He was another personality that predicted verbatim that Maher and liberals would use the worst possible numbers rather than to cite the real temp. He was right on too, Maher did it – and that’s funny! Well, maybe not to you, but to most of us it was hilarious. Are you laughing now? No…didn’t think so.
Chris: Perhaps not all, but a vast majority of scientists agree that man-made global warming is real. And the evidence is on their side.
The idea that most scientists support AGW is a talking point; there is simply no evidence to support the claim. The theory is not only greatly discredited but its promoters have received a great deal of disdain for politicizing the issue and forcing expensive programs that harm the economy and do little to help the environment. There are many scientists that are skeptical and some of them were once proponents.
http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Debunking+UNs+Global+Warming+Alarmism+is+Backed+by+31478+US+Scientists/article15467.htm
Also see a list of prominent scientists that have reversed their opinion and become AGW skeptics at Canada Free Press (I excerpted a few so you can see they are not quacks):
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/eminent-physicists-skeptical-of-agw.html
Freeman Dyson is certainly not an obscure scientist!
I may have been wrong about some of the details of the Bachmann’s clinic, but my main point stands. Even if people are voluntarily coming in to get treatment in order to change their orientation, the clinic is perpetuating a fraud by telling these people that they can achieve this.
In fact the gay community is perpetrating a fraud by insisting that there are no examples where people have looked for spiritual help, received it and reversed their orientation or chosen to live differently.
Since sexuality is an expression or activity (not an identity) orientation is a free will issue and, at least for those people who choose and have success, a change has been possible. You might want to read this article:
http://bible.org/article/can-homosexuals-change
And also this one that is more scientifically based, rather than just religiously oriented:
http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/can-you-change-your-sexual-orientation/
And here is a personal testimony in book form:
http://www.blessedtherapy.com/
The attacks on Michelle Bachman and her husband are some of the most blatant examples of bullying (and attitude clouding the facts) Ive witnessed in recent memory. Forgive me if I dont take the charges against the Bachmans all that seriously.
Gays, and their cheerleaders, are also some of the biggest bullies on the block. (If police reports are to be believed they even bully each other!)
People are entitled to their own beliefs, but they are not entitled to use my taxpayer dollars in their quest to perpetuate bigotry.
I feel your pain. I resent the taxpayer dollars used to murder babies at Planned Parenthood too (and dont bother perpetrating the myth that they dont use those funds for abortiontheir bookkeeping doesnt match up with the numbers). What has happened in the black community is particularly obnoxious (and you cant tell me Medicaid isnt funding a bunch of them).
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/national-black-pro-life-coalition-releases-startling-new-abortion-awareness-video/
The gay community could take a lesson from it’s own rhetoric…there are two sides to the bigotry coin. Gay bigotry toward Chrisitians is blatant and, shall we say, totally lacking in the tolerance factor. The total disregard and respect for traditional marriage is but one example. Gay activism, IMHO, has morphed into a form of legalistic bullying.
It’s also important to note that the only Biblical condemnation of homosexuality comes sandwiched in between archaic and tribally specific dietary restrictions that virtually zero Christians actually follow, so citing religious objections to gay rights is unconvincing to me.
Oh brother…”archaic and tribally specific”…spoken like a faithful student of a leftist anti-Christian propaganda machine…but to each his own. You will have to dig deeper than the surface to understand the big deal about the Bible, Chris. Keep that in mind if you ever have a spiritual curiosity…hunger or thirst…to satisfy and quench.
I will just say God is very serious about his warnings. He warns from a position of love not hate.
We are all hypocrites in any case so your argument doesnt mean much. Since we are human and subject to failures, wrong headedness, stupidity, misunderstanding and bad choices (it seemed just fine at the time)in short, sin, it is important to remember that understanding is something we must ardently pursue and faith is something we must continuously practice.
Objections, as you call them, are expressions based in faith and understanding. They do not necessarily reflect or represent attitudes toward gay individuals as people. Gay people often misunderstand this, thinking a religious belief translates to hate. God gave us free willmost Christians know and respect the right of others to choose their own lifestyle and know it is not our place to judge others.
As to gay rights there is plenty of room for legitimate political disagreement about what constitutes rights, as we have previously discussed.
The next president of the United States must represent all Americans
I certainly hope they do a much better job than the current president has!
We could do a lot worse than Michelle Bachman.
Oh…one more thing. PolitiFact is sometimes way off base in it’s evaluations as this article demonstrates:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/28/polifacts-fixers#
(The article continues and shows exactly how PolitiFact erred in rating Bachmans statement as false leaving a false impression as well as incorect facts)
As usual, Tina, you’re wrong about pretty much everything.
“The idea that most scientists support AGW is a talking point; there is simply no evidence to support the claim.”
False.
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700085458/Global-warming-consensus-matters.html
“Two recent studies have shown that 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers who actively publish peer-reviewed research on climate change agree that humans are significantly affecting Earth’s climate.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-royalsoc01-30
“The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.”
Tina: “In fact the gay community is perpetrating a fraud by insisting that there are no examples where people have looked for spiritual help, received it and reversed their orientation or chosen to live differently.”
People can of course choose to live differently. But why should gay people do so? Bachmann’s clinic instructs patients that they MUST choose to ignore their natural orientation, or suffer eternal damnation. This is not compassionate, Tina. It is not right. It isn’t even based on the teachings of Jesus. It is just cruel.
“Since sexuality is an expression or activity (not an identity) orientation is a free will issue and, at least for those people who choose and have success, a change has been possible.”
False. Let’s look at how the American Psychological Association defines “sexual orientation:”
“Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior).
Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional, and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).
Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.”
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
Behavior can change. Orientation rarely ever does.
Many of those who claim to have had their orientation changed have been victims of persecution from organizations like Bachmann’s. These organizations often attempt to indoctrinate and brainwash their “patients” into leading a heterosexual lifestyle. Oddly enough, these same organizations then claim that it is gay people who are trying to indoctrinate straights into their lifestyle. I have never heard of a clinic that tries to turn straight people gay. Have you, Tina?
“Gays, and their cheerleaders, are also some of the biggest bullies on the block.”
I am just going to come right out and say it: You are selfish and ignorant. Only someone completely lacking in empathy could claim that gays are the bullies and Christians are the victims in this society.
“I feel your pain. I resent the taxpayer dollars used to murder babies at Planned Parenthood too (and dont bother perpetrating the myth that they dont use those funds for abortiontheir bookkeeping doesnt match up with the numbers).”
You are a liar.
“The gay community could take a lesson from it’s own rhetoric…there are two sides to the bigotry coin. Gay bigotry toward Chrisitians is blatant and, shall we say, totally lacking in the tolerance factor.”
Gays are not spending millions of dollars to stop Christians from marrying, Tina. Christian kids aren’t being murdered by gay people for being Christian. Christian kids are not being driven to suicide in droves by taunts from their gay classmates.
You are completely blind, Tina. You have created this entire Bizarro World where you get to play the victim and ignore the real problems facing your fellow Americans. It is sick.
“The total disregard and respect for traditional marriage is but one example.”
No one is trying to eliminate “traditional marriage.” (And here I’d like to point out that the most “traditional” form of marriage is polygamy; “one man, one woman” was at one time the revisionist view.) No one is trying to stop straight people from marrying each other. Your claims of disrespect are hollow and without merit. It’s pure whining, Tina. You have no real grievance here, you just like to play the victim.
“Oh brother…”archaic and tribally specific”…spoken like a faithful student of a leftist anti-Christian propaganda machine…”
How am I wrong, Tina? Explain it to me if you can. You know as well as I do that most of the rules laid out in the book of Leviticus are not followed by Christians today, so how can my claim be called “anti-Christian?”
“Keep that in mind if you ever have a spiritual curiosity…hunger or thirst…to satisfy and quench.”
You know nothing about my level of “spiritual curiosity.” I pray every day and before every meal. Tonight I will pray for you to develop some compassion and common sense.
“I will just say God is very serious about his warnings. ”
Is he as serious about the warning against not eating shrimp as he is about men not lying with other men?
“We are all hypocrites in any case so your argument doesnt mean much.”
Sure, none of us is perfectly consistent. But it takes a special kind of hypocrite to represent a movement which is explicitly against government funding for practically anything, when that same person has never held a job that didn’t rely on government funding.
“Objections, as you call them, are expressions based in faith and understanding. They do not necessarily reflect or represent attitudes toward gay individuals as people.”
Marcus Bachmann calling gay people “barbarians” is not a reflection of how he thinks about gay individuals as people? Whoo, what a relief!
“God gave us free willmost Christians know and respect the right of others to choose their own lifestyle and know it is not our place to judge others.”
I know some of these Christians. They are the ones who opposed Prop 8. You are not one of these Christians, Tina.
“Consensus matters”…what happy horse hockey science uses consensus rather than the scientific method?
Chris don’t tell me its not a talking point for a globalogna political game to make money and screw the public known as global warming/climate change…that game just keeps getting stinkier! (see three articles posted today)
“”Two recent studies have shown that 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers who actively publish peer-reviewed research on climate change agree that humans are significantly affecting Earth’s climate.”
Which means absolutely nothing since it has been established that the whole peer review thing has also been part of the scam. True believers reviewing for true believers and helping to block all alternative articles from being published. (Not to mention the lock the warming crowd had on the grant process)
“People can of course choose to live differently. But why should gay people do so?”
Gay people should live as they choose. I’ve never said otherwise but to pretend it doesn’t happen is an error.
“Behavior can change. Orientation rarely ever does.”
Not according to the people that have experienced a change.
You are free to believe what you want to about “orientation” just as those of us who believe differently than you are free to believe what we believe.
Sex is an activity. Love is a space. Love can be expressed in many ways including through the sexual act. Engaging in the sexual act is a choice. In most cases, a persons biology determines his sex, male or female. Hormonal differences determine differences or degrees of feminitity or masculinity but male or female is the standard biological reality…for obvious reasons.
“Many of those who claim to have had their orientation changed have been victims of persecution from organizations like Bachmann’s. These organizations often attempt to indoctrinate and brainwash their “patients” into leading a heterosexual lifestyle.”
Who knows how many teens and young adults have been indoctrinated into the gay lifestyle due to loneliness or emotional problems along with heavy drugs and alcohol use. The psychobabble community wouldn’t dream of making a study about that possiblility. (The health issues alone for men are an incredible)
“Bachmann’s clinic instructs patients that they MUST choose to ignore their natural orientation, or suffer eternal damnation. This is not compassionate, Tina. It is not right. It isn’t even based on the teachings of Jesus.”
I’m sorry Chris but you have little knowledge of Jesus, who was raised a Jew, if you think he wouldn’t tell a gay person the same thing. You have so much stuff on this issue you ehar it as something said in judgement rather than love. Jesus might express it with greater awareness and grace (although maybe not if you look at other examples of His warnings) but I assure you that this is exactly what the Bible (the word of God) teaches. It also teaches redemption but we are required to confess our sins, determine to change our ways (very difficult for every person no matter what his sin), and show we are willing to follow Christ (make Him number one in our lives).
“I am just going to come right out and say it: You are selfish and ignorant. Only someone completely lacking in empathy could claim that gays are the bullies and Christians are the victims in this society.”
How about I come right out and say it; you are ignorant, naive, brainwashed and bigoted toward Christians and completely rediculous about gays. I didn’t say Christians were the victims and Gays are not. I wasn’t implying a contest! People are people. Let’s not pretend that gays are incapable of bullying…they’ve been bullying loudly for a number of years. They hit the homophobia button in knee jerk fashion at the drop of a hat…disagreement is not allowed! The phrase “in your face” was INVENTED by gays (and feminists) for heavens sake. I believe you will also remember the sad statistics I posted before about gays harming other gays (in relationships) like bullies.
“You are a liar.”
You are incapable of accepting certain truths when they don’t fit your template….that doesn’t make me a liar.
“Gays are not spending millions of dollars to stop Christians from marrying…”
No they are spending millions of dollars in the courts and through the political process to destroy marriage and make it into something entirely different!
“Christian kids aren’t being murdered by gay people for being Christian. Christian kids are not being driven to suicide in droves by taunts from their gay classmates.”
Chritians, on the whole, don’t have anything to do with what is happening to gays. Kids are driven to suicide for many reasons. Kids are killed for many reasons. Black kids are killing each other…for what? Terrirory? You think what happens to gays is the only tragedy in the world? We live in a fairly sick society in case you hadn’t noticed. Holding Chritians responsible for the pain and suffering, even for gays, is rediculous!!!!!
“You are completely blind, Tina. You have created this entire Bizarro World where you get to play the victim and ignore the real problems facing your fellow Americans. It is sick.”
You are way off base, kiddo. I’m not a victim. I am a warrior…fighting to maintain marriage as it has been in civilized society for centuries. It is the main reason civilization was realized and maintained. My reasons have nothing to do with hate or homophobia as I have explained on other occassions. I have no trouble with civil unions. I have no problem with gays establishing legal unions. Marriage I want preserved as between a man and a woman because of the children that result from the union. (I want a lot of other social constructs reestablished as well, like stricter marriage laws and I would prefer less promiscuity).
“You know as well as I do that most of the rules laid out in the book of Leviticus are not followed by Christians today”
That’s true. The Jews were without Kings or judges in the time of Moses. All they had was the law…a means to maintain faith with God. When Christ came his sacrifice fullfilled the law. He was the perfect sacrifice; the lamb of God. Redemption was made possible through Him. The Ten Commandments (Gods Laws), handed down to Moses remain. But there are many things in Leviticus that are still believed (if not always practiced) by Christians today. Examples: Prohibitions against incest and of relations with the wife of a neighbor. (Leviticus 18) Keep the Sabbath, help the poor, do not steal or lie or cheat, be kind to the blind and dumb, don’t be a gossip, love thy neighborno magic, no astrology no tattoos, respect elders, treat strangers kindly, be fair. (Leviticus 19)
Honest Christians don’t try to pretend they are perfect…in fact they would be the first to tell you they are sinners in need of forgiveness and gods love and understanding.
“Tonight I will pray for you to develop some compassion and common sense.”
Thank you Chris. I’ll do the same for you. Right now you seem to have compassion and sympathy bound together with a golden string. Real compassion isn’t always sweet and kind. Another aspect of compassion is more confrontational. It is equally valid and quite often much more valuable in terms of growth.
“Is he as serious about the warning against not eating shrimp as he is about men not lying with other men?”
He is serious about his warnings. He leaves it to us as individuals to decide for ourselves and EACH will be judged individualy. Free will.
“But it takes a special kind of hypocrite to represent a movement which is explicitly against government funding for practically anything, when that same person has never held a job that didn’t rely on government funding.”
Please explain yourself.
“Marcus Bachmann calling gay people “barbarians” is not a reflection of how he thinks about gay individuals as people? Whoo, what a relief!”
IF he said it unprovoked and without explainable context it was a terrible thing to say. What I don’t know is why he said it or what had been said to or about him to provoke this language. Not that it excuses him but knowing how it came about could shed more light and provide a reasonable explanation for the remark.
When I consider what the left has done and said to Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and other Republican women I can’t get too worked up about this.
“I know some of these Christians. They are the ones who opposed Prop 8. You are not one of these Christians, Tina.”
I’m not certain I understand what you are saying here either. Please explain.
Chris I forgot to post this article. I have argued that changing the marriage laws would invite lawsuits from different people wanting their “lifestyle choices” to be recognized. They will use the same arguments as precedent.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/24/gay-marriage-foes-cite-polygamy-suit/
What this has to do with the “heat index” I’ll leave to others to decide 😉
Tina: “”Consensus matters”…what happy horse hockey science uses consensus rather than the scientific method?”
False dilemma…scientists arrive at a consensus precisely BECAUSE they have followed the scientific method and reached the same conclusions.
“Not according to the people that have experienced a change.”
Tina, you’re really ignoring the obvious here, aren’t you? The people who undergo “ex-gay” therapy do so because they are scared and self-loathing. They face immense pressure from their families, religious groups, and communities as a whole. They have every reason to fear harassment, bullying, discrimination, and sometimes even violence. Often they are young people who still live with their parents and have to worry about being disowned and kicked out on the streets. It is of course no surprise that many of these people would retreat back into the closet and deny their true feelings after undergoing this illegitimate and damaging form of counseling.
I will concede that a small minority of people who undergo this treatment may actually be able to rid themselves of same-sex attraction, but they haven’t been truly “helped;” they’ve been brainwashed. This counseling is not psychologically healthy. It doesn’t teach people to accept themselves, it teaches them to deny and repress.
I don’t believe sexual orientation is completely static for everyone; some people may believe they are gay early on in life and later discover they are not, and many more people go through the opposite process. But this is something people need to figure out for themselves. They do not need people like the Bachmanns to tell them the right way to live and love. More often then not, this leads to a life of repression and misery. It has lead to sham marriages which end in messy divorce. For every testimony of someone who has “converted” to being straight because of this controversial brand of therapy, there are two more people who say they have been damaged by it.
“You are free to believe what you want to about “orientation” just as those of us who believe differently than you are free to believe what we believe.”
Of course we are all entitled to our beliefs, but you should know that when it comes to the public debate, your side is losing. And history will not judge your side kindly.
“Who knows how many teens and young adults have been indoctrinated into the gay lifestyle due to loneliness or emotional problems along with heavy drugs and alcohol use.”
Can you really not see how you are proving the very double standard I accused you of, Tina?
Once again, gays don’t set up clinics to try and convert people to being gay! Gays don’t tell straight people that they are going to hell if they are straight! Gay parents don’t kick out their sons and daughters for dating someone of the opposite sex!
Is it not obvious by now how disingenuous your concerns are? This goes back to your extreme self-centeredness. You accuse the other side of doing exactly what your side does. When “they” do it, it is wrong; when your people do it, it is just. You have no problem with a clinic that indoctrinates people into being straight; but the possibility that some kids may be indoctrinated into being gay–which you have absolutely no evidence is happening, or if that’s even possible–is alarming to you.
Hypocrisy.
“The psychobabble community wouldn’t dream of making a study about that possiblility.”
And once again you express your complete ignorance over how studies are conducted. You seem to believe that studies are conducted in order to prove a political point.
“I’m sorry Chris but you have little knowledge of Jesus, who was raised a Jew, if you think he wouldn’t tell a gay person the same thing.”
So now we’re theorizing over what Jesus “would” or “wouldn’t” have said? The fact is that there is no record of Jesus ever preaching against homosexuality.
“How about I come right out and say it; you are ignorant, naive, brainwashed and bigoted”
You need to stop trying to appropriate words which you clearly don’t know the meanings of. “Brainwashed” and “bigoted” are nonsense words coming from someone who endorses ex-gay therapy. You have previously accused me of “bigotry” for criticizing the actions and statements of individual people. You even accused me of being bigoted toward Ann Coulter, when I merely criticized her for directing a racist and religiously discriminatory remark toward a seventeen-year old girl! Yet you took no issue with her statement whatsoever. You have twisted the definition of bigotry so that it only applies when your side is being criticized, yet you ignore actual examples of people being discriminated against because of their innate qualities or membership in certain social groups. This is completely backwards, Tina, and it takes an absurd lack of self-awareness for you not to realize that.
“I didn’t say Christians were the victims and Gays are not.”
You said that gays were bullying Christians. When one bullies someone, that makes the bullied target a victim by definition.
“Let’s not pretend that gays are incapable of bullying…”
I never said that.
“they’ve been bullying loudly for a number of years.”
This is what I take issue with. It’s not true.
“You are incapable of accepting certain truths when they don’t fit your template….that doesn’t make me a liar.”
You are the one incapable of accepting the truth. It is proven that Planned Parenthood does not use taxpayer funds for abortion. You continue to believe that they do because it fits your narrative.
“No they are spending millions of dollars in the courts and through the political process to destroy marriage and make it into something entirely different!”
That’s your ignorant and over-the-top interpretation. No marriage will be “destroyed” or even altered when two men or two women are allowed to marry…they have been doing this in several different countries and several of our own states for many years, and marriage has not been “destroyed.”
“Chritians, on the whole, don’t have anything to do with what is happening to gays.”
I never blamed Christians as a whole. However, there are many branches of Christianity in this country who have made a mission out of depriving gays of their happiness and ensuring that the country remain hostile toward homosexuality.
“Kids are driven to suicide for many reasons. Kids are killed for many reasons. Black kids are killing each other…for what? Terrirory? You think what happens to gays is the only tragedy in the world?”
Please stop the straw-manning. I never said anything that could be interpreted by a reasonable person as “what happens to gays is the only tragedy in the world.”
“We live in a fairly sick society in case you hadn’t noticed. Holding Chritians responsible for the pain and suffering, even for gays, is rediculous!!!!!”
I hold individuals responsible for what they say and do. Michele and Marcus Bachmann, along with many other fundamentalists, are responsible for perpetuating bigotry and hatred toward gays. Of course, many people who are not Christians are also virulently anti-gay, but in America the most vocal and influential anti-gay speakers and organizations all identify as Christian.
Were Michele Bachmann to attain the office of the presidency, she would become the most influential anti-gay activist in the world. This could not possible have a positive effect on the health of gay youths. Bachmann’s rejection of true science in favor of fundamentalist quackery makes her unsuitable to serve on a school board, let alone achieve the office of one of the most powerful people in the world.
“You are way off base, kiddo. I’m not a victim. I am a warrior…fighting to maintain marriage as it has been in civilized society for centuries. It is the main reason civilization was realized and maintained.”
Many civilizations were realized and maintained under polygamy, you know.
“My reasons have nothing to do with hate or homophobia as I have explained on other occassions. I have no trouble with civil unions. I have no problem with gays establishing legal unions. Marriage I want preserved as between a man and a woman because of the children that result from the union.”
And I want marriage extended to gay couples because the children that these couples often raise deserve the security that comes from having two married parents.
“Please explain yourself.”
Michele Bachmann has made most, if not all, of her living in jobs that receive government funding. She began her career working for the IRS. Both her family farm and the clinic she co-owns with her husband receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal aid money. She’s also lied about the extent to which the clinic has benefited from Medicaid, which should come as a surprise to no one.
http://www.theroot.com/buzz/michele-bachmann-husband-received-137000-medicaid-funds
“IF he said it unprovoked and without explainable context it was a terrible thing to say. What I don’t know is why he said it or what had been said to or about him to provoke this language. Not that it excuses him but knowing how it came about could shed more light and provide a reasonable explanation for the remark.”
Look it up, then.
“I’m not certain I understand what you are saying here either. Please explain.”
I thought it was pretty clear. I know many tolerant, freedom-loving Christians who opposed Prop 8. Those are the people I think of when I think of Christianity, so your accusations of “bigotry” toward Christians are completely without merit.
Polygamists have been trying to get the government to recognize their unions practically since our country’s inception. Their movement has nothing to do with the gay rights movement; in fact, most polygamists are religious fundamentalists who are virulently opposed to gay marriage. Their numbers have always been tiny and they have never been able to convince the government of their position, and I see no reason why legalizing gay marriage would change that.
Marriage is already mostly gender-neutral in the eyes of the law, largely due to the efforts of early women’s rights advocates who managed to get rid of arcane marital practices such as coverture. (This would be an example of a time where demolishing a feature of “traditional marriage” was unarguably a good thing.) The rights and responsibilities of each partner are the same regardless of gender; the government doesn’t have to change anything about marriage in order to accomodate same-sex couples. Polyamorous marriages, on the other hand, would create a huge burden for the government. They would have to restructure the entire system. How benefits are doled out, how taxes are done, inheritance rights…the list goes on. Polyamorous marriage doesn’t fit into our existing system of marriage law; same-sex marriage does. In addition, attraction to only one gender is recognized as a sexual orientation; there’s no orientation which makes someone only able to be happy being with more than one person at a time, so polyamorous people do not have the same claim on unjust discrimination as homosexuals do. The differences between polyamory and homosexuality are too numerous for this case to have much merit.
Chris: “…scientists arrive at a consensus precisely BECAUSE they have followed the scientific method and reached the same conclusions.”
Which is fine and dandy when all they are doing is discussing their theories in pointy headed conferences and magazine articles. It is fine and dandy if and when they are indeed using the scientific method rather than falsifying findings, cheating on peer review, and making concerted efforts to exclude all opposing views. That would not be described as using the scientific method. When they engage in those practices they are engaging in a propaganda and preservation scheme. It becomes particularly erroneous and smelly when they have also collaberated with politicans to extort funds and profits through fear mongering and power.
“The people who undergo “ex-gay” therapy do so because they are scared and self-loathing.”
I don’t think you’re qualified to speak for them. You are projecting your own beliefs and biases…and I’m certain you wouldn’t appreciate anyone making a similar statement about what makes gays gay. I think we would do well to stick to letting people make these choices and determinations on their own.
“but they haven’t been truly “helped;” they’ve been brainwashed…This counseling is not psychologically healthy. It doesn’t teach people to accept themselves,”
Once again, a bit pompous on your part. “Psycological helping” can’t hold a candle to “spiritual transformation” which is more the focus with Christian based teaching. You cannot speak with authority about that for anyone else.
“But this is something people need to figure out for themselves. They do not need people like the Bachmanns to tell them the right way to live and love.”
Hold on now. You are creeping dangerously close to the edge of surpressing a choice that should be open to anyone who desires to pursue it. It’s not up to you to decide what any person needs…as you yourself stated in that first sentence!
“And once again you express your complete ignorance over how studies are conducted. You seem to believe that studies are conducted in order to prove a political point.”
And you apparently believe that they never are! Boy do you have a lot to learn. The progressive machine has been in place for a long time and is arrogant enough to do exactly that!
“Of course we are all entitled to our beliefs, but you should know that when it comes to the public debate, your side is losing. And history will not judge your side kindly.”
The public debate is largely manufactured by activism and a concerted effort in the press to sell the story line. I don’t have a magic looking glass and I won’t predict what tomorrow will bring. It doesn’t really matter to me how history “judges my side”. I am only concerned with how God judges me. Don’t be so certain that history will judge your “side” kindly…your side has not always behaved well. By the way, I still adhere to the notion that we are all individuals, not merely pegs on a group board.
“So now we’re theorizing over what Jesus “would” or “wouldn’t” have said?”
Based on what he said to people who engaged in the other sins listed in Leviticus, yes. I didn’t just grab it out of a hat. Jesus told a woman who was an adulterer, “Go and sin no more”. He didn’t say don’t worry about it we have modern ideas about such things now.
“”Brainwashed” and “bigoted” are nonsense words coming from someone who endorses ex-gay therapy.”
Ignorant is a perfect word to describe someone who assumes endorsement when I have clearly been talking about choices and free will! You brought up the Bachman’s clinic…I offered my opinions and nothing more.
“You have twisted the definition of bigotry so that it only applies when your side is being criticized…”
My purpose has been to disrupt attempts demonize and to label Chritians in general, and me by association, as bigoted which the left seems intent on doing. I accomplish this by pointing out that your “side” is also capable of bigoted opinion. Your side has been getting away with the one-sided smear campaign for far too long. In the end my position is that people are people and all capable of just about anything. My position is that I dislike group labels.
“you took no issue with her statement whatsoever:
I took no issue with her statement because I have no idea what her statement was about. The video provides zero context and was cut to make Coulter look bad. You need to learn the difference by the way between an insult and a racist remark. There is a very good chance that Coulter was exchanging insult for insult.
“yet you ignore actual examples of people being discriminated against because of their innate qualities or membership in certain social groups…”
Your example was incomplete both about Ann Coulter and about the seventeen year old. It lacks sufficient information to appraise either of them.
“It is proven that Planned Parenthood does not use taxpayer funds for abortion.”
Planned Parenthood was barred from using taxpayer funding for abortions after years of using TPF to fund abortions. That is true. However the funds they receive are fungable. They are more easily able to keep the doors open for abortions because of taxpayer contributions. It doesn’t make much difference really when it comes right down to it. And there is the instance of the whistleblower from within the organization who has claimed the fascility where she worked did use taxpayer funds for abortions and just accounted for it differently.
“When one bullies someone, that makes the bullied target a victim by definition.”
It makes them a target…they becomne a victim only if they are willing to be a victim. Some choose not to be bullied. (choice is always part of the equation)
“That’s your ignorant and over-the-top interpretation. No marriage will be “destroyed” or even altered when two men or two women are allowed to marry…”
The institution…the definition will be destroyed!
You keep trying to make this personal. For most of us it is not a personal fight about any particular people or their relationship choices. It is about preserving the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
The argument is that when we change the definition we change it for better and for worse…any group or configuration will seek and probably be granted the same right. How could any court decide differently? The very arguments they are using will be used again and again. Muslims men to marry their friends six year old daughter, group marriages…animal husbandry will take on a whole new meaning!
I know you don’t think it could happen. that is because you’re sitting on brand new tires. My tread is thread bare and I’m here to tell you it is quite possible.
“…there are many branches of Christianity in this country who have made a mission out of depriving gays of their happiness and ensuring that the country remain hostile toward homosexuality.”
There are a number of groups that have made a mission out of destroying the reputations of Chritians with false or derogatory claims depriving them of happiness and free expression and ensuring that the country becomes hostile toward Christians. So?
“Please stop the straw-manning. I never said anything that could be interpreted by a reasonable person as ‘what happens to gays is the only tragedy in the world.'”
That was no straw man. I am attempting to give your position some perspective. We have been through the victim routine before and frankly I have no desire to repeat myself but I will say this: Actual cases of criminality can and should be handled by the police and the courts.
Being victimized in school is not a problem that is reserved only for gays. All kids struggle with emotional problems of some type and kind and many have been treated badly by bullying; it is part of the growing up process. I believe very strongly that constantly setting gays up as somehow a special case or as different only adds to their struggle. The best way to stop being bullied is to stop feeling like and acting like a victim.
“Michele and Marcus Bachmann, along with many other fundamentalists, are responsible for perpetuating bigotry and hatred toward gays.”
I’m not that familiar with every word the Bachmans have uttered but I am familiar with how you have misunderstood and misconstrued the meaning of my own beliefs and words…usually, when you are reacting emotionally. This topic is chock full of energy…people have strong emotions attached to this issue…so it’s understandable. I do not believe the Bachmans hold a hateful or bigoted position; their position springs from their faith and beliefs.
“And I want marriage extended to gay couples because the children that these couples often raise deserve the security that comes from having two married parents.”
Which can be accomplished with civil unions and, more importantly, committed adults.
“Michele Bachmann has made most, if not all, of her living in jobs that receive government funding. She began her career working for the IRS. Both her family farm and the clinic she co-owns with her husband receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal aid money. She’s also lied about the extent to which the clinic has benefited from Medicaid, which should come as a surprise to no one.”
I’ll ignore the lying crap. I haven’t found much evidence to support the accusation either way.
$137,000 In federal and state medicaid payments since 2005 isn’t a lot of money and it doesn’t cover the costs of treatment by any means…the patient is the beneficiery, by the way. The implication that she engaged in something improper is simply not true.
“Look it up, then.”
Don’t bring it up if you aren’t going to provide some context!
“your accusations of “bigotry” toward Christians are completely without merit.”
Completely without merit?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRxFoBSPng&feature=player_embedded
http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200504280758.asp
http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Anti-Christian_discrimination
“I see no reason why legalizing gay marriage would change that.”
That’s the problem you and I run into. You see no reason even after I have given you a reason to consider. Also, see above post:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/24/gay-marriage-foes-cite-polygamy-suit/
“The rights and responsibilities of each partner are the same regardless of gender; the government doesn’t have to change anything about marriage in order to accomodate same-sex couples.”
Accomodation was accomplished with civil unions and contracts cvan be arranged about anything legally. This is about social engineering and control…marriage is just the latest menas to an end. (And some folk are emotionally motivated to being able to call their same sex partner husband or wife). If the law is changed marriage will never be the same again and that is the goal. The line of demarkcation will be blurred. Tolerance and live and let live are not enough to completely destroy traditional marriage and family. There is a communist underpinning at work here for some, not all. Marx advocated for the destruction of the family to usher in his toptalitarian dream of utopia.
“Polyamorous marriages, on the other hand, would create a huge burden for the government.”
Since when has this ever been a problem for the left? The left welcomes government intrusion, control, regulation, complication, and oversight…along with the attendant costs.
“Polyamorous marriage doesn’t fit into our existing system of marriage law; same-sex marriage does.”
Oh goody! It doesn’t change a thing…the precedent will be set!
“there’s no orientation which makes someone only able to be happy being with more than one person at a time”
Oh hell, Chris, give it time. Listen to yourself. You are already making arguments against the next big wave to wash over your perfectly constructed “norm”. I repeat, the precedent will have been set. Besides it’s really about change and change is always good right? My generation said:
Acceptance of drug use will never lead to destroyed lives in the thousands or tens of thousands…we’re just having a little fun. Don’t be so uptight!
Acceptance and embrace of promiscuous sex will never lead to the spread of diseases, broken homes, or more teen pregnancies and single motherhood…our elders are so old fashioned and uptight…we’ll be fine.
The possibility of creeping Sharia in America is just a bigoted position held by Muslim haters and there’s no credible evidenence that there are those who aim to supplant our form government…
Tina: “I don’t think you’re qualified to speak for them. You are projecting your own beliefs and biases…”
No, that’s not what I’m doing at all. I am basing my conclusions on testimony I have read from people who have actually undergone ex-gay therapy and have found it damaging. I am not “speaking for them,” I am telling you what they have said about their own experiences.
I’m also basing my opinion on common sense. Are you really going to contest the glaringly obvious fact that many people who undergo ex-gay therapy do so because of intense social, familial and religious pressures? Can you really be unaware of the fact that many, possibly most, of these people are teenagers who are literally forced into this treatment by their parents? And are you actually denying that the vast amount of pressure and discrimination they face for coming out, might give them plenty of motivation to claim to have been “cured” of homosexual desire, even if they really haven’t been?
It seems that you have only bothered to read the testimonies of the relative few who claim that this practice has helped them. Perhaps you should read up on those who’ve had a different experience; it’s an easy Google.
You should also know that many of the founding members of the ex-gay movement have now realized that they were wrong and have publicly apologized. Some have even opened support groups for people who have been damaged by ex-gay therapy:
Gnter Baum originally founded an ex-gay ministry in Germany. Later he formed Zwischenraum, which helps gay Christians to accept their sexuality and to reconcile it with their beliefs.
Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, co-founders of Exodus International, left the group and in 1979, held a life commitment ceremony. Bussee went on to become an outspoken critic of Exodus and the ex-gay movement.[105][106] In June 2007 Bussee issued an apology for his part in the ex-gay movement.[107]
Ben Gresham is an Australian man who went through three years of ex-gay therapy starting at sixteen years of age.[108] He does media appearances including ABC TVs The Hack Half Hour, SX News and Triple J (radio) regarding what he sees as the dangers of ex-gay programs and the psychological harm associated with them.[109]Along with this, Gresham is a part of “Freedom 2 b[e]” which offers support to LGBT people from church backgrounds and is also the co-founder of The Hope Alliance which confronts ex-gay programs in Australia and offers hope to people displaced from the ex gay movement.[110][111][112][113]
Anthony Venn-Brown is a former Australian evangelist in the Assemblies of God and an author whose book describes his experience in Australias first ex-gay program.[114] Venn-Brown co-founded “Freedom 2 b[e]” which offers support to GLBT people from church backgrounds and who have been displaced from the ex gay movement.[115] In 2007 he co-ordinated the release of a statement from five Australian ex-gay leaders who publicly apologized for their past actions.[116]
Noe Gutierrez appeared in Warren Throckmorton’s ex-gay video I Do Exist in 2004. This garnered some notice, as Gutierrez had previously appeared in a video for gay youth known as It’s Elementary. Gutierrez later left the ex-gay movement and wrote about his experience.[117]
Peterson Toscano is an actor who was involved in the ex-gay movement for 17 years. He performs a related one-man satire titled Doin’ Time in the Homo No Mo Halfway House, and with Christine Bakke co-runs Beyond Ex-Gay, a support website for people coming out of ex-gay experiences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay_movement#People_who_no_longer_support_the_ex-gay_movement
“and I’m certain you wouldn’t appreciate anyone making a similar statement about what makes gays gay.”
I don’t see how such a statement would be at all similar to anything I said.
“I think we would do well to stick to letting people make these choices and determinations on their own.”
LOL! The irony of this statement should be painfully clear to you, Tina. But you are so oblivious to your own hypocrisy that you will never see it.
“Once again, a bit pompous on your part.”
It’s “pompous,” now, to accept the findings of the American Psychological Association? It’s “pompous” to accept the testimony of people who were forced into ex-gay therapy and were damaged by it?
“”Psycological helping” can’t hold a candle to “spiritual transformation” which is more the focus with Christian based teaching. You cannot speak with authority about that for anyone else.”
I’ll tell you what’s pompous, Tina: asserting superiority based on your belief in the teachings of a 2,000 year old book rather than modern scientific findings and common sense, that’s what’s pompous.
“Hold on now. You are creeping dangerously close to the edge of surpressing a choice that should be open to anyone who desires to pursue it. It’s not up to you to decide what any person needs…as you yourself stated in that first sentence!”
More topsy-turvy logic from Tina. How dare I tell Michele Bachmann that she shouldn’t tell people how to live! I am suppressing her choice to decide what other people need! You’re a riot.
“The public debate is largely manufactured by activism and a concerted effort in the press to sell the story line.”
*yawn* You’re losing, so we must be cheating. Got it.
“I don’t have a magic looking glass and I won’t predict what tomorrow will bring.”
You don’t need a magic looking glass to see the obvious, Tina. You just need to take off your partisan blinders.
“Based on what he said to people who engaged in the other sins listed in Leviticus, yes. I didn’t just grab it out of a hat. Jesus told a woman who was an adulterer, “Go and sin no more”. He didn’t say don’t worry about it we have modern ideas about such things now.”
Adultery is prima facie wrong, though. It can be rationally and objectively determined to cause harm to another person. I have never heard a coherent argument for the sinfulness of homosexuality, though I have heard a lot of convoluted and nonsensical ones.
“My purpose has been to disrupt attempts demonize and to label Chritians in general, and me by association, as bigoted which the left seems intent on doing. I accomplish this by pointing out that your “side” is also capable of bigoted opinion.”
You were not accusing my “side” of bigotry, you were accusing ME. If you are going to throw out an accusation like that you should be prepared to back it up by pointing to bigoted things I have said or done. Either that, or you need to apologize for unfairly smearing me.
“I took no issue with her statement because I have no idea what her statement was about.”
Really, Tina? I thought it was quite clear.
“The video provides zero context and was cut to make Coulter look bad.”
*sigh*
OK, Tina. Here’s a longer version of the video I posted before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGjB2oq9o8Q
If you can find in that video any part which justifies Coulter telling a 17 year old Arab Muslim girl to “take a camel,” please let me know.
Also, keep in mind that the only reason the girl asked her question in the first place is because on a previous occasion, Coulter had suggested that Arabs Muslims should refrain from traveling by airplane (a racist and religiously discriminatory suggestion by itself) and suggested that they instead travel by “flying carpet” (adding a racial stereotype on top of her already offensive recommendation).
But of course, this isn’t bigoted to you. Because a conservative said it.
“You need to learn the difference by the way between an insult and a racist remark.”
I think you do. You don’t seem to know what the definition of “racist” is. Coulter’s remark was clearly based on the girl’s race as well as her religion; the joke doesn’t make any sense otherwise.
“There is a very good chance that Coulter was exchanging insult for insult.”
She was booed at, and then she insulted the girl, her entire race, and her entire religion. Yeah, totally fair!
It’s like when Michael Richards started calling everyone the N word after being heckled…was that fair, too?
“Your example was incomplete both about Ann Coulter and about the seventeen year old. It lacks sufficient information to appraise either of them.”
Correction: you lack sufficient integrity and common sense to appraise either of them.
“The institution…the definition will be destroyed!”
No, it won’t. The definition of marriage has been changed multiple times throughout history; heck, it’s been changed multiple times over the past century alone. Somehow, it’s survived and adapted. People argued that repealing anti-miscegenation laws would destroy the institution of marriage, too. They were wrong, and so are you.
“You keep trying to make this personal.”
I’m not “trying” to make it personal; it already IS personal for millions of Americans!
“For most of us it is not a personal fight about any particular people or their relationship choices.”
Then, and I say this in the nicest way possible, you should probably just shut up about it.
No, seriously: if you don’t have a personal stake in it, and you know that others do, you should defer to their judgment.
I’m sorry if you think by saying that I am somehow trying to suppress your free speech. I don’t really care what you think about this issue anymore. Your opinion on this simply does. not. matter.
“The argument is that when we change the definition we change it for better and for worse…any group or configuration will seek and probably be granted the same right. How could any court decide differently? The very arguments they are using will be used again and again. Muslims men to marry their friends six year old daughter, group marriages…animal husbandry will take on a whole new meaning!”
OK, now you have REALLY pissed me off. If you think that the arguments made by the gay rights movement would apply equally to pedophiles trying to marry their victims or inter-species marriage, then you are a fracking idiot. Neither animals or children can consent or sign a marriage contract. This crucial, yet simple and obvious, distinction has been pointed out to you more times than should be necessary already (actually, it shouldn’t be necessary to point this out at all). I demand that you never say anything this f***ing stupid again, Tina.
“That was no straw man.”
Oh, look: another word Tina is attempting to use, but doesn’t know the meaning of! It’s really not that fun to debate with a person who constantly does this. I think I’m done here for today.
Chris: “No, that’s not what I’m doing at all. I am basing my conclusions on testimony I have read…”
I wrote: “Not according to the people that have experienced a change.”
Tina, you’re really ignoring the obvious here, aren’t you? The people who undergo “ex-gay” therapy do so because they are scared and self-loathing.
I wrote: “I don’t think you’re qualified to speak for them. You are projecting your own beliefs and biases…and I’m certain you wouldn’t appreciate anyone making a similar statement about what makes gays gay.
The group I initially wrote about were those who considered the help they received a positive experience. That was why I wrote what I wrote. They exist. Their stories are as valid as anyone elses. Your response excludes that possibility or demonstrates a lack of sensitivity…the very thing you find so objectionable.
“Perhaps you should read up on those who’ve had a different experience; it’s an easy Google.”
You are having difficulty understanding that I can be aware of the difficulties that gay people have,the pain, the lonliness, the fears, the sense of isolation, and I can also love them, empathize with their feelings and challenges, be friends with them, wish them well…and still believe marriage should continue to be between one man and one woman. It doesn’t fit for you and there isn’t a darn thing I can say to broaden your perspective. Deciding I am ignorant won’t help.
I’ll tell you something else that will probably put your shorts in a bunch. A lot of people, gay and straight, spend way too much time wallowing in self pity and personal drama. Constantly looking at personal feelings, issues, and past experiences is often a waste of time, particularly when there is no resolution. It is also a waste of precious life experiences. Focusing all kinds of attention on personal pain can be very destructive.
Therapy and “finding oneself” became a cottage industry in my generation and my generation is one of the most self-centered, self-indulgent generations to come down the pike. I’m speaking in generalities because the numbers afflicted are overwhelming. And the genrations we raised are even worse. Too many of us are addicted, emotionally retarded, and self-indulgent; we are spoiled.
I beleive part of the problem is all of the searching for “ourselves”…and for “acceptance”…and for “perfection”! We egotistically believe we can make the world, and relationships, perfect if only we can just find the right combination of rules or therapies, and if we can just somehow make people better, nicer, more inclusinve.
Prior generations didn’t have time to be so self-absorbed; they were taught from the time they were very young that they were not all that. Beyond the realities of survival and providing for nthe family life and work was about what they might have or offer. Satisfaction and peace came from contributing not overcoming issues and indulging the self. Todays generations suffer from too much ego and at the same time we are emotional cripples that have failed to mature.
One of the most important things about spiritual healing is letting go of pride and self-indulgence. I think those who find peace in the Bachmans clinic also managed to let go of prideful ways. It may not be a path that all would choose but it shouldn’t be desparaged and ridiculed either.
“LOL! The irony of this statement should be painfully clear to you, Tina. But you are so oblivious to your own hypocrisy that you will never see it.”
OK.
“It’s “pompous,” now, to accept the findings of the American Psychological Association? It’s “pompous” to accept the testimony of people who were forced into ex-gay therapy and were damaged by it?”
No, it’s pompous to desparage the Bachman clinic because you disagree with what you think goes on there. /why do you care? People are not made to go their THEY CHOOSE TO GO THERE! It is pompous to believe that what goes on there is damaging to people. You might want to think about “accepting the findings” of those who experience spiritual transformation…even if you don’t think others should choose it. I personally would trust and accept Gods help long before I’d accept the “findings” of a human being of science…but that’s just me. God fills the empty space that no person can fill.
“I’ll tell you what’s pompous, Tina: asserting superiority based on your belief in the teachings of a 2,000 year old book rather than modern scientific findings and common sense, that’s what’s pompous.”
OK.
“More topsy-turvy logic from Tina. How dare I tell Michele Bachmann that she shouldn’t tell people how to live! I am suppressing her choice to decide what other people need! You’re a riot.”
And you are an idiot. I was talking about the people that choose to go to her clinic. She doesn’t “tell them” what to believe…she (actually I guess it’s he) tells them what the Bible says, offers alternative choices to consider. Free will…the concept is straight out of the Bible…God gave us free will…get it? YOU don’t have the right to decide what is TRUE and right for everybody else!
“You don’t need a magic looking glass to see the obvious, Tina. You just need to take off your partisan blinders.”
OK.
“Adultery is prima facie wrong, though. It can be rationally and objectively determined to cause harm to another person…I have never heard a coherent argument for the sinfulness of homosexuality”
OK. How about ex-spouses with children who have suddenly had their worlds turned inside out and turned upside down because now mom or dad is gay? Why would that be any different? What about the psycological damage to them? What about the psycological damage to children conceived by one gay partner with the help of some guy’s junk…you think that hasn’t or won’t cause a few of them some psycological or emotional damage? Also many things God warns mankind against are for health reasons andof course all have to do with spiritual health whether or not we understand it.
“You were not accusing my “side” of bigotry, you were accusing ME.”
I was responding to something you said:
Tina replied: “My purpose has been to disrupt attempts demonize and to label Chritians in general, and me by association, as bigoted which the left seems intent on doing.”
“If you can find in that video any part which justifies Coulter telling a 17 year old Arab Muslim girl to “take a camel,” please let me know.”
Tha audio was still not clear enough to hear all that was going on. What I did see and hear was Ann attempting to answer a question nicely (couldn’t hear the question) and when her answer didn’t satisfy the bullies in the romm she threw up her hands and defensively said “take a camel”. I saw a woman who would like to have a reasonable intelligent discussion being disrespected by a group with an agenda. they didn’t come to learn (not the 17 year old) what she had to say they came to bully Ann. The young girl looked to me to have a chip on her shoulder (or an agenda) but that’s just an impression.
I don’t particularly like this kind of discussion, Chris. I prefer to take issue with others personally rather than in this fashion.
“But of course, this isn’t bigoted to you. Because a conservative said it.”
No Chris…to me it isn’t bigoted because I don’t suscribe to your silly rules. I would categorize what was said as a mild insult of an absurd nature issued out of frustration at not being taken seriously. That audience was filled with know it all as*%#**# who came to bully Ann.
“You don’t seem to know what the definition of “racist” is. Coulter’s remark was clearly based on the girl’s race as well as her religion; the joke doesn’t make any sense otherwise.”
Perhaps we should eliminate all thoughts that might offend…all words that could cause emotional damage….DO YOU FRIGGIN HEAR YOURSELF! Have you and your generation become so incredibly brain washed, so absolutrely stuffed into that PC box that you cannot any longer move for fear of offending. NO WAIT…there are a couple of groups that it is OK for you little know it all twirps to say just about anything about. Want to guess which two they are?
“…then she insulted the girl, her entire race, and her entire religion”
That is absolute crap! Any person or religion that cannot handle being insulted with something as mild as this taking life way to seriously…and may also be way to self absorbed. You guys toss insults like this all the time at the religious right, conservatives, the tea party. We point it out but we also get it’s just life! Our gripe is that you jerks use it for power and are so damned hypocritical, pretending all that inclusion crap and acting like you are nicer. Give me a large break.
“It’s like when Michael Richards started calling everyone the N word after being heckled…was that fair, too?”
I don’t recall the particuloars…I do know that there is a definite double standard…you guys mnake “the rules” and they are subject to change depending on your religion and political preference.
“Correction: you lack sufficient integrity and common sense to appraise either of them.”
OK.
“No, it won’t. The definition of marriage has been changed multiple times throughout history; heck, it’s been changed multiple times over the past century alone. Somehow, it’s survived and adapted…..”
Blah blah blah! It has been defined, understood, and practiced as between one man and one woman for a couple of centuries or more in this country by almost all of the population…it is part of the heritage that made America work.
A recent survey found that 62% of Americans still agree with that definition.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-survey-shows-62-percent-of-americans-support-marriage-between-one-man-and-one-woman-124015879.html
The poll asked, true or false: marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.
“People argued that repealing anti-miscegenation laws would destroy the institution of marriage, too.”
Arguments made by racists because of racist concerns not marriage concerns. It’s not the same argument.
“They were wrong, and so are you.”
OK.
“it already IS personal for millions of Americans!”
That is their problem isn’t it! My position is NOT personal whether or not you think it is or they think it is. My position does not stem from a desire to oppress oe harm anyone. It stems from a desire to preserve the basic family unit…one man one woman and their offspring. I believe kids deserve to have, live with, and know BOTH of their biological parents. that is the norm or ideal that society should support. I also have religious convictions (but they are personal to me and I respect that they are also personal for others). I see no reason to withold my conviction becasue someone like you decides it’s based in bigotry…I know better. We disagree, Chris, and that is all there is to it, nothing sinister or hateful.
“Then, and I say this in the nicest way possible, you should probably just shut up about it.”
And you should grow up and smell the freedom! Listen to you…man you are all about shutting people up aren’t you. You think you shouls have the power to force others into silence, either that or they must agree to be crammed into that little PC box. I’m beginning to understand completely the “Ann Coulter remark. People like you have no room for disagreement…your world doesn’t work unless everyone agrees with you…and if they don’t they should “just shut up about it”…said in the nicest way possible, of course, after all you are one of the inclusive types…the tolerant, good people.
“…you should defer to their judgment.”
You’re a product of our educational system, right? As we speak (write) you are attending college? Unbelievable!
“I’m sorry if you think by saying that I am somehow trying to suppress your free speech.”
Ya think?
“I don’t really care what you think about this issue anymore. Your opinion on this simply does. not. matter.”
OK.
“OK, now you have REALLY pissed me off. If you think that the arguments made by the gay rights movement would apply equally to pedophiles trying to marry their victims or inter-species marriage, then you are a fracking idiot.”
Or I’m a sixty-four year old woman who has seen one hell of a lot more life and change than you have! I repaeat:
Not to mention the fact that you are the one using the precedent setting argument about repealing anti-miscegenation laws to convince me that gay marriage should now be allowed. Your cause proves the point!
“Neither animals or children can consent or sign a marriage contract.”
Muslims in other countries can marry children under sharia and theres a nutcase scientist in touch with the UN who wants to declare personhood for animals so our laws will apply to them. It is in the universe Chris…if we can think it we can do it…and it will be your fight. Where will you draw the line?
“I demand that you never say anything this f***ing stupid again, Tina.”
Boy howdy you really are showing your totalitarian colors now!
“I never said anything that could be interpreted by a reasonable person as “what happens to gays is the only tragedy in the world.”
What you always do is make the suffering of gays seem somehow different or special requiring special societal attention and change. As I have pointed out on numerous occassion, before there was PC and activism Americans held one basic rule as the ideal…every person deserves to be treated with respect. It worked pretty well; there was a lot less animosity and violence in our schools and neighborhoods. We actually lived civily with one another Uunder the rule of law) and, having been taught manners, minded our own business!
YOU have no experience of living in that kind of environment and it’s a damn tragedy!!!!!
Tina you make a particluarly good point (that is irrefutable) and that is persons who have, for wahtever reasons, been in the gay lifestyle chose to go voluntarily to the clinic. This is voluntary and theres no problem with that! Besides, I’m confident that at least some of these people were victims and pulled into this lifetyle involuntarily. We know how patterns of abuse repeat themselves unless there is intervention – why should this area be any different?
My personal (and evolved) view is, live and let live so long as their freedoms doesn’t encroach on mine. If they want to behave in public in outlandishly silly ways (gay parade) it ticks me off to see that sort of assinine, disrespectful, obscene, childish, behavior that in public, but I wouldn’t try to stop them from having their stupid parade or whatever, unless it treads on the freedom of others. So I guess I’m more libertarian on the social issues. There was a time when I would say they should get a good beat down for any in-your-face kind of conduct – but like I said, I have matured and have a more evolved view now.
Tina: “No, it’s pompous to desparage the Bachman clinic because you disagree with what you think goes on there. /why do you care? People are not made to go their THEY CHOOSE TO GO THERE!”
Are you sure about that, Tina? As I have pointed out, many people who undergo ex-gay therapy are teenagers who are forced into treatment by their parents. I do not know for sure if the Bachmann clinic targets teenagers with this type of treatment, but most similar clinics do.
You’re also still refusing to address the large amount of pressure that informs the choices of people who “volunteer” for ex-gay therapy…anyone who would take advantage of that kind of pressure in order to indoctrinate someone into changing their sexual orientation, no matter how noble their goals, is not doing the Lord’s work.
“OK. How about ex-spouses with children who have suddenly had their worlds turned inside out and turned upside down because now mom or dad is gay?Why would that be any different?”
This example actually proves my point, not yours. The problem in such situations is rarely ever that mom or dad has suddenly decided that they are “now” gay; the problem is almost always that they have been gay all along and have been hiding out of shame and fear of discrimination. Some of these people have undergone ex-gay therapy, claimed it worked for them, got married and had kids, and later realized that they could not hide in the closet any longer! The existence of ex-gay therapy and the larger climate of anti-gay bias only ensures that such situations will happen more often, Tina, not less. If you’re concerned about the damage done to families like this then you should support more tolerance of homosexuals; then they won’t feel the need to hide behind sham marriages that are doomed to divorce.
“What about the psycological damage to children conceived by one gay partner with the help of some guy’s junk…you think that hasn’t or won’t cause a few of them some psycological or emotional damage?”
I have actually been reading about donor conception on familyscholars.org recently, and I am starting to turn against this practice. But this is something that both straight people and gay people do, so I see it as a separate issue from gay rights and gay marriage.
“Arguments made by racists because of racist concerns not marriage concerns. It’s not the same argument.”
Many of these racists framed their concerns in the form of protecting marriage, Tina.
“I believe kids deserve to have, live with, and know BOTH of their biological parents.”
That is the ideal, but it isn’t always the reality. We do allow parents of children to remarry after a divorce, as long as it’s to someone of the opposite gender. We allow married couples to adopt. Allowing gay couples to marry does not cause children to be separated from their biological parents; it only strengthens the family structure of kids already being raised by gay parents.
“You think you shouls have the power to force others into silence,”
No. I don’t think I should have the power to “force” you to do anything. I do apologize for being rude before, however.
“Muslims in other countries can marry children under sharia”
Since the U.S. is in no danger of falling under Sharia, barring a severe nuclear devastation, this has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.
“and theres a nutcase scientist in touch with the UN who wants to declare personhood for animals so our laws will apply to them.”
And he will be considered a nutcase by 99% of the population for pretty much ever! Your concerns are much ado about nothing.
Slipper slope arguments are cheap and lazy. You should be able to argue why a certain policy is wrong in and of itself without resorting to other policies you think it could lead to down the road.
“Where will you draw the line?”
I certainly draw the line at lack of consent.
“The young girl looked to me to have a chip on her shoulder (or an agenda) but that’s just an impression.”
Gee, I wonder why? It couldn’t be because Coulter had suggested before that this young girl refrain from flying on airplanes due solely to her race and religion, could it? Can you really not see how discriminatory that is?
Your attempt to paint Coulter’s remarks as somehow harmless is ridiculous. Her comments are racist and religiously discriminatory BY DEFINITION. You are attempting to turn the tables to make the young girl and her peers seem bigoted, when they were simply responding to bigoted comments Coulter herself had made…it’s ridiculous and backwards. As is your belief that a college education amounts to “brainwashing” while ex-gay therapy does not!
“As I have pointed out on numerous occassion, before there was PC and activism Americans held one basic rule as the ideal…every person deserves to be treated with respect.”
That’s a nostalgic fantasy world that never really existed in this country. The era you speak of was marked by legalized racism, misogyny, and homophobia. No wonder you can’t recognize these problems when you see them today; you won’t even acknowledge they were problems in the past.
Chris: “As I have pointed out, many people who undergo ex-gay therapy are teenagers who are forced into treatment by their parents.”
Teenagers are minors under the legal care of their parents. The decision will become their legal and personal choice when they reach the age of consent. They are then free to decide for themselves whether to continue or leave the clinic. It is none of your business.
“I do not know for sure if the Bachmann clinic targets teenagers”
“Target” is an activist smear word. The clinic offers services for those who choose to avail themselves. No one is (or can be) forced into therapy. Even a teen who is made to attend sessions by a parent/s is still free to sit in silent protest until such time he can escape as an adult.
“You’re also still refusing to address the large amount of pressure that informs the choices of people…”
I don’t care what the issue is, learning to stand on ones own two feet and make a decision or choice (and being responsible for making it) is part of the maturing process. There is nothing unusual about facing challenges. If pressures from without overwhelm it is time to look at how we respond and hold that pressure. Victims succumb (and feel bad and put upon). If we are confident that pressure falls to the floor (we feel strong and realize the problem is not ours).
What you are trying to do is solve the emotional problems of others (impossible, give it up) by making rules about which therapies are acceptable to explore and are not (not your business).
“…anyone who would take advantage of that kind of pressure in order to indoctrinate someone into changing their sexual orientation, no matter how noble their goals, is not doing the Lord’s work.”
Opinions…we all got em. You are ignoring free will and personal responsibility of the individual. Once again this is none of your business (nor is it my business).
“This example actually proves my point, not yours.”
You wrote: “”Adultery is prima facie wrong, though. It can be rationally and objectively determined to cause harm to another person…I have never heard a coherent argument for the sinfulness of homosexuality”
If “harm to another person” and “adultery” is “sinfullness” my question is valid on both counts. Homosexual adultery is as valid as heterosexual adultery causing harm to the wife or husband and kids. It also makes the point that sexual attraction is a matter of free will.
“…you should support more tolerance of homosexuals”
All people deserve to be treated with respect. That is my mantra and my motto. I cannot say it any clearer. You and I are engaged in a disagreement about gay marriage and because I hold a different view than you do you presume things about me that are not true. I suspect this happens a lot in the overly sensitive and insecure gaay community. They presume hatred often where there is none. They attempt to control everything whwen what they need to do is accept and be responsible about their own choices and lifestyles. Live and let live…I’d appreciate it if radicals in the gay community would practice a little of that!
“I see it as a separate issue from gay rights and gay marriage.”
I would too except it’s been put in the mix for the case for gay marriage. (Did you read recently about the first successful “male delivery”…talk about setting a child up for psycological problems!):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031719/Pregnant-man-gives-birth-daughter-natural-delivery.html
Self-interest and self need trumps all other considerations.
“Many of these racists framed their concerns in the form of protecting marriage, Tina.”
It was about race…I watched it unfold. Sammy Davis Jr and his wife became recognizable targets of the racist hatred and bigotry. The question of whether they should be allowed to marry was because of Sammy’s race and the bigots were mostly on the white side (although there are always purists in every race).
“Allowing gay couples to marry does not cause children to be separated from their biological parents; it only strengthens the family structure of kids already being raised by gay parents.”
Civil unions accomplish the same goal without compromising the ideal of (one man one woman) marriage. Hopefully one day we will also see more people who are determined to make permanent agreements and keep their civil and marriage vows and work through problems.
“I do apologize for being rude before, however.”
Thank you, Chris, I appreciate your good manners and respect for the “old lady”, LOL. I do think we are both able to handle a heated exchange, so don’t fret unnecessarily.
“Since the U.S. is in no danger of falling under Sharia, barring a severe nuclear devastation, this has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.”
It has everything to do with what we are talking about. Sharia law is being inbtroduced and pressed for in America. Changing the legal definition of marriage opens the door for sharia laws regarding marriage to children.
The example was used in earnest. My consideration is based on what I see as change that would have a major negative influence in the future. Whether or not you think it is possible today isn’t the point. The point is that when you change something legally there are repercussions.
The gay community is understandably looking at one outcome, the one that would make life seem better for them. I am looking at the quite possible negative outcomes that will occur. I have seen harmful and negative things in fifty years that have come about because of changes in our laws and our moral code. The changes seemed innacuous at the time. There are countless examples in history.
“And he will be considered a nutcase by 99% of the population for pretty much ever! Your concerns are much ado about nothing.”
Like I said, there is no way to give you the benefit of my experience (although you could explore the history to seek understanding)…time will tell and you, my friend, will eventually live with the changes, not I.
“Slipper slope arguments are cheap and lazy.”
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it – George Santayana
The safest road to hell is the gradual one – the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. – C. S. Lewis
There is no “slippery slope” toward loss of liberties, only a long staircase where each step downward must first be tolerated by the American people and their leaders. –
Alan K. Simpson
Ignore them at your own peril.
“You should be able to argue why a certain policy is wrong in and of itself without resorting to other policies you think it could lead to down the road.”
So we should throw legal precedent in the trash? You do recall we are discussing a legal change and that you have proposed an argument for in terms of legal precedent?
“I certainly draw the line at lack of consent.”
Agreement! It’s a beginning 😉
“It couldn’t be because Coulter had suggested before that this young girl refrain from flying on airplanes due solely to her race and religion, could it? Can you really not see how discriminatory that is?”
It could be. It doesn’t have to be. I still don’t know how these words came about. Let us suppose that the discussion was about protecting the American people and security at the airport. Let us suppose that Ann Coulter suggested old ladies in wheel chairs and toddlers were being targeted unnecessarily and that it would make more sense to profile as they do in Israel. Let us suppose that the discussion became quite heated as it went along and Coulter suggested that the woman had a choice to fly or not fly if she didn’t want to go through airports under the profile scenario. Let us suppose that she was prepared to offer sorced information to show that the Israeli method is effective and accepted in the ME by all who fly out of or into Israel but after being called racist for her views (she knows she’s not but is attempting to have an adult conversation about the merits of profiling)…and after being shouted down and booed she gives up and makes a snide, and admittedly insulting to the 17 yr old, remark. Under those circumstances I would call it understandable and I’d let it go. Those who need to prove Ann Coulter is mean, hateful, and bigoted rather than thoughtful with a different opinion, will never give her the benefit of the doubt. They will also continue in their fascist ways to try to silence her with bullying.
” Her comments are racist and religiously discriminatory BY DEFINITION”
Her comments are racist by PC definition. I told you…we don’t play by rules that disallow insult and differing opinion.
“You are attempting to turn the tables to make the young girl and her peers seem bigoted”
And you may be assuming they are not bigoted, couldn’t possibly be bigoted because they fit into a particular PC designated victim minority.
“As is your belief that a college education amounts to “brainwashing” while ex-gay therapy does not!”
There is considerable evidence that our schools have been engaging in indoctrrination rather than teaching.
I wrote only about the Bachman clinic and then only in terms of letting people choose of their own free will.
“That’s a nostalgic fantasy world that never really existed in this country.”
Not true Chris. Not true! In 1955 the number of kids, black, white, brown, red or yellow needing therapy or behavioral drugs was nil. Teen suicide was rare. Fighting might break out but it was quickly resolved either by the kids themselves or by adults. Fighting was addressed as a matter of behavior…bad behavior wasn’t acceptable in most homes, period! Areas in the south were different because of racial hatred and traditions but even with that reprehensible condition factored in kids were still expected to respect and follow rules. It’s called civility, morality and discipline, Chris.
“The era you speak of was marked by legalized racism, misogyny, and homophobia.”
Sorry, you don’t get to paint the entire picture red. We have come a long way in terms of human rights and that has been for the good But we have alsoaltered the way we think about what it is to be human and what those rights require of us in terms of responsibility. The anti-religious Marxists in the mix decided to throw out all of the moral traditions. Freedom to them means they can do whatever they want and the masses get to do what they are told (hence the PC rules). Activism doesn’t work without a victim class or two and the corresponding eeeevil wrongdoers. Moral relativitiy supplants right and wrong. Chaos and confusion the atmosphere for their witches brew.
“No wonder you can’t recognize these problems when you see them today; you won’t even acknowledge they were problems in the past.”
You made that up! Nothing I have said indicates an unwillingness to “acknowledge they were problems in the past”.
I suggest your indoctrination education has created a fantasy designed to prove an agenda rather than to create full understanding of our entire history.
Jack I agree with you probably more than my opinion on the topic of gay marriage would suggest. What people do privately is their own business.
I don’t particularly like what goes on at gay parades but I defend the right for them to do what they in their communities find acceptable. (At the same time I would not be silenced and would continue to argue that as citizens we all have a responsibility to uphold civility. Exposing oneself in public and public sexual dispays cross that line in my opinion and is therefore civically irresponsible.)
It isn’t easy to talk about these things because they are so emotionally charged. I’m thankful that we have the ability to air our views here on Post Scripts and I hope by pressing through the discomfort we will eventually learn to communicate without the attendant accusations of bigotry and racism. I applaud Chris for continuing and I applaud those readers who plug along through the discomfort with us.
Tina, I disagree with much of what you wrote but I think we’ve reached the point of no return in this debate; neither of us is going to convince the other of anything.
However, as a parting gift, here is the full article in which Ann Coulter first made the “flying carpet” remark. I won’t say any more on the matter, I’ll just let you read her words and you can judge them yourself.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/may/17/pressandpublishing.usnews
“Sharing a table at a New York bar with Coulter, watching the heads turn, you’re seized by the urge to test her. Is she for real? Is she making this stuff up, like a comedian doing a shtick? How far will she go? “What if the free market offered Muslim-free air travel?” I venture, by way of bait. Would that be a smart move? “This is my idea,” she says brightly, competitive as a child. “I’m way ahead of you. I think airlines ought to start advertising: ‘We have the most civil rights lawsuits brought against us by Arabs.’ ”
And how would Muslims travel? “They could use flying carpets,” she says, a grinning picture of charm. But worry not: lots of other swarthy ethnic groups would be subject to the Coulter plan for selective security. “You’d be searching a lot of Italians, Greeks and Jews.” Intensively frisking just 20% of travellers would make flying quicker for everyone, she says. “Have you seen these lines for getting through? Everyone suffers equally. Which presumably is the dream of the Guardian: modelled after their beloved Soviet Union.””
I wasn’t going to say any more on the matter, but I just stumbled across this article on Salon, which compiles links to several disturbing claims about certain practitioners of ex-gay therapy, including allegations of sexual abuse:
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/08/01/ex_gay/index.html
I repeat: this form of therapy is not psychologically healthy, and it is not being conducted by psychologically healthy people.
People on the left blur the lines between insult or dark humor and bigoted speech when it suits them. They have created special standards and inclusion rules that only apply to designated groups: Christians, conservatives, and certain tea party folk. In this way they are free to spread guilt.
People of the left persuasion are exempted from these special rules. They are free to insult and desparage with abandon. In fact, clever, dark humor about Christians, conservatives, and tea partiers earn bonus points.
They don’t earn any bonus points with me, I just think they are stupid A- #%@&’s and one of these days when it all implodes maybe they will realize it.
Chris the therapy described in the Salon article has been used by psycologists for years and for all kinds of people and problems. When people seek this kind of help they do so freely knowing full well what they are “trying”.
The article has one purpose…to politically marginalize Michelle Bachman by smearing her and harming her reputation. It follows classic Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals” techniques.
Tina: “People on the left blur the lines between insult or dark humor and bigoted speech when it suits them. They have created special standards and inclusion rules that only apply to designated groups: Christians, conservatives, and certain tea party folk. In this way they are free to spread guilt.”
Tina, you are doing the exact same thing that you accuse people on the left of. In the original article, you (or possibly Jack, but it sounds like you) criticized Maher for making a “tasteless joke” about Marcus Bachmann. Why is this joke “tasteless,” while Ann Coulter’s is merely an example of “dark humor?” Maher’s joke was directed at one controversial man; Coulter’s comments were directed at a 17 year old girl, an entire race (Arabs) as well as an entire religion (Muslims).
You complain about the left having “special standards,” and who knows, maybe you’re right about some or even most liberals. But I know that I, personally, have gone out of my way to explain my standards to you, and I feel they are reasonable and fair to everyone. I have made an argument for why Coulter’s insult was over the line and Maher’s was justified. You are free to disagree with my standards, but you haven’t made a convincing argument for your position because you haven’t explained what your standards are. You’ve used a lot of excuses like “PC” and “liberals do it too” but you’ve yet to explain how Coulter’s comments fail to meet the dictionary definitions of racism and religious discrimination. So it seems like you’re the one in this conversation who is applying your standards selectively.
Like I said originally, I don’t even like Bill Maher. He is practically a left-wing version of Coulter. He has made comments that I find misogynistic and racist, and I think his movie “Religulous” was extremely mean-spirited and insulting to the vast majority of Americans who believe in God. Compared to all that, his joke about Bachmann was pretty tame. It would be considered tame by Coulter’s usual standards, too, as anyone familiar with her work knows. Heck, you can’t have forgotten the time she straight-up called John Edwards a “faggot!” How is that any better than Maher saying Marcus Bachmann is “in the closet?” If you’re going to call Maher’s Bachmann joke “tasteless” then you should at least use the same word for Coulter’s joke about Edwards; the only reason not to would be hypocrisy.
Tina: “Chris the therapy described in the Salon article has been used by psycologists for years and for all kinds of people and problems. When people seek this kind of help they do so freely knowing full well what they are “trying”.”
!
You must not have read the whole article, Tina. Some practitioners of this form of touch therapy have used their position as a way to sexually abuse their patients.
“It shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that this particular approach to “curing” homosexuality has been linked to sexual abuse. It was revealed in the mid-’80s that Colin Cook, founder of Homosexuals Anonymous, was giving clients naked massages … to combat their gayness. He told the Los Angeles Times, “I allowed myself to hug and hold my counselees thinking I was helping them. But I needed it more than they did.” Then, in the mid-’90s after restarting his practice, he was outed again for using massages, hugs and mutual masturbation with his young male clients to “desensitize” them to their same-sex desires. Allan Downing, a therapist at Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality, was accused by two clients of having them take off their clothes and masturbate in front of him as part of the healing process. There are other cases, but you get the point.”
It’s clear that there are at least some in this movement who are preying on the insecurities and confusion of those who come to them for help. Does this not concern you in the slightest? No, you are too concerned about the virtually non-existent problem of people being “indoctrinated” into being gay.
“The article has one purpose…to politically marginalize Michelle Bachman by smearing her and harming her reputation.”
Right! That also must be why the APA decided decades ago that ex-gay therapy was ineffective and harmful…it was all a liberal conspiracy to destroy Michele Bachmann, who would have otherwise been our forty-fifth–and greatest–president!
You might want to think about the possibility that Salon published this article (which only mentions Bachmann once, by the way) in order to warn people of the danger of abuse they might face if they ever decide to undergo this type of therapy.
If the Bachmanns find themselves marginalized and their reputations damaged for their participation in such a silly, discredited movement, then that’s their fault, not Salon’s.
Chris: “!”
Chris you can find perverts and, shall we say, “troubled people” in all kinds of professions…teaching is one that comes to mind and politics, lets not forget politics. My point was that using this as an argument to discredit the Bachmans is unbderhanded and amounts to not much more than a cheap shot.
“It’s clear that there are at least some in this movement who are preying on the insecurities and confusion of those who come to them for help.”
We can find instances to show that some homosexuals prey on young people to intice them into the lifestyle. It still doesn’t make the Bachmans guilty of anything sinister. It may be that Salon and others owe them an apology but I won’t hold my breath waiting for the day.
“That also must be why the APA decided decades ago that ex-gay therapy was ineffective and harmful…”
There you go off on another tangent. But as long as you bring it up…the APA may be full of crap and doing a heck of a lot of harm with their pronouncements and psyco-babble based beliefs. Junk science may be a contributing factor in some of the findings that are widely held:
http://www.drthrockmorton.com/APAneworleans.pdf
This gentleman is not a conservative and served under Kennedy, Carter and Democrats in Congress as an advisor.
“You might want to think about the possibility that Salon published this article (which only mentions Bachmann once, by the way) in order to warn people of the danger…”
It’s a possibility but then, it is also a possibility that it was an excuse to do another hit piece on Bachman.
“If the Bachmanns find themselves marginalized and their reputations damaged for their participation in such a silly, discredited movement, then that’s their fault, not Salon’s.”
OK.
Chris: “I, personally, have gone out of my way to explain my standards to you, and I feel they are reasonable and fair to everyone.”
It’s one of the things I like about you. You do take a hard stance once you decide someone is (pick a label) and you are free to do so. Just don’t expect to get agreement. On Coulter, for instance, I admit the lady has an acid tongue. She uses it to make a point but she also does extensive research. All of her work includes pages and pages of references. She is thoughtful, sincere, and for those who relate, quite funny. She also seems to be a very nice person.
“…you are doing the exact same thing that you accuse people on the left of. In the original article, you (or possibly Jack, but it sounds like you) criticized Maher for making a “tasteless joke” about Marcus Bachmann. Why is this joke “tasteless,” while Ann Coulter’s is merely an example of “dark humor?”
Because his was a tasteless joke and hers was dark humor. The point is no one on the right would attempt to stop Maher from speaking as they do Coulter. In both cases people may find what was said insulting but only in the case of Coulter are charges of bigotry or racism invoked. Often those types of charges have been coordinated. It’s done for political purposes…and it’s anything but indicative of the tolerance and inclusiveness that the left constantly claims as it’s number one virtue.
“you haven’t explained what your standards are.”
I have! Over and over again. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect. People should be free to speak their mind without being shouted down and insulted…especially when they’ve been invited to speak. Live and let live. Complain all you want when you disagree but refrain from throwing rotten vegetables and labels (like racist) around like frisbies; it makes the word of little effect when something truly egregious and deserving of the label comes along.
“you’ve yet to explain how Coulter’s comments fail to meet the dictionary definitions of racism and religious discrimination.”
I believe we established that the subject was profiling at airports. Ann’s remark was an exasperated retort. Yes it was insulting. I imagine it was meant to be. If I’n not way off base on the subject matter I would guess Anncame prepared to have an intelligent, informed discussion about the best way to secure air travel. She was met with caterwalling disrespect and an audience bent on proving her “racism”. An exasperated remark, no matter how insulting, hardly qualifies as indiscriminate or blanket hatred or bigotry of any kind.
“Heck, you can’t have forgotten the time she straight-up called John Edwards a “faggot!” How is that any better than Maher saying Marcus Bachmann is “in the closet?”
This post was about temperatures…I don’t recal making a comparison between what Coulter called Edwards and what Maher called Bachman. I have said that these are insults.
We discuss in the world of politics…do we really expect it to be civil?
Tina, you’re applying a blatant double standard, and I’m amazed at how long you’ve managed to gloss over that fact in this thread.
You called Maher’s remark about Mr. Bachmann “tasteless.” When shown that Coulter has made a similar remark about John Edwards, only with an actual slur, you say, “We discuss in the world of politics…do we really expect it to be civil?”
Thank you for providing such a crystal clear example of hypocrisy.
You also claim that “In both cases people may find what was said insulting but only in the case of Coulter are charges of bigotry or racism invoked.” That is a lie, since you’ve accused me of bigotry several times in this very thread! To pretend that only the left makes charges of bigotry is not true. It’s also irrelevant; you’re judging the statements of Maher and Coulter based not on the merit of what they actually said, as I have done, but on the reaction of their political opposition. Your position also assumes that charges of bigotry are somehow worse than actually making bigoted statements.
Your worldview is backwards, my friend. You rail against the scientific and intellectual community and accuse them of “indoctrination,” then defend absurd practices like ex-gay therapy, which actually IS indoctrination! You continue to push the idea that gay people are out there preying on others and recruiting them to their side, while showing no evidence for this claim; meanwhile, I have already shown you that the people who are actually trying to change the orientations of others are doing so in order to convert gays into straights, and that they are using taxpayer money to do so. But you shrug this off completely, showing that your real issue is with people being gay, not with trying to “indoctrinate” people into another lifestyle. You still have not explained how Coulter’s “camel” remark falls short of the dictionary definitions of racism and religious discrimination. I can’t really blame you for this, since I’m sure you’ve realized by now that such an argument would be impossible; but I do blame you for not changing your position once you realized that. You need to resolve your cognitive dissonance, ma’am. Unfortunately at your age, that rarely happens; you’re set in your ways and no one is going to be able to change your mind, certainly not me.
Also, Ann Coulter, a “very nice person?” Thanks for the laugh.
Chris: “Thank you for providing such a crystal clear example of hypocrisy.”
With all due respect…blow it out your bum!
I have referred to such instances as insults throughout this thread and it doesn’t matter who issues the insult to me. My point was that the remarks by Coulter are not racist. Furthermore, I don’t have to check in with you every single time someone says something insulting. You are free to keep a ledger, take names and harumph to your hearts content…but don’t pretend you play on the inclusive, tolerant team…clearly that pretense would be a complete fraud.
“blah blah blah…rant and rave…But you shrug this off completely, showing that your real issue is with people being gay, not with trying to “indoctrinate” people into another lifestyle.”
Man, you are really jacked on this issue…give it a damn rest already and maybe…just maybe…you can actually get what another person has to say.
What I wrote first and foremost is that people are free to try whatever kind of therapy they want and it isn’t up to you to decide the merits for others. (Parents have that legasl right for minor children). Quit looking for the boogie man!
YOU are the one with issues, my friend. YOU are the one with a backpack filled with stuff about gay people being trampled upon. You are entitled to whatever opinion of me you choose to have. I’m equally free to tell you…YOU’RE FULL OF CRAP! (And because of it you fail to see your own bigotry and bias)
“You still have not explained how Coulter’s “camel” remark falls short of the dictionary definitions of racism and religious discrimination.”
This is my answer: “An exasperated remark, no matter how insulting, hardly qualifies as indiscriminate or blanket hatred or bigotry of any kind.” People are allowed feeling and emotions. Calling names and issuing insults are allowable under our speech rights. I think it’s quite possible to become exasperated and say something regretable without being racist or bigoted. Emotions often run this type of outburst…Maher’s was calculated but still he’s just attempting to be clever with his audience in mind.
I don’t subscribe to the PC ledger method of calling people out or labeling them just because they say something offensive. As long as you reside in that box…and you do,,,you will never get what I’m saying.
I don’t care to live in a society where people are so uptight that insults are considered a capital offense. The energy you have on these things is incredible.
” You need to resolve your cognitive dissonance, ma’am. Unfortunately at your age, that rarely happens; you’re set in your ways and no one is going to be able to change your mind, certainly not me.”
OK.
“Also, Ann Coulter, a “very nice person?” Thanks for the laugh.”
She is at least as nice as you have been in this thread.
Tina: “This is my answer: “An exasperated remark, no matter how insulting, hardly qualifies as indiscriminate or blanket hatred or bigotry of any kind.” People are allowed feeling and emotions. Calling names and issuing insults are allowable under our speech rights. I think it’s quite possible to become exasperated and say something regretable without being racist or bigoted. Emotions often run this type of outburst…Maher’s was calculated but still he’s just attempting to be clever with his audience in mind.”
This is not an answer to my request, Tina. You seem completely unable to come up with an actual explanation for why you think Coulter’s remarks were not racist or religiously discriminatory.
They were racist because they were directed toward an entire racial group, Arabs.
They were religiously discriminatory because they were directed at an entire religious group, Muslims.
Coulter asked both these groups to refrain from traveling by air, an activity which other people get to partake in every day, simply because of their race and their religion. These are the facts. They are indisputable.
Because of these facts, Ann Coulter’s remarks were clearly racist and religiously discriminatory. That is not “politically correct;” that is a fact.
Keep in mind that I did not call Coulter herself a bigot or a racist…it is possible to say bigoted things without being a bigot. However, when one says them with the alarming frequency of Ann Coulter…well.
“And because of it you fail to see your own bigotry and bias”
You just don’t know what these words mean, Tina. You are abusing them. I have given you clear reasons for my positions, and I have based them on logic. You are the one making your arguments based solely on partisan bias; you called out Maher’s remark as “tasteless,” yet you refuse to apply the same standard to Coulter because he is a liberal and she is a conservative. You are a fan of Coulter’s work and you can’t bring yourself to say anything even remotely negative about her, no matter how horrid she conducts herself. Why is it so hard for you? I have criticized Obama for certain things he’s done, and I have no problem criticizing other liberals. Yet you seem pathologically incapable of holding conservatives to the same standard of behavior you set for others. This often leads you to defending the indefensible. It’s frankly embarrassing.
“I don’t subscribe to the PC ledger method of calling people out or labeling them just because they say something offensive.”
Unless they happen to be a liberal! In that case, you absolutely do “call them out,” as you called Maher’s remark “tasteless.” You also agreed with Toby when he “labeled” Maher a “nasty, little man.” Your assertion that you do not call people out or label them when they say something offensive is plainly a lie, Tina.
When you make judgments like this, you forfeit the right to pretend that only liberals are this judgmental. Anyone with eyes can read this thread, see that you are guilty of the very thing you are condemning here, and conclude that you are a giant hypocrite with no consistent principles. You’re tripping all over yourself in this debate in your desperate attempts to weasel out of accepting some uncomfortable truths.
“She is at least as nice as you have been in this thread.”
Tina, I have never insulted anyone based on their race or religion, not in this thread and not in any other as far as I can remember. That alone makes me “nicer” than Ann Coulter. I also don’t write book titles called “Victim of a Crime? Thank a Single Mother,” nor do I call 9/11 widows “greedy harpies,” nor do I publicly wish for the assassinations of U.S. Presidents and New York Times Journalists. Your definition of “nice,” like your definition of most words, is extremely skewed and seems to change based on the politics of the person you’re referring to.
Chris: “This is not an answer to my request, Tina. You seem completely unable to come up with an actual explanation for why you think Coulter’s remarks were not racist or religiously discriminatory.”
Arabs are caucasian.
Camels and flying carpets are not associated in any way with the Muslim religion, or any religion of which I’m aware. Both have been prominently featured in movies and childrens books that we as children enjoyed. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a camel in a zoo///a fairly pleasant experience. Oh…the camel is used as the logo for a particular brand of cigarettes but as far as I know anyone is free to purchase them (if they can afford it) and no one has complained about its use, other than the nanny staters who fear it targets teens (all teens).
You tell me where the racism or religious bigotry is except in your mind.
Having considered your accusation further, I would suggest Ann’s remarks may not even have been intended as an insult. The only associations I have with magic carpets and camels are positive, pleasant ones.
I will allow that those who see racism and bigotry around every corner might see it differently…but that is their problem or choice.
You are welcome to embrace this overly sensitive, free speech restricting, tyrannical appraoch to communication and controlling discourse. I say no thank you.
“You just don’t know what these words mean, Tina.”
You toss them like frisbies and render them meaningless, Chris.
“you called out Maher’s remark as “tasteless,” yet you refuse to apply the same standard to Coulter because he is a liberal and she is a conservative.”
You are so busy reading meaning into my words! When I said Maher’s remarks were tasteless and Anns and insult in my mind they held the same weight. It had nothing to do with party.
“You are a fan of Coulter’s work and you can’t bring yourself to say anything even remotely negative about her, no matter how horrid she conducts herself.”
You are not a fan of hers and refuse to consider the circumstances of her remarks or the context in which she makes them. You are, because of your hatred, resentment, and possibly Christian bigotry, determined to make her, and by extension me, into something we are not.
See anyone can play this idiotic neener game.
“Why is it so hard for you?”
I acknowledged her remarks were insulting but that isn’t enough for you. I don’t know what more you want. I won’t nail her to a cross just so you can feel smug.
“This often leads you to defending the indefensible. It’s frankly embarrassing.”
Ahhhh…poor baby. I have criticized members of my party. I don’t see any reason to flog most of them because your side does a very good job of that, deserved or not. Looking back the level of criticism for GWB on the economy I’m glad I defended some of his record. The positive spin that’s being put on our economy under Obama is embarrassing! The lefts defense of his record has been and continues to be embarrassing!
I argue against what I beleive is unfair criticism of my side…is that so unusual? This is a competition whether you like it or not. What are you trying to prove, Chris, that you’re better than I? Go ahead…feel superior if it makes you feel good. I don’t hide the fact that I support conservatives and their ideas or that I try to play an equalizer game when it comes to politics. Remember Chris I came out of a time when there were very few people to defend the conservstive side. We are stronger now and we are not going away.
“Your assertion that you do not call people out or label them when they say something offensive is plainly a lie, Tina.”
I will express my opinion about people on the other side…that’s true. Most of the time my purpose is to reveal the hypocrisy in their remarks since theirs is self described as the party of compassion, understanding, inclusion, and tolerance. But I would not co-ordinate a plan with others to label groups as your side has. The number of leftists politicians and MSM personalities, for instance, that used the word “terrorist” to describe the Tea Party in the past 3-4 days is astounding and cannot be coincidental. That kind of labeling is what I’m talking about.
“That alone makes me “nicer” than Ann Coulter.”
Sarcasm is apparently over your head or out of your box…aaahh well. The ledger book you are keeping must be getting pretty full by now and all to prove how superior you are. Good for you…but how many risks have you taken? How often have you been tested as Ann has been tested in the risk taking arena? Yes, her book titles are shocking! Yes, she makes outrageous remarks! It serves a purpose and since she sells a lot of books there has to be something of substance within the pages or her first book would have been her last. You can’t see beyond the outrageous, some might say audacious, remarks to find the meat. Too bad for you.
Are we done now?
Well, Tina, I’m glad to see that after much time and effort you’ve finally managed to scrounge up some actual arguments for why Coulter’s remarks were not racist. Unfortunately, those arguments are all exceptionally dumb.
“Arabs are caucasian.”
I can imagine you feeling really smart and satisfied after writing this, but it’s clear you’ve given it no actual thought. Are you seriously arguing that because Arabs are “technically” (more on that in a second) Caucasian, it is impossible for a white person to think of Arabs as a separate racial group, and to treat them in a discriminatory manner based on that perception?
Because that’s incredibly removed from reality.
Arabs are not considered white in this country, just as the Irish were once considered non-white. Coulter admits herself that she sees Arabs as a separate group, worthy of being treated differently from others, when she said in the interview for the Guardian that I quoted earlier: “I think airlines ought to start advertising: ‘We have the most civil rights lawsuits brought against us by Arabs.'”
“Caucasian” is no more an accurate racial descriptor than anything else, anyway; there is no scientific or biological basis for race. It is ALL socially constructed.
“Camels and flying carpets are not associated in any way with the Muslim religion, or any religion of which I’m aware.”
You are completely in denial, Tina. You cannot possible be this willfully ignorant. The idea of flying carpets came over to the Western world from “One Thousand and One Nights,” a collection of Arabic legends. There are of course stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims riding camels. Don’t play dumb; you know exactly what I am talking about.
“Both have been prominently featured in movies and childrens books that we as children enjoyed.”
Hm, like Aladdin?
“I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a camel in a zoo///a fairly pleasant experience. Oh…the camel is used as the logo for a particular brand of cigarettes but as far as I know anyone is free to purchase them…”
Dear God, how freaking stupid do you think I am, Tina? You are honestly going to tell me that Ann Coulter chose these particular two images–first a flying carpet, and then a camel–completely arbitrarily? Because…she likes to look at camels at the zoo? Because she thought the girl she was talking to might be a smoker? And that this choice of words had absolutely no connection whatsoever to the fact that she was referring specifically to Muslims and Arabs? That’s really what you’re going with. That’s an argument that you feel comfortable typing out and distributing on the internet under your name, without a shred of embarrassment, Tina?
Because that’s absolutely pathetic.
“You tell me where the racism or religious bigotry is except in your mind.”
Ah, that old canard! “I’ve never heard of this stereotype (or at least I’m pretending not to in order to establish some kind of post-racial cred), so that means YOU must be the REAL racist for knowing about that stereotype!” That’s bullsh-t, Tina.
“Having considered your accusation further, I would suggest Ann’s remarks may not even have been intended as an insult. The only associations I have with magic carpets and camels are positive, pleasant ones.”
OK, this line of argument has now crossed the line from pathetic to absolutely HILARIOUS. I haven’t seen this much effort and creativity put into spinning bullsh-t in quite some time. Bravo, Tina. This is impressive even for you.
The fact remains that Coulter was asking Muslims and Arabs to refrain from an every day human activity. That would be a discriminatory suggestion even without the ethnic stereotypes. Those were just the bigoted icing on top of the racist cake.
Coulter could have picked any animal or flying device she wanted to…she could have said magic broomstick or unicorn. Not that this would be much better, since again, her initial suggestion would still be discriminatory. But she chose “flying carpet” and “camel” specifically because they have associations with Arabs and Muslims; that’s the whole freaking point of the joke. For you to claim that this word choice was arbitrary and unrelated to the race and religion of the people she was referring to is absurd and disingenuous. I cannot take anything you say on this matter seriously from this point on, because it is clear you are not arguing in good faith. You are clinging to some hope of “winning” this debate and you are willing to play dumb, engage in denial, contradict yourself, and lie in order to achieve that goal. It’s not gonna work, ma’am.
“You are welcome to embrace this overly sensitive,
free speech restricting, tyrannical appraoch to communication and controlling discourse.”
There’s nothing “tyrannical” about pointing out racism when it occurs. I have no control over what Coulter says, and I don’t want to. She is free to say whatever she wants, no matter how hateful and bigoted. She is still doing quite well for herself, if you hadn’t noticed. So what if colleges choose not to invite her any more? They are under no legal or moral obligation to do so.
“You are so busy reading meaning into my words! When I said Maher’s remarks were tasteless and Anns and insult in my mind they held the same weight. It had nothing to do with party.”
Well, I’m glad you were finally able to confirm that you see the two remarks as equivalent. That was impossible to determine based on your previous comments.
“You are not a fan of hers and refuse to consider the circumstances of her remarks or the context in which she makes them.”
What are you talking about? I GAVE you the context in which she made these remarks. The first one, about the flying carpet, was in a restaurant over a casual and seemingly jovial interview. You act like she had no choice but to hurl a racist insult in response to being bullied by all those “indoctrinated” college students, but that’s not what happened. She was the aggressor with her “flying carpet” comment and her other comments about Muslims and Arabs, and when challenged by an articulate and justifiably angry young girl, Coulter doubled down on the bigotry and made yet another racially charged and stereotypical insult. There’s your circumstances, there’s your context.
“You are, because of your hatred, resentment, and possibly Christian bigotry,”
I have asked you to either provide evidence of my so-called “Christian bigotry” or to apologize for this false allegation. So far you have done neither. Please do so within your next comment.
“Yes, she makes outrageous remarks! It serves a purpose and since she sells a lot of books there has to be something of substance within the pages or her first book would have been her last.”
Plenty of idiots get published and sell millions of copies, Tina. Book sales does not = quality.
“Are we done now?”
I think so–it is now abundantly clear that you will pretty much say anything, no matter how extreme or how stupid it makes you look, to get out of accepting the reality that Coulter’s remarks were racist and religiously discriminatory. And at the same time, you baselessly accuse me of religious bigotry even though you cannot provide any examples of me stereotyping based on religion. I don’t see the point in continuing a debate with such a person.
Chris you said,”Arabs are not considered white in this country, just as the Irish were once considered non-white.” I wonder what you would be considered in a sand country?
Would you be accepted as a fellow human being, treated with compassion and understanding as any other citizen, and this might be off track, but appreciated for your views on civil rights?
By the way, I make no racial distinctions for Arabs or anyone, other than as may be found in the dictionary.
Jack: “Chris you said,”Arabs are not considered white in this country, just as the Irish were once considered non-white.” I wonder what you would be considered in a sand country?”
A “sand country?” Which country are you referring to?
Also, I’m sorry, but how is your question relevant? I don’t judge people based on the values of another country; I judge them based on American values.
“By the way, I make no racial distinctions for Arabs or anyone, other than as may be found in the dictionary.”
That’s nice. You’re a better person than Ann Coulter.
Chris: “Arabs are not considered white in this country, just as the Irish were once considered non-white.”
How dare you presume to speak for every person in America! You pompous little hall monitor! What are you, nine? I don’t give a rats a** what you believe or have been taught….you asked for an argument based on a definition in the dictionary. I gave you one based on a similar definition. If we really want to know whether Ann’s remark was meant as a racial slur we should ask her because she is the only person qualified to answer the question.
“You are completely in denial, Tina. You cannot possible be this willfully ignorant. The idea of flying carpets came over to the Western world from “One Thousand and One Nights,” a collection of Arabic legends.”
Yes, wonderful STORIES!!!!! And before all the PC crap the Marxist have introduced into young skulls like yours craving a cause for their youthful angst Americans could enjoy the stories and the diverse culture in peace.
“OK, this line of argument has now crossed the line from pathetic to absolutely HILARIOUS.”
Well…it’s about time you caught up. Your obsession is hillarious…your own denial that their are some Muslims that want to kill us and transform the world is naive…your inability to discuss the subject like an adult is childish…your assumption that anyone who does is racist or bigoted against all Mulsims is typical of the PC addled brain. Your entire obsession is a complete joke.
“So what if colleges choose not to invite her any more? They are under no legal or moral obligation to do so.”
You are being an idiot! The college campus is precisely the place for differing views! You are being taught to select who shall speak and who shall not…and you are being trained to dismiss ideas that are uncomfortable to look at.
“Well, I’m glad you were finally able to confirm that you see the two remarks as equivalent. That was impossible to determine based on your previous comments.”
It was several comments ago; you didn’t want to hear it. You are too plugged in to hear much of anything. this is exactly what is wrong with the audience that comes to boo what Ann has to say. Intellectual midgets being taught to be automatons for the cause. You are a thinker, Chris, you’re a perfect little Marxist clone.
” have asked you to either provide evidence of my so-called “Christian bigotry” or to apologize for this false allegation. So far you have done neither. Please do so within your next comment.”
Gee Chris…you have said some very inflamatory and nasty things about the Bachmans and Ann Coulter…I’ll just follow your lead. From now on anyone who uses the phrase “pray the gay away” is guilty as charged of religious bigotry just because “everyone knows” it is.
“What are you talking about? I GAVE you the context in which she made these remarks.”
What you gave is a couple of pieces of gotcha video designed precisely to make her remarks seem racist. Pathetic!
“Plenty of idiots get published and sell millions of copies, Tina. Book sales does not = quality.”
That is a matter of opinion…I am confident that I’m in good company.
“I think so–it is now abundantly clear that you will pretty much say anything, no matter how extreme or how stupid it makes you look…”
Take a look in the mirror dearie.
“I don’t see the point in continuing a debate with such a person.”
Thank God!
I have indulged your creepy little need to smear the names of others long enough.
A few replies (what can I say, I can’t let ludicrous statements about me go unchallenged):
“How dare you presume to speak for every person in America!”
I never did any such thing, Tina. I am speaking based on common perception.
“If we really want to know whether Ann’s remark was meant as a racial slur we should ask her because she is the only person qualified to answer the question.”
That’s ridiculous; people who make racial slurs usually deny their true intent.
Regardless, it doesn’t matter if she “meant” it to be a racial slur; it WAS a racial slur, and that is an objective fact.
“Yes, wonderful STORIES!!!!! And before all the PC crap the Marxist have introduced into young skulls like yours craving a cause for their youthful angst Americans could enjoy the stories and the diverse culture in peace.”
What on earth are you talking about now? I never said you can’t enjoy a story…I was talking about a recognizable stereotype that Ann Coulter used to disparage an ethnic group. And you’re rattling on about “PC crap” and “Marxists…” You’re reduced to babbling inane talking points that have no bearing on what we’re talking about.
“Well…it’s about time you caught up. Your obsession is hillarious…”
I have no “obsession.”
“your own denial that their are some Muslims that want to kill us and transform the world is naive…”
Yet another provably false charge against me! I don’t know how many times I have to explain this to you, but I have NEVER denied that “there are some Muslims that want to kill us and transform the world…” I have told you probably dozens of times that I understand this fact, yet again and again you try to smear me by pretending that I haven’t!
You are lying about me and I won’t tolerate it.
“your inability to discuss the subject like an adult is childish…your assumption that anyone who does is racist or bigoted against all Mulsims is typical of the PC addled brain.”
So telling a 17 year old Arab Muslim girl to “take a camel” isn’t racist or bigoted…it’s an example of “discussing the subject like an adult?” If that’s your idea of adult behavior, Tina, then I want no part of it. That young student showed a hell of a lot more maturity in her question than Coulter showed with her petty, juvenile and racist response.
“You are being an idiot! The college campus is precisely the place for differing views!”
Yes, but it’s not the place for guest speakers to hurl racial and religiously discriminatory insults at students. Discrimination is not a “differing view.”
“Gee Chris…you have said some very inflamatory and nasty things about the Bachmans and Ann Coulter…”
What I’ve said about them is based on their BEHAVIOR, not their race or religion! Coulter’s remark toward that student was based ENTIRELY on race and religion. That you fail to see the difference is a result of willful blindness on your part.
“I’ll just follow your lead. From now on anyone who uses the phrase “pray the gay away” is guilty as charged of religious bigotry just because “everyone knows” it is.”
By “everyone,” you mean Tina.
You keep trying to redefine bigotry to serve your purposes. It’s not going to work.
“What you gave is a couple of pieces of gotcha video designed precisely to make her remarks seem racist. Pathetic!”
Tina, either her remarks were racist or they were not. The video did not make her say anything she didn’t say. And the second video I posted showed the full context–there was no further information that was necessary to understand the situation that wasn’t already in there! What do you think is missing from the video?
You’re also leaving out the fact that I posted the interview in which Coulter made her original “flying carpet” remark. What part of that interview did you think took Coulter out of context, or made it “seem” like she was saying something racist when she in fact was not?
You see, when you accuse someone of taking something out of context or selectively editing a video, you have to be able to explain what’s missing or what background information would make the video more acceptable to you…otherwise your accusations are hollow and baseless.
“I have indulged your creepy little need to smear the names of others long enough.”
Because if there’s anything Ann Coulter hates, it’s smearing people!