| Sqrl said: In order: - Your not actually responding to her though, unless she reads this forum lol. The point of a response here is to convey to your fellow board members what is so glaringly wrong about her article and explain why Anne Coulter is not to be listened to (and I agree there are some things worth ripping apart in the article). I think Rubang was on the right idea with the quotes, but those don't really have anything to do with the article. The problem is that although they are fine examples of why Coulter is disliked (ie hated) by so many people, they are in no way a rebuttal of the article or an explanation of why it is wrong/misleading/etc... And I sometimes feel that the article itself perfectly conveys what I feel is wrong with it as it is so obviously wrong. This is one of those times. - Yes I did, as did damn near everyone else, "experts", politicians, pundits, and grandma included. In fact the article I linked to shows that those fears were well-founded and if you're saying you didn't think we would be attacked again then you're only admitting that you thought so incorrectly. Clearly I thought so correctly as there haven't been any major terrorist attacks. - I was fairly explicit in labeling the soldiers versus the civilians, so I'm not sure why you repeated it. In any case you are correct and it was, and is again, noted. I hope you will take note of my point that I believe her real intention with the comparison was to highlight that the casualties were not nearly as bad in recent months as many believe them to be and that things are getting better in Iraq. Casualties of soldiers once again. As I say I'm not sure what civilian/Iraqi police/Iraqi Army/Coalition Army death figures are but having such an incomplete figure as American soldiers doesn't really prove anything much. As for the civilian deaths I'm honestly not sure what it has to do with this comparison. They are certainly more than a mere cold hard statistic to me, but this comparison is about Iraq in the month of May not Iraq since the beginning of the conflict. - I don't think Al-Qaeda is the only terrorist threat we face, let alone the primary reason we should have gone there. No matter where Al-Qaeda was at and/or where they would or wouldn't have been, the fact is this course has lead to a number of victories against them. We can second guess how we got here but thats not going to change, the only thing we can choose is the road forward. Iraq was by no means the most dangerous rogue state (as evidenced by the fact that UN weapon inspectors found no WMDs or any sign of a WMD programme) and it was also a secular state meaning that it was by no means the most likely to harbour Islamic terrorists. Just because victories were won against them and America invaded Iraq doesn't mean invading Iraq was intelligent. Its like saying that because the Allies won WWII everything the Allies did in WWII was right - which is completely untrue. - I like your analogy, unfortunately Thompson mentioned on FreeTalkLive that the only game he has said should be flat out banned is Manhunt (can't remember if it was one or two). He went on to also say that his position was to prevent children from purchasing these "objectionale" games. A gross mischaracterization of his position on your part, and one that highlights the pitfalls of letting your assumptions about someone run wild. JT may be extreme in the way he goes about his business the same as Coulter is but I think you would agree children shouldn't be playing GTA IV or Mass Effect, the same way you share the same goal as Anne Coulter (ie to win the war on terror). It all comes down to a disagreement on how you do that...and maybe even whether or not it can be done....but at the very least you both want it. He also campaigned that Bully should be banned from sale I believe. In any case both of these cases are ones where people either attacked him or flat out ignored him because he was serving his own biased agenda. As I said. Also just because he also has some reasonable views doesn't make all of his views reasonable. To me a person who is hurling an insult at Anne Coulter is just as much a part of the problem as Coulter herself. She shreiks so her position is heard and in response they hurl insults to ratchet up the rhetoric. The result is nobody can get their point across because everyone is too stubborn to listen. You saying that this is the way it is "whether I like it or not" only tells me that people prefer it this way..which of course implies nobody wants to fix the problem because they're just so happy arguing. I don't really buy that but it seems to be the case for the time being. You're correct in saying that there is nothing I can do to forcefully stop people from doing this (and I don't want to), all I can do is pity those who think ratcheting up the rhetoric is a good idea and hope that their stubbornness isn't the undoing of us all (which I don't think it will be). I don't understand what you're getting at in these paragraphs. For one thing there isn't really any rhetoric as we are writing opinions on her article that she will never read. Also she has got her point across as I did read the article - I just found myself to extremely strongly disagree with her point. - So your answer to dealing with people you really don't like is to ignore them? By that reasoning it was perfectly acceptable for Bush to ignore the protests of other UN nations in dealing with Iraq. After all he didn't really like them so he should just ignore them right? Two things. I don't run the most powerful country in the world. Ann Coulter is largely insignificant in the grand-scheme of things. Those two factors mean that I can quite happily ignore her - along with Muslim extremists, neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers. All of whom I am quite happy to ignore or verbally attack. Everyone recognizes at some point that you need to deal with other people to solve problems, and those other people are going to include people who you disagree with. Obviously none of us are in a position to solve these problems but really your attitude towards Coulter is just an example of political climate that prevents things from getting done. And while you can't fix the problem you can help change the political climate. Once again, I'm not a politician. I don't actually need to deal with people like Ann and even if I was a politican I wouldn't be able to simply because my ideals are oh so very different to hers. Much like if you asked Obama (or even McCain) whether he would consider converting the Middle East to Christianity by force they would laugh at you. - I'm honestly not trying to start a drawn out argument. I'm just trying to illustrate how the mainstream positions are creating an impasse. I doubt I will change anyone's mind from their current thinking. But I think you understand where I'm coming from just the same and you know exactly what I'm talking about when I say that these extreme and irreconcilable views are not only unhealthy but damaging to the nation as a whole. The thing is my views are not extreme at all - well at least not in New Zealand - whereas her views are extreme pretty much anywhere. |
Edit: You couldn't get very far not saying "is" now could you?
Edit2: Also Sqrl I'm not keen to get into too massive an argument. I probably won't reply again k?
