Should Ann Coulter apologize for calling President Obama Retarded?

[fishbob]

More body shaming.

Another privileged white male insisting that he knows best for everybody else.

More dehumanizing tactics: "lizardoid" / "critter" / "banshee"

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that both of you are Obama supporters.

She dehumanizes herself when she makes incendiary statements - I merely pointed it out.
Why, Mr Psychic, does this get your undies so knotted up?

 

[fuelair]

No. She is a piece of slime doing nothing useful that is not aimed at promoting herself. Waste of space and resources. Has no reason to exist. Hope all catch my drift on this piece of semi-human (vaguely that shape) detritus.

 

[SezMe]

It is not a troll thread. It is 100% serious.

Actually it is a troll thread because it is premised on a claim that is 100% false. There was no stand-down order. None. Zip. Nada. Squat.

Here, let me repeat myself so you don't miss it: Your assertion regarding a stand-down order is FALSE.

Thus, this is a troll thread.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Bill, can I ask how old you are? I'm curious because the whole "Calling [insert name] a retard is an insult to retards" shtick is something that stopped seeming clever to me by the end of junior high school.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Apologies are supposed to indicate contrition over the harm you've caused. Ms Coulter has always struck me as somebody who doesn't really feel any concern over the pain her words might cause to other people. Actually, she strikes me as somebody who doesn't really comprehend that other people have feelings to be hurt at all.

Must echo sentiment. She does it for the money; she makes a fairly good living being inflammatory.

 

[TimCallahan]

Originally posted by TimCalllahan:

Are you talking about this Ann Coulter? She should apologize for being retarded in science.

So,Bill Thompson, do you agree with Ann Coulter's views on evolution?

Bill,

I'm still waiting for an answer to the question above. It was not meant to be rhetorical. Her views on evolution are important in that they have to do with whether or not we should take her seriously.

ETA: Here is Ann Coulter's view of evolution in own words. This piece is full of all the standard creationist crap ("there are no transitional fossils" etc.). So, again, Bill, do you share her vies on evolution?

 

[KatieG]

I completely agree. It is offensive. A retarded person might make a better president and be more transparent as promised.

We've already had a "retarded" president, G. W. Bush. One is enough, thanks.

 

[carlitos]

The Coulter critter holds herself up as a role model, and looks like she has an eating disorder. We are not being unkind to women when we tell her to shut up and set her scrawny ass down and eat. We would be unkind to girls looking for their own identity to suggest that the shrieking banshee were in any way desireable.

Stay classy, lefty!

Less 'Democrat War of Women', and more 'Democrats annoyed at one particular woman'.

And now you know.

Which doesn't excuse sexist remarks.

No. She is a piece of slime doing nothing useful that is not aimed at promoting herself. Waste of space and resources. Has no reason to exist. Hope all catch my drift on this piece of semi-human (vaguely that shape) detritus.

Her body shape doesn't have anything to do with her ideas though.

We've already had a "retarded" president, G. W. Bush. One is enough, thanks.

These trolling threads always provide keen insight.

 

[TimCallahan]

One thing that's rather bizarre abut Ann Coulter is her projected image. She seems to be acting as a Christian apologist in her book Godless. However, she's most often photographed in a sexy, low cut, form-fitting "little black dress." Google "Ann Coulter" and click on images to see what I mean. There seems to be a conflicting double message here.

 

[carlitos]

Christians can't wear little black dresses? Come on, very few sects of Christianity dress modestly any more.

 

[TimCallahan]

Christians can't wear little black dresses? Come on, very few sects of Christianity dress modestly any more.

Coulter isn't just any Christian. She's anti-abortion, a creationist and rails against the moral depravity of liberals. Were she to occasionally appear in the little black dress, it wouldn't be any big deal. However, should you do a google images search of her, you won't find pictures of her in anything that isn't at least somewhat sexually provocative. The second photo on this site is my favorite.

ETA: Christians who espouse the creationist, anti-abortion views she espouses are usually also down on sex outside of marriage. According to her bio, Coulter was born on December 8, 1961, which means she will be 51 in early December. She's never been married. Are we to assume she's a virgin?

As to her generally un-Christian behavior, here's a quote from the Wikipedia article on her (emphasis added):

Confronting some critics' views that her content and style of writing is un-Christian-like,[59][60] Coulter stated that "I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it."[61] She also said, "Christianity fuels everything I write. Being a Christian means that I am called upon to do battle against lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy—you know, all the virtues in the church of liberalism."

Christianity fuels her name-calling? Apparently, she's one of those "loyalty oath" type Christians.

Oh, BTW, BillThompson, I'm still waiting for your response regarding Coulter's creationism: Do you agree with her stance on evolutionary theory?

 

[carlitos]

Coulter isn't just any Christian. She's anti-abortion, a creationist and rails against the moral depravity of liberals. Were she to occasionally appear in the little black dress, it wouldn't be any big deal.

I've heard "no true Scotsman" fallacies before, but this is the first time I'm hearing a "true Scotsman" fallacy. You want her to dress modestly because of her other beliefs? Christianity isn't like that. They pick and choose the parts they like.

However, should you do a google images search of her, you won't find pictures of her in anything that isn't at least somewhat sexually provocative. The second photo on this site is my favorite.

And an obvious photoshop. Here's a full size version.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_swIwG4VUFl0/S6oTHXyEmHI/AAAAAAAADoE/mFnE2xxupXo/s1600/ann_coulter02.jpg

ETA: Christians who espouse the creationist, anti-abortion views she espouses are usually also down on sex outside of marriage. According to her bio, Coulter was born on December 8, 1961, which means she will be 51 in early December. She's never been married. Are we to assume she's a virgin?

I'm not assuming anything. Why are you?

As to her generally un-Christian behavior, here's a quote from the Wikipedia article on her (emphasis added):

Confronting some critics' views that her content and style of writing is un-Christian-like,[59][60] Coulter stated that "I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it."[61] She also said, "Christianity fuels everything I write. Being a Christian means that I am called upon to do battle against lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy—you know, all the virtues in the church of liberalism."

Christianity fuels her name-calling? Apparently, she's one of those "loyalty oath" type Christians.

And now she's no True Christian again. Look - there are all kinds of Christians. Cafeteria catholics. Mystical ones. And mean-spirited, bigoted ones in little black dresses.

There's a lot to dislike about this woman, but insulting her appearance and dress, photoshopping her bound and gagged ... this stuff isn't necessary. It's sexist, every time it happens. People would not be doing this to a man.

 

[Tricky]

I don't give a poop what Coulter wears. Hell, I'll even admit that she's fairly attractive. What I hate about her is that she will say absolutely any kind of hateful lie just to get attention and make money. That's a kind of whoring that I have a lot more problem accepting than someone who sells their body.

 

[RandFan]

And now she's no True Christian again. Look - there are all kinds of Christians. Cafeteria catholics. Mystical ones. And mean-spirited, bigoted ones in little black dresses.

So, the lack of any consistency isn't a source for criticism? Your argument seems to be that since Christianity means whatever anyone says it means that criticism is not possible. You might be right. Would you agree that the concept of "Christian values" is utterly meaningless?

 

[carlitos]

So, the lack of any consistency isn't a source for criticism? Your argument seems to be that since Christianity means whatever anyone says it means that criticism is not possible.

Criticism of a Christian based on your interpretation of Christianity should be discouraged in my opinion. It's the no true Scotsman thing. She's not a real Christian because x, y or z. I mean, you could easily say that she's not a real Christian because she eats shrimp or works on the Sabbath, 2 things that lots of Christians do. As we see from some posters here on JREF, there are as many (or more) flavors of Christians as there are Muslims, Jews, humanists, etc.

You might be right. Would you agree that the concept of "Christian values" is utterly meaningless?

Yes.

 

[RandFan]

Would you agree that the concept of "Christian values" is utterly meaningless?

Yes.

I can live with that.

 

[fuelair]

Stay classy, lefty!


Which doesn't excuse sexist remarks.



Her body shape doesn't have anything to do with her ideas though.


These trolling threads always provide keen insight.

That last one was not trolling in any way (don't think the others were either, but YMMV)George Bush was, within my definition of retarded (slow to recognize things/situations, unable to in a reasonable way and time present information correctly or completely and in ways that made adequate sense, incapable of reasonably performing a sequential presentation of a group of facts such that they were rationally tied together and in a reasonable order) retarded. At best moderately functioning.

 

[TimCallahan]

Criticism of a Christian based on your interpretation of Christianity should be discouraged in my opinion. It's the no true Scotsman thing. She's not a real Christian because x, y or z. I mean, you could easily say that she's not a real Christian because she eats shrimp or works on the Sabbath, 2 things that lots of Christians do. As we see from some posters here on JREF, there are as many (or more) flavors of Christians as there are Muslims, Jews, humanists, etc.




Yes.

Well, they do make certain claims to having the moral high ground. That would seem exclude name-calling and mean-spiritedness. I do realize that many in the fundie camp are only too happy to indulge in mean-spirited behavior. However, when they do that, they certainly aren't upholding the teachings of Jesus.

 

[carlitos]

That last one was not trolling in any way (don't think the others were either, but YMMV)George Bush was, within my definition of retarded (slow to recognize things/situations, unable to in a reasonable way and time present information correctly or completely and in ways that made adequate sense, incapable of reasonably performing a sequential presentation of a group of facts such that they were rationally tied together and in a reasonable order) retarded. At best moderately functioning.

And this is why I typically scroll past your posts in Politics. I happen to dislike the characteristics of many Harvard MBAs, but they aren't typically retarded.

Well, they do make certain claims to having the moral high ground. That would seem exclude name-calling and mean-spiritedness. I do realize that many in the fundie camp are only too happy to indulge in mean-spirited behavior. However, when they do that, they certainly aren't upholding the teachings of Jesus.

In your opinion. If I wanted, I could cobble together some "teachings of Jesus" that encouraged mean-spirited behavior. It's all subjective, which is why it's pointless to criticize Christians' behavior on the basis of their supposed Christianity.

 

[Morrigan]

it takes a lot of nerve to try and equate insults towards Anne Coulter to the GOP's attempts to restrict women's rights.

Yeah, the attempts at moral equivalence (and the tu quoque) here is laughable.