• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Unloading on Krauthammer

Krauthammer is an ignoramus. How in the hell does he ever find work as a serious columnist?
 
Good demolition.
Anyway, didn't Jesus say "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars"?
 
Its a great column. To summarize:

"our opinions are different than Krauthammer's so he is retarded"
 
He's like almost all other columnists: he writes some things that I disagree with, and some that I agree with.

It amazes me (and distresses me) that I see so many on the left and the right that seem to only ever take one side of things.

Are you telling me you've NEVER found ONE of his columns that made you say "He makes some good points in this column. I can agree him here."

I know I've found columns from him that I have both agreed and disagreed with. There are no columnists that I always agree with, and very few that I always disagree with. The ones that I always disagree with are just a-holes who throw bombs, because they are either so extreme to one side as to be barely capable of rational thought, or they are just trying to get a rise out of people.
 
Freakshow said:
He's like almost all other columnists: he writes some things that I disagree with, and some that I agree with.

It amazes me (and distresses me) that I see so many on the left and the right that seem to only ever take one side of things.

Are you telling me you've NEVER found ONE of his columns that made you say "He makes some good points in this column. I can agree him here."

I know I've found columns from him that I have both agreed and disagreed with. There are no columnists that I always agree with, and very few that I always disagree with. The ones that I always disagree with are just a-holes who throw bombs, because they are either so extreme to one side as to be barely capable of rational thought, or they are just trying to get a rise out of people.
Click to expand...

In fact, I have never found a Krauthammer column that made me agree with anything he said. Not that I´d remember it, anyway.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that people are pissed at Krauthammer et al because he is an arrogant, ignorant, prejudiced, bigoted, self-righteous, full-of-feces (did I leave anything out?) bastard?
 
corplinx said:
Its a great column. To summarize:

"our opinions are different than Krauthammer's so he is retarded"
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I must have read the wrong article. The one I read sounded more like, "Krauthammer considers critical self-analysis to be more dangerous than monolithic certainty, so he is retarded."
 
Neutiquam Erro said:
Hmmm... I must have read the wrong article. The one I read sounded more like, "Krauthammer considers critical self-analysis to be more dangerous than monolithic certainty, so he is retarded."
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Not retarded because he disagrees with me, but because ... well Jesus, just look at what he says.
 
Neutiquam Erro said:
Hmmm... I must have read the wrong article. The one I read sounded more like, "Krauthammer considers critical self-analysis to be more dangerous than monolithic certainty, so he is retarded."
Click to expand...

There is a gaping flaw in their criticism. You can practically drive a car through it. That said, you probably need help finding it.

What assumption does the author make about secular beliefs versus ones that come from religious faith that isn't necessarily true?
 
Ok

corplinx said:
Its a great column. To summarize:

"our opinions are different than Krauthammer's so he is retarded"
Click to expand...

Ok, so tell me you don't see the fundamental difference between Krauthammer's position and that of those he opposes. The author expresses this very clearly. For example, the position of Krauthammer and those he represents in regard to gay marriage is to say that the left is imposing their views that gays should have the right to marry, but, as the author say's, saying people have the right to marry is not dictating that people have to marry or that you have to turn gay and marry another gay person, where as Krauthammer's camp wants to deny people who want to marry the right to marry. The only one wanting to impose their view is Krauthammer. I am reminded of the argument that libertarians want to impose their views that people should have the right and responsibility to make their own life choices. Dictating, as it were, that people have to be free. Such tyranny!!!
 
Chaos said:
In fact, I have never found a Krauthammer column that made me agree with anything he said. Not that I´d remember it, anyway.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that people are pissed at Krauthammer et al because he is an arrogant, ignorant, prejudiced, bigoted, self-righteous, full-of-feces (did I leave anything out?) bastard?
Click to expand...

Because it leads me to believe that you are not thinking openly and critically about each issue that comes along. It leads me to believe that you have totally bought into the pseudo-religious political dogma of one side.

I am fiercely independent. I am not a liberal. I am not a conservative. I am not a member of any political party. I think about every issue that comes along. I don't start out thinking along the lines of a particular political dogma. I THINK.
 
corplinx said:
There is a gaping flaw in their criticism. You can practically drive a car through it. That said, you probably need help finding it.

What assumption does the author make about secular beliefs versus ones that come from religious faith that isn't necessarily true?
Click to expand...

I'd rather you just state what you perceive to be the "gaping flaw", and provide evidence from the article that supports your assertion. I suppose you could be suggesting that "secular beliefs" are themselves comprised of unyielding dogma. This would, indeed, present a problem for an argument in favor of secularism against the kind of uncompromising moral certainty advanced by Krauthammer (and embodied in most religious faith).

It seems to me, however, that the author is implicitly defining secularism (in contrast to "Krauthammer-ism") as being characterized by rational doubt and critical self-analysis. Whether or not this is an accurate characterization is the subject of endless debate in the Philosophy and Religion forum, but if one allows the author to establish this as a premise to his argument, I don't see what other truck-sized holes you might be referring to.
 
Krauthammer's charge is right on the money; you shouldn't selectively screen for bias - religious views are no more dogmatic or biased than any other. A religious candidate shouldn;t be scrutinized any differently than anyone else - indeed, it is unConstitutional to deny a nominee his position on the basis of religion.
The writer of the anti-Krauthammer piece is pretty awful as well.. either he's deliberately misrepresenting Krauthammer's piece, or he's a pretty dim bulb.
 
Neutiquam Erro said:

It seems to me, however, that the author is implicitly defining secularism (in contrast to "Krauthammer-ism") as being characterized by rational doubt and critical self-analysis. Whether or not this is an accurate characterization is the subject of endless debate in the Philosophy and Religion forum, but if one allows the author to establish this as a premise to his argument, I don't see what other truck-sized holes you might be referring to.
Click to expand...

Ding, ding, ding. You win. And no, we don't need to debate for hours whether a faithless person is inherently a critical thinker in the religious forum. I found the narrow brush/broad brush the author used too silly to take seriously (of course, Krauthammer used the same technique, how do you like your hypocrisy served).
 
manny said:
Prepare a little room for nuance.
Click to expand...

Not bad, as a whole. But he still can´t write a single colum without including outrageous BS:

The half-century campaign to eradicate any vestige of religion from public life has run its course. The backlash from a nation fed up with the A.C.L.U. kicking crèches out of municipal Christmas displays has created a new balance.
Click to expand...
 
manny said:
Prepare a little room for nuance.
Click to expand...
And...
Both in my writings and as a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, I have advocated this dual policy: Expand federal funding of stem cell research by using discarded embryos, but couple that with a firm national ban on creating human embryos for any purpose other than the birth of a human baby. We finally have a chance to enact this grand compromise -- but only if a majority of senators insist that the welcome expansion provided in the Castle-DeGette bill, which will yield a near endless supply of embryonic stem cells, cannot take place unless the door is firmly closed now, while we still have the chance, on the manufacture of human embryos for research and destruction.
Click to expand...
Link
 
Manny and BPSCG,

Thanks for getting my back. :) I've been REALLY busy recently, and have had very little participation on the boards. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom