Ms Right... For Arlos

[Lyion]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 19,00.html

lol

Ann Coulter, on why she attacks liberals:

They’re terrible people, liberals. They believe—this can really summarize it all—these are people who believe you can deliver a baby entirely except for the head, puncture the skull, suck the brains out and pronounce that a constitutional right has just been exercised. That really says it all. You don’t want such people to like you!

[Harrison]

Yay another reference to abortion I can make people look stupid upon.

[Diabolik]

Yay another reference to abortion I can make people look stupid upon.

One of Life's winners, truly.

[araby]

I like her, she's someone I have a lot of respect for. I got her book for my dad for Christmas, he and I differ in our political views, him being farther right than myself, so I thought it would be cute to get that book for him from me, hehe.

I'm reading it when he's done, and I think I'll gather a ton of much-needed information from her, she's got her shit together.

[Tossica]

I like her, she's someone I have a lot of respect for. I got her book for my dad for Christmas, he and I differ in our political views, him being farther right than myself, so I thought it would be cute to get that book for him from me, hehe.

I'm reading it when he's done, and I think I'll gather a ton of much-needed information from her, she's got her shit together.

She is cancer.

[Arlos]

Since we're discussing abortion, apparently, here's an excerpt from one of THE most famous and extensively studied, reviewed, etc. philosophical papers on the topic, by Mary Anne Warren. Full text can be found: http://www.jraibley.com/medical/W.doc

This essay is covered in basically every single bio/medical ethics class, and a great many philosophy and ethics classes as well. I know it was covered in a philosophy class I took. Not only does it blast holes in the whole "fetus is a person" argument against abortion, it also extends to cover such things as the Schiavo case.

The question which we must answer in order to produce a satisfactory solution to the problem of the moral status of abortion is this: How are we to define the moral community, the set of beings with full and equal moral rights, such that we can decide whether a human fetus is a member of this community or not? What sort of entity, exactly, has the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Jefferson attributed these rights to all men … If so, then we arrive, first, at Noonan's problem of defining what makes a being human, and, second, at the equally vital question which Noonan does not consider, namely, What reason is there for identifying the moral community with the set of all human beings, in whatever way we have chosen to define that term?


1. On the Definition of "Human"

One reason why this vital second question is so frequently overlooked in the debate over the moral status of abortion is that the term "human" has two distinct, but not often distinguished, senses. This fact results in a slide of meaning, which serves to conceal the fallaciousness of the traditional argument that since (1) it is wrong to kill innocent human beings, and (2) fetuses are innocent human beings, then (3) it is wrong to kill fetuses. For if "human" is used in the same sense in both (1) and (2) then, whichever of the two uses is meant, one of these premises is question-begging. And if it is used in two different senses then of course the conclusion doesn't follow. [It would be an equivocation.]


Thus, (1) is a self-evident moral truth (fn. 7), and avoids begging the question about abortion, only if "human being" is used to mean something like "a full-fledged member of the moral community." (It may or may not also be meant to refer exclusively to members of the species Homo sapiens.) We may call this the moral sense of "human." It is not to be confused with what we will call the genetic sense; i.e., the sense in which a member of the species is a human being, and no member of any other species could be. If (1) is acceptable only if the moral sense is intended, (2) is non-question-begging only if what is intended is the genetic sense.


In "Deciding Who Is Human," Noonan argues for the classification of fetuses with human beings by pointing to the presence of the full genetic code, and the potential capacity for rational thought (p. 135). It is clear that what he needs to show, for his version of the traditional argument to be valid, is that fetuses are human in the moral sense, the sense in which it is analytically true that all human beings have full moral rights. But, in the absence of any argument showing that whatever is genetically human is also morally human, and he gives none, nothing more than genetic humanity can be demonstrated by the presence of the human genetic code. And, as we will see, the potential capacity for rational thought can at most show that an entity has the potential for becoming human in the moral sense.


2. Defining the Moral Community


Can it be established that genetic humanity is sufficient for moral humanity'? I think that there are very good reasons for not defining the moral community in way. I would like to suggest an alternative way of defining the moral community, which I will argue for only to the extent of explaining why it is, or should be, self-evident. The suggestion is simply that the moral community consists of all and only people, rather than all and only human beings (fn. 8); and probably the best way of demonstrating its self-evidence is by considering the concept of personhood, to see what sorts of entity are and are not persons, and what the decision that a being is or is not a person implies about its moral rights.


What characteristics entitle an entity to be considered a person? This is obviously not the place to attempt a complete analysis of the concept of personhood, but we do not need such a fully adequate analysis just to determine whether and why a fetus is or isn't a person. All we need is a rough and approximate list of the most basic criteria of personhood, and some idea of which, or how many, of these an entity must satisfy in order to properly be considered a person.


In searching for such criteria, it is useful to look beyond the set of people with whom we are acquainted, and ask how we would decide whether a totally alien being was a person or not. (For we have no right to assume that genetic humanity is necessary for personhood.) Imagine a space traveler who lands on an unknown planet and encounters a race of beings utterly unlike any he has ever seen or heard of. If he wants to be sure of behaving morally toward these beings, he has to somehow decide whether they are people, and hence have full moral rights, or whether they are the sort of thing which he need not feel guilty about treating as, for example, a source of food.


How should he go about making this decision? If he has some anthropological background, he might look for such things as religion, art, and the manufacturing of tools, weapons, or shelters, since these factors have been used to distinguish our human from our prehuman ancestors, in what seems to be closer to the moral than the genetic sense of "human." And no doubt he would be right to consider the presence of such factors as good evidence that the alien beings were people, and morally human. It would, however, be overly anthropocentric of him to take the absence of these things as adequate evidence that they were not, since we can imagine people who have progressed beyond, or evolved without ever developing these cultural characteristics.


I suggest that the traits which are most central to the concept of personhood, or humanity' in the moral sense, are, very roughly; the following:


1. consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain;


2. reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems);


3. self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control);


4. the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics;


5. the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both.


Admittedly, there are apt to he a great many problems involved in formulating precise definitions of these criteria, let alone in developing universally valid behavioral criteria for deciding when they apply. But I will assume that both we and our explorer know approximately what (1)-(5) mean, and that he is also able to determine whether or not they apply. How, then, should he use his findings to decide whether or not the alien beings are people? We needn't suppose that an entity must have oil of these attributes to he properly considered a person; (1) and (2) alone may well he sufficient for personhood, and quite probably (1)-(3), if "activity" is construed so as to include the activity of reasoning.


All we need to claim, to demonstrate that a fetus is not a person, is that any being which satisfies none of (1)-(5) is certainly not a person. I consider this claim to be so obvious that I think anyone who denied it, and claimed that a being which satisfied none of (1)-(5) was a person all the same, would thereby demonstrate that he had no notion at all of what a person is - perhaps because he had confused the concept of a person with that of genetic humanity. If the opponents of abortion were to deny the appropriateness of these five criteria, I do not know what further arguments would convince them. We would probably have to admit that our conceptual schemes were indeed irreconcilably different, and that our dispute could not be settled objectively.


I do not expect this to happen, however, since I think that the concept of a person is one which is very nearly universal (to people), and that it is common to both proabortionists and antiabortionists, even though neither group has fully realized the relevance of this concept to the resolution of their dispute. Furthermore, I think that on reflection even the antiabortionists ought to agree not only that (1) - (5) are central to the concept of personhood, but also that it is a part of this concept that all and only people have full moral rights. The concept of a person is in part a moral concept; once we have admitted that x is a person we have recognized, even if we have not agreed to respect, x's right to he treated as a member of the moral community. It is true that the claim that x is a human being is more commonly voiced as part of an appeal to treat x decently than is the claim that x is a person, but this is either because "human being" is here used in the sense which implies personhood, or because the genetic and moral sense of "human" have been confused.


Now if (1)-(5) are indeed the primary criteria of personhood, then it is clear that genetic humanity is neither necessary nor sufficient for establishing that an entity is a person. Some human beings arc not people, and there may well be people who are not human beings. A man or woman whose consciousness has been permanently obliterated but who remains alive is a human being which is no longer a person; defective human beings, with no appreciable mental capacity, are not and presumably never will be people; and a fetus is a human being which is not yet a person, and which therefore cannot coherently be said to have full moral rights. Citizens of the next century should be prepared to recognize highly advanced, self-aware robots or computers, should such he developed, and intelligent inhabitants of other worlds, should such he found, as people in the fullest sense, and to respect their moral rights. But to ascribe full moral rights to an entity which is not a person is as absurd as to ascribe moral obligations and responsibilities to such an entity.

As for Ann Coulter, she's a raving psychotic hag, with an overdeveloped superiority complex, with weak, unsupported arguments that amount to frenzied ranting, as opposed to real learned discourse. Not that she's capable of actually conversing intelligently, or would choose to if she could, since she makes a lot of money pandering to the ignorant right.

-Arlos

[mofish]

I like her, she's someone I have a lot of respect for. I got her book for my dad for Christmas, he and I differ in our political views, him being farther right than myself, so I thought it would be cute to get that book for him from me, hehe.

I'm reading it when he's done, and I think I'll gather a ton of much-needed information from her, she's got her shit together.

She is cancer.

Yes. She is possibly the worst neo-con rabble-rouser, in a sea of them. And that's saying something when there are people like Michael Savage running around shooting their mouths off. Ive heard her speak more than once on c-span, on talkin head shows on television. She is vile. She also apparently thinks anorexia is hot, since she talks about her looks so much, and weighs maybe 90 lbs. Ethiopian.

[Diabolik]

She's ugly.

[Azlana]

Ann Coulter is hideously ugly and a fucking bitch. Also, I am pro-choice, but not after the first trimester, for the record. Late term should be, and is (pretty much everywhere right???) illegal, and should be. If you couldn't make up your mind in three months, tough shit.

[Lyion]

Ann Coulter is hideously ugly and a fucking bitch. Also, I am pro-choice, but not after the first trimester, for the record. Late term should be, and is (pretty much everywhere right???) illegal, and should be. If you couldn't make up your mind in three months, tough shit.

No, it's not.

[Azlana]

I dunno, I think it is...at least there are lots of doctors who won't do it. Then again, I've never known anyone who had a late term abortion either.

[Ginzburgh]

Eww she has a fucking adams apple.

It's a man, man

[Shannan]

Late term should be, and is (pretty much everywhere right???) illegal, and should be. If you couldn't make up your mind in three months, tough shit.

I agree. Here I think 5 months is the cut off for abortion. I dont have issues with them if they are done really early but anything past a few months makes me sick. My friends little sister is getting an abortion this week and shes 1 week shy of 5 months. She makes me sick.

[Narrock]

Michael Savage is the most intelligent radio personality I've ever heard. Ann Coulter is very intelligent too. Both of those personalities have no fear of exposing the sickness and wickedness that comprises the liberal left. I have the utmost of respect for both of them, because they are true Americans who love their country.

[Harrison]

Ann is a fucking nutcase, I'd fuck the crazy out of her though...

[Captain Insano]

Ann is a fucking nutcase, I'd fuck the crazy out of her though...

actually... no you wouldn't.

[Harrison]

Thanks for the analysis Freud.

When you're done maybe you could explain the intricasies of breathing for me.

[Captain Insano]

well in your case I would not try lying on my back and breathing at the same time... The weight of your belly and man breasteses would most definitely crush your lungs making breathing utterly impossible... Instead I recommend shuffling to the kitchen to your ho-ho cabinet trying to use a slow stuttery shuffle so as not to exert to much energy which could also hamper the influx of oxygen into your crisco covered lungs... FATTY!

[KaiineTN]

Hey.. You're not a shoplifter, you're just a fat kid. Sorry about that fatty fat fatty. Hey Tom, he's just a fat kid! Aren't you, fatty? You're just a big ol' fat kid. Here's some chocolate, fatso.

[Harrison]

Hey.. You're not a shoplifter, you're just a fat kid. Sorry about that fatty fat fatty. Hey Tom, he's just a fat kid! Aren't you, fatty? You're just a big ol' fat kid. Here's some chocolate, fatso.

I just watched that with my friend, although she is 1300 miles south...

[Witty]

I am pro-abortion, not to be cunfoozed with pro-choice.
Less Humans =

[mofish]

From the May 11 Savage Nation:

"Nick Berg, an American, not military, over there building transmission towers, was captured by the Untermenschen the sub-humans, who wrap themselves in a religion."



I like how he throws in the German for a nice little neonazi touch. Classy.


Quote:
Savage on what should be done to the Iraqi prisoners:

And I think there should be no mercy shown to these sub-humans. I believe that a thousand of them should be killed tomorrow. I think a thousand of them held in the Iraqi prison should be given 24 hour -- a trial and executed. I think they need to be shown that we are not going to roll over to them.




Quote:
From the May 12 Savage Nation:

In fact, Christianity has been one of the great salvations on planet Earth. It's what's necessary in the Middle East. Others have written about it, I think these people need to be forcibly converted to Christianity but I'll get here a little later, I'll move up to that. It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings.

I'm going to give you one further example from my background as an anthropologist just so that you -- I'm trying to put context on this because you can go crazy if you don't have the context on this, because I'm going to lead up to something of what we must do to these primitives. Because these primitives can only be treated in one way, and I don't think smallpox and a blanket is good enough incidentally. Just before -- I'm going to give you a little precursor to where I'm going. Smallpox in a blanket, which the U.S. Army gave to the Cherokee Indians on their long march to the West, was nothing compared to what I'd like to see done to these people, just so you understand that I'm not going to be too intellectual about my analysis here in terms of what I would recommend, what Doc Savage recommends as an antidote to this kind of poison coming out of the Middle East from these non-humans.



You can see that extends to non-arabs through this clip:


Quote:
From the May 12 Savage Nation:

And as the churches have been emptying out, the mosques have been filling up, in France and Germany. We all know that but we're all looking other way. And now street gangs of young Muslims are beating up and killing people in France and of course you don't read about that either. Because during a revolutionary period you've got to understand that there's a story line and the storyline is they're the oppressed minority and therefore they can do no wrong. It's very much like the American minorities here in this country. You can never hear about the bad things they do. It's hush-hush but if a Timothy McVeigh should come along, then it gets front page coverage. Because the story line goes that white male, Christian, heterosexuals are evil and all of the others are -- are -- are victims and only getting their just rewards by fighting back.





The guy is scum, plain and simple.

[Mop]

I am pro abortion, though it just happens to go along with my philosophy on kiling babies.

[Lyion]

Partial Birth Abortion is still legal, and performed. That is the procedure Ann Coulter is discussing, and we can't even get the courts to agree that a killing a half born child should not be protected.

I'm for the morning after pill, but it makes me sad to see a developed baby getting aborted.

At 13 weeks the baby has a heartbeat, can suck his thumb, yawn, and make faces...Just in time to die for some.

[mofish]

And now for some Ann Coulter fun!

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

More fun : from 2001 hannity n colmes show:
COULTER: I take the biblical idea. God gave us the earth.

PETER FENN (Democratic strategist): Oh, OK.

COULTER: We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees.

FENN: This is a great idea.

COULTER: God says, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."

FENN: Terrific. We're Americans, so we should consume as much of the earth's resources...

COULTER: Yes! Yes.

FENN: ... as fast as we possibly can.

COULTER: As opposed to living like the Indians.


"I love Texas Republicans!" she said. "They're these beautiful women, they're so great-looking, they're completely loaded. They're dripping in this gorgeous jewelry, they're really funny and sarcastic and smart. Americans are so cool, and they're such parochial idiots here in New York."

^^ of course, where did she write her book, Slander? In a NEW YORK APARTMENT. Yeah she hate New York.

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

Sick.

I could go on and on, but I wont!