Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ahtman wrote:

Why should pacifists have to pay for the military? Why should people with no children help pay for public schools? Why should people who want pot legalized have to help fund police forces that raid and arrest people for smoking pot. Why should people who don't give two gaks about anyone other than themselves have to help foot the cost of a poor person who is hit by a car and is sent to an emergency room? I could go on all night.

The fact is that since it isn't just 12 of us living in a village together there are some things we are going to pay for in taxes we may not choose to on our own, but it also allows to pay for things we do want as well. The Catholic Church isn't being forced to hand out condoms in the church, but their business interests have to give the option to it's employees to allow a third party insurance company to help cover family planning costs if they choose to avail them of such. Just being a religion doesn't mean you get absolutely everything you want at all times in a pluralistic society. I personally don't think Churches should be tax exampt in the slightest but I'm ok with accepting that it is a reasonable thing to do, for a lot of reasons. Still, if it were up to me they would lose all those benefits.

Best point in this thread. As a Catholic whose wife was on BC (before we started having kids), I'm sickened by the Church's actions here. We're supposed to be morally against most wars, torture, the death penalty, etc... and yet, in my entire life of going to mass at least 3 Sundays in 4, I haven't heard an outcry about any of those equaling what I've been hearing the last couple of months regarding freaking condoms and birth control pills.

Ouze wrote:Can you truly not see why people are painting you with the "deliberately obtuse" brush here?

Nope, I honestly can't.

Are people upset about the words Rush used, or the fact that he went after her in the first place?

As to the first, I already said - I think in my first post in this thread - that I think the language he used was wrong/improper/whatever. No woman should be called those things.

As to the second, when you insert yourself into the public debate you open yourself up to criticism - some of it unfair. People will call you names, they will scrutinize everything you say, and they will vehemently disagree with you. What I think is going on in this thread is a lot of white knighting for a liberal activist. She shouldn't be targeted because of her political positions.

To evidence this point, I've pointed out where other (liberal) talk show hosts have said some incredibly misogynistic and hateful things about conservative women. And a number of posters here have, instead of condemning those attacks in addition to Rush's, tried to justify or excuse those attacks.

So, again: did Rush say something wrong? Yes. Did he apologize for it? Yes. Issue resolved.

The continued inability of certain posters here (especially some who typically leap to the defense of women) to condemn offensive language against Conservative women shows that the response to Rush's comments is political, not borne out of any objection to the words used.

Polonius wrote:No serious moral or legal thinker of the last 75 years has felt that an employment contract was between equals.

Damn, too bad Adam Smith isn't around to see this.

Polonius wrote:Hardly anybody takes a job because they want to work for a certain organization. They take the best/first/only job offered.

I know a lot of people that took jobs because they wanted to work for certain companies. Must be I only know that handful of people

Ahtman wrote:Why should pacifists have to pay for the military? Why should people with no children help pay for public schools? Why should people who want pot legalized have to help fund police forces that raid and arrest people for smoking pot. Why should people who don't give two gaks about anyone other than themselves have to help foot the cost of a poor person who is hit by a car and is sent to an emergency room? I could go on all night.

There's a common theme running through all of your examples: government spending. In none of these cases is a person being compelled to give money directly to someone else. No one is compelled to buy military equipment - the government taxes, decides how to spend the money, and buys military equipment.

If there were a law requiring pacifists to buy guns; or pay for tuition; or help police raid drug houses; or pay for someone else's health care - you'd have a point. But none of these exist.

biccat wrote:What I think is going on in this thread is a lot of white knighting for a liberal activist. She shouldn't be targeted because of her political positions.

And this is where you are being deliberately obtuse.

We are not saying "she shouldn't be targeted", we're saying "she shouldn't be attacked".

Or perhaps you want people to start calling every Republican an oppressive fascist theocrat?

biccat wrote:No one is compelled to buy military equipment

Using the circuitous logic used by the churches so vehemently opposed to this, yes, they are.

If a person who has to pay more for insurance because some people use insurance to get birth control is effectively paying for birth control, then a person who has to pay more for taxes because some people use these takes to buy military equipment is effectively paying for birth control.

You can try to hold a double standard biccat, but don't BS yourself in to thinking it's anything but a double standard.

If the military isn't tax payer funded, how does it get all those cool toys? Why is there that chunk of spending on the graph of government expenditures labeled 'military'?

Melissia wrote:We are not saying "she shouldn't be targeted", we're saying "she shouldn't be attacked".

Why? What makes her immune from attack?

She inserted herself into the political debate. This wasn't an innocent question posed to a politician on camera.

You want to play politics? Fine, get ready for the mud slinging.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:We are not saying "she shouldn't be targeted", we're saying "she shouldn't be attacked".

Why? What makes her immune from attack?

She inserted herself into the political debate. This wasn't an innocent question posed to a politician on camera.

You want to play politics? Fine, get ready for the mud slinging.

Is civil discourse really too much to hope for? Go after the ideas, not the person. (Yes, this applies to all participants, not just the conservatives). Is it time for another Rally to Restore Sanity? Apparently, the first one didn't help.

biccat wrote:Why? What makes her immune from attack?

So you're saying it's perfectly acceptable to label anyone who adheres to a Christian faith a "theocratic loony" right? Or that it's perfectly acceptable to label anyone who supports Santorum a fething slow? Or to label anyone who doesn't vote for Obama an un-American traitor who supports terrorists and hates/eats babies?

Attacking an opponent's political position in a debate is fine. Attacking an opponent is not. It's why arguments are generally weakened (and most everyone on this forum has done this or been sorely tempted to, it's part of being human after all) by such attacks, which are known in the field of formal logic as ad hominem fallacies.

Jeep wrote:Is civil discourse really too much to hope for? Go after the ideas, not the person. (Yes, this applies to all participants, not just the conservatives).

Why does this argument never come out when Democrats say offensive things?

Jeep wrote:Is it time for another Rally to Restore Sanity? Apparently, the first one didn't help.

I can't imagine why not.





I suppose that's enough for now.

biccat wrote:

Jeep wrote:Is civil discourse really too much to hope for? Go after the ideas, not the person. (Yes, this applies to all participants, not just the conservatives).

Why does this argument never come out when Democrats say offensive things?

Jeep wrote:Is it time for another Rally to Restore Sanity? Apparently, the first one didn't help.

I can't imagine why not.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

I suppose that's enough for now.

As I stated, it should apply to everyone. When you see Democrats saying blatantly offensive things, call them out. Indeed, many people at the rally didn't understand the intent of it wasn't to point fingers, but rather a call to improve the quality of discourse.

I do have to note though, that most of those signs are against institutions rather than individuals. I feel that makes a difference.

To reinforce my point:

Original comment by a professor:

Rush Limbaugh is under fire for responding in trademark fashion to the congressional testimony of Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, who wants you to pay for her contraception. If the rest of us are to share in the costs of Ms. Fluke’s sex life, says Rush, we should also share in the benefits, via the magic of online video. For this, Rush is accused of denying Ms. Fluke her due respect.

But while Ms. Fluke herself deserves the same basic respect we owe to any human being, her position — which is what’s at issue here — deserves none whatseover. It deserves only to be ridiculed, mocked and jeered. To treat it with respect would be a travesty. I expect there are respectable arguments for subsidizing contraception (though I am skeptical that there are arguments sufficiently respectable to win me over), but Ms. Fluke made no such argument. All she said, in effect, was that she and others want contraception and they don’t want to pay for it.

To his credit, Rush stepped in to provide the requisite mockery. To his far greater credit, he did so with a spot-on analogy...

So, what happened to the professor for clearly and concisely disagreeing with Ms. Fluke without disparaging her?

Protests, of course.

Protesting students entered Landsburg’s room at the beginning of his mid-afternoon class.
“They formed a line between him and the class. And he continued to lecture,” said UR spokeswoman Sharon Dickman.
She noted that a couple of University Security officers were on the scene, but they didn’t need to take any action.
Landsburg dismissed class about five minutes early, Dickman said.
UR student Alykhan Alani, one of the protesters, said the group was not ready to discuss their concerns.
But a flier found at the protest says, “We denounce professor Steven Landsburg’s attempt to smear a gender with derogatory terms.”

Note that Mr. Landsburg never "smear[ed] a gender with derogatory terms," instead, he criticized the argument.

Fortunately, the school president issued a statement supporting the professor and his right to opine on the topic attacking the professor:

Professor Landsburg has the right to express his views under our University’s deep commitment to academic freedom. And, of course, no reasonable person would ever assume that he speaks for the University of Rochester.

I also have the right to express my views. I am outraged that any professor would demean a student in this fashion. To openly ridicule, mock, or jeer a student in this way is about the most offensive thing a professor can do. We are here to educate, to nurture, to inspire, not to engage in character assassination.

So there you go. The bulk of criticism of Rush is not the words he chose (although some may be based on that), rather it is the fact that he disagreed with Ms. Fluke's argument.

A person might wonder how reasoned debate can exist when one side will attack, disrupt, and threaten in order to get their way.

biccat wrote:
There's a common theme running through all of your examples: government spending. In none of these cases is a person being compelled to give money directly to someone else. No one is compelled to buy military equipment - the government taxes, decides how to spend the money, and buys military equipment.

Of course they, they're giving it the government, who further gives it to other entities as they see fit. In this way the taxpayer is indirectly funding the activities of anyone the government does business with.

In the case we're looking at now, the Catholic Church is being required to give money directly to an insurance company. This company then uses the money as it sees fit, meaning that anyone holding a policy from that company is indirectly supporting the activities of anyone that company does business with. The only change being made is that Catholic Church is required to authorize, by way of a policy change, any insurance company it does business with to offer a new benefit to people under the aegis of its policy.

Now, you might object to this on the grounds that the state cannot force anyone to pay for a good or service offered by a private corporation (though the issue of government-granted monopolies would come into play), but that this is somehow an issue of religious freedom is, at best, a sideshow.

biccat wrote:
If there were a law requiring pacifists to buy guns; or pay for tuition; or help police raid drug houses; or pay for someone else's health care - you'd have a point. But none of these exist.

I agree that there is a distinction, it simply surprises me that you do.

Though I would also say that the distinction is minor at best.

dogma wrote:In the case we're looking at now, the Catholic Church is being required to give money directly to an insurance company. This company then uses the money as it sees fit

No, it doesn't. The insurance company uses the money to provide the service the Catholic Church has purchased. In fact they're legally obligated to provide the service the Church purchased under the mutually agreed-upon terms.

That's basic contract law.

dogma wrote:Now, you might object to this on the grounds that the state cannot force anyone to pay for a good or service offered by a private corporation (though the issue of government-granted monopolies would come into play), but that this is somehow an issue of religious freedom is, at best, a sideshow.

Actually, the issue of compelling individuals to enter into a contractual relationship is a separate issue. The religious issue is certainly relevant here, even if Obamacare is a constitutional exercise of Congressional power.

dogma wrote:I agree that there is a distinction, it simply surprises me that you do.

I'm genuinely curious, do you think it's a clever tactic to be demeaning and not-so-subtly suggest that people who disagree with you are intellectually inferior? Or is it just widely considered to be good debating? Mind, I don't have a formal education in logic, so perhaps "be condescending to others because anyone who disagrees with you is prima facie stupid" is part of the educational experience.

biccat wrote:
So, what happened to the professor for clearly and concisely disagreeing with Ms. Fluke without disparaging her?

Wait, really?

He explicitly stated that her position deserved to be mocked, which is fine.

He then claimed that Rush supplied the requisite mockery, which seemingly implies an endorsement of the methods of mockery used by Rush. This, of course, involved referring to Fluke as a "slut", referring to her as a "coed" (which generally relates only to women at coeducational institutions), and invoking the term "feminazi". The last is ambiguous, of course, but unless Rush wants a whole bunch of men sending him sex tapes, I'm guessing it was limited to the female sex.

biccat wrote:
So there you go. The bulk of criticism of Rush is not the words he chose (although some may be based on that), rather it is the fact that he disagreed with Ms. Fluke's argument.

Yeah, totally, because Landsburg didn't couch his own comments in Rush's at all.

biccat wrote:
No, it doesn't. The insurance company uses the money to provide the service the Catholic Church has purchased. In fact they're legally obligated to provide the service the Church purchased under the mutually agreed-upon terms.

That's basic contract law.

They're legally obligated to provide the service, they aren't legally obligated to use the funds provided by the Catholic Church to provide the service. The goal is for individual policies to be self-sustaining, but that is obviously not possible, and the necessary funds to provide for the agreed services have to come from somewhere.

biccat wrote:
The religious issue is certainly relevant here, even if Obamacare is a constitutional exercise of Congressional power.

I disagree. And I've spelled out the substance of the disagreement several times. The Catholic Church cannot claim that they have a religious objection and therefore have any given law be considered a violation of their religious freedom. They must make a reasonable case as to why their objection is ground in religious belief, and I don't believe they can do that.

biccat wrote:
I'm genuinely curious, do you think it's a clever tactic to be demeaning and not-so-subtly suggest that people who disagree with you are intellectually inferior? Or is it just widely considered to be good debating? Mind, I don't have a formal education in logic, so perhaps "be condescending to others because anyone who disagrees with you is prima facie stupid" is part of the educational experience.

Do you think its clever tactic to immediately play the victim, and widely considered to be indicative of good debate? But hey, what do I know, I don't refer to people who disagree with me as "useful idiots" working to enable a "tyrant".

I'm surprised that you agree because you have shown a pronounced tendency to remove the government from questions regarding government spending by claiming that the state has no money of its own, which seems to imply that the state is merely an extension of the taxpayer, and that therefore the taxpayer directly pays for any service or good paid for using their money.

biccat wrote:So there you go. The bulk of criticism of Rush is not the words he chose (although some may be based on that), rather it is the fact that he disagreed with Ms. Fluke's argument.

None of the criticism in this thread has been based on that. Further, while Landsburg opens his comments by saying Fluke should be accorded basic respect, he then goes on to write "To his credit, Rush stepped in to provide the requisite mockery. To his far greater credit, he did so with a spot-on analogy..."

Right here is where he appears to applaud Rush's words, not merely those mocking the argument but those demeaning and insulting the person. This appears to be (based on the school president's comments) exactly why Landsburg was protested as well. Not for criticising someone's argument, but for being an ass about it and insulting them into the bargain.

This was a setup as well. They may have thought their opposition would respond with it's usual timidity.
But that was not the case with Rush as he called it like he saw it on his show.
Ms. Fluke for that matter is a 31 year old law student being trotted up to capital hill to testify about her subject. She is no kid.
She knew what she was up to and made herself in doing so a public figure. As I understand it then as a public figure you don't get the same traction in crying foul.
The media will criticize you and should do so
.
If you can't run with the big dogs stay under the porch.

"What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? Answer = A good start."

What you are saying that Rush Limbaugh is allowed to say anything he likes about people in the public eye, but other people aren't allowed to reply.

Mannahnin wrote:None of the criticism in this thread has been based on that.

I suggest you read the thread more carefully. There has been plenty of criticism here, and elsewhere, on opposition to the contraception mandate.

But the thing he's being attacked and condemned for, and the action being used to help in fundraising, and the act which resulted in his losing sponsorships, was his abusing the girl in offensive terms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zakiriel wrote:Ms. Fluke for that matter is a 31 year old law student being trotted up to capital hill to testify about her subject. She is no kid.
She knew what she was up to and made herself in doing so a public figure. As I understand it then as a public figure you don't get the same traction in crying foul.

A) Being "trotted up" by whom? She's a private citizen testifying to Congress on legislation of personal relevance to her.
B) Testifying before Congress doesn't automatically make you a public figure. A public figure is someone who's life normally involves being in the media or public spotlight. Like a celebrity or politician. I don't become a public figure automatically by appearing in a TV news story.
.

Zakiriel wrote:If you can't run with the big dogs stay under the porch.

That sounds like you're saying that if you don't have a major media outlet and audience of millions yourself, you shouldn't disagree with anyone who does, and it's your own fault if they choose to single you out for abuse.

biccat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:None of the criticism in this thread has been based on that.

I suggest you read the thread more carefully. There has been plenty of criticism here, and elsewhere, on opposition to the contraception mandate.

There's a distinction between criticizing a position, and criticizing how that position was supported. You yourself made this distinction while rather clumsily attempting to conflate criticism of Rush's choice of words with his position.

Well, at least presuming Rush doesn't actually think that Fluke is a slut. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not so kind as Dogma in regards to Rush' beliefs

Killkrazy wrote:
What you are saying that Rush Limbaugh is allowed to say anything he likes about people in the public eye, but other people aren't allowed to reply.

Oh no not at all. Rush is also a media / public figure so reply respond and have at all you want!

<gets popcorn to watch the media circus>

Zakiriel wrote:Rush is also a media / public figure

She wasn't/isn't a public figure. One bit of testimony in front of congress doesn't make one a public figure.

Ahtman wrote:

Zakiriel wrote:Rush is also a media / public figure

She wasn't/isn't a public figure. One bit of testimony in front of congress doesn't make one a public figure.

Also important to remember(to me anyway), she's one hell of alot more qualified to testify to the subject being discussed,
as opposed to Elrushole's quilifications to speak about the same subject, or her.

Testifying before Congress does make you a public figure as you have entered the most popular of blood sports, politics. Getting yourself on the news, getting your testimony entered into the congressional record,ect, ect. Besides Bill Maher says far worse of women and men but seldom ever gets held to account since he is one of the Left's own. I rather dislike double standards.

Zakiriel wrote:Testifying before Congress does make you a public figure

No it doesn't.

Hell you've probably never heard of most of the people who testify before congress even if you actually pay attention to c-span.

Zakiriel wrote:Testifying before Congress does make you a public figure as you have entered the most popular of blood sports, politics. Getting yourself on the news, getting your testimony entered into the congressional record,ect, ect.

No, that's not what a public figure is. A public figure is someone who is commonly and routinely in the public eye as part of their life and work. Not a private citizen who makes an isolated public statement.

Zakiriel wrote: Besides Bill Maher says far worse of women and men but seldom ever gets held to account since he is one of the Left's own. I rather dislike double standards.

Bill Maher has not been exempted in this thread. A distinction was drawn between him and Rush based on the sizes of their respective audiences. Bill talks to a much smaller audience of paying cable subscribers; Rush talks to a much larger national audience of radio listeners. I also note that you say Maher "says far worse of women and men"; which is an interesting point. Bill Maher is a profane comedian who uses foul language toward people he is contemptuous toward regardless of their gender.

Zakiriel wrote:Besides Bill Maher says far worse of women and men but seldom ever gets held to account since he is one of the Left's own.

Well, to start us off, there's this.

Then there's this.

And this.

The idea that Maher isn't called out is laughable, and betrays ignorance; willful or otherwise.

Oh, and Ann Coulter likes him.

Mannahnin wrote:No, that's not what a public figure is. A public figure is someone who is commonly and routinely in the public eye as part of their life and work. Not a private citizen who makes an isolated public statement.

No, that's a general public figure. A specific public figure is someone who has entered the public debate in a limited area.

David Kappos is not a general public figure. He certainly is a public figure in the patent law community.

Mannahnin wrote:Bill Maher has not been exempted in this thread.

Of course he has.

Do you think that Bill Maher should apologize to Mrs. Palin, and possibly be boycotted or lose advertisers?

biccat wrote:Do you think that Bill Maher should apologize to Mrs. Palin, and possibly be boycotted or lose advertisers?

Well, not to Sarah.

I'll concede that biccat may have a point about Bristol Palin and the rest of the family members that aren't former governors.

biccat wrote:
Of course he has.

So has Phyllis Schlafly.

One wonders why its shocking that a thread about Rush Limbaugh saying sexist things is focused on Rush Limbaugh saying sexist things.

biccat wrote:
Do you think that Bill Maher should apologize to Mrs. Palin, and possibly be boycotted or lose advertisers?

There you go again with that word, "should".

We live in a (mostly) free society, people can protest what they want, boycott what they want, and advertise where they want.

Do you think people should complain about other people boycotting, or pulling their advertising support, from other people?