prev <-> next
[2005-05-11 16:38:30] - you can hate black people without being religious. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:37:59] - Vinnie brings up a good point, I could also just hate gays without being religious. Does it really matter what my reasons are? I think it's logical to assume I can come up with plenty without resorting to "it's a sin!" -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:37:36] - paul: and your reason sounds made up. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:36:56] - paul: no. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:36:50] - Vinnie:
-Paul[2005-05-11 16:36:42] - a: Isn't gay sex generally considered more dangerous than heterosexual sex? I think men living together are more likely to engage in gay sex than a man and woman living together so... -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:36:19] - paul: you are a terrible person if you think that two men living together is icky and should be banned. I never knew you were homophobic - vinnie
[2005-05-11 16:34:36] - it also causes birth defects. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:34:09] - paul: rape or otherwise. because incest causes actual psychological harm and is almost always rape. (has nothing to do with religion) ~a
[2005-05-11 16:33:58] - Pierce: It seems to me that you're reading religious reasons into things that don't necessarily have to do with religion at all. -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:32:48] - Pierce: This doesn't have to have anything to do with religion. I never mentioned it. What if I just happen to think that two men living together is icky and should be banned? -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:31:58] - a: Why would you think it's wrong to have sex with your sister? People can think something is wrong without it being based on religion. -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:29:46] - heh. not think = think ~a
[2005-05-11 16:29:37] - Paul: what if they don't think it's "right" that people should not be mandated to go to church on Sunday? it's the same thing, pushing a religious belief that has no other supportable basis. - pierce
[2005-05-11 16:29:31] - paul: why would they not think it's wrong that two men should be legally married (ignoring religion)? ~a
[2005-05-11 16:28:01] - Pierce: I assume you were talking about gay marriage (I was gone for a bit)? -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:27:31] - Pierce: How about if they don't think it's right that two men (or two women) should be married? -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:26:53] - Aaron: I would agree with you (that they should be more specifically targetted), but I'm not sure I really support specifically targetting stuff like that. -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:26:30] - dave: I know you're gone, but my objection is not that religious people are promoting this law. It's that no one has given me a satisfactory answer to "why is this law necessary" that didn't refer to a religious belief. - pierce
[2005-05-11 16:21:50] - dave: Right, so what are the benefits for marriage really trying to help? It seems like they should be more specifically targetted. Maybe it's too hard to raise 2 people on 1 income, but then they already have "dependents" written in the tax laws, which should cover that - aaron
[2005-05-11 16:20:47] - pierce: right, you're getting bogged down in the practicalities of US law. All i'm saying is if a law is suggested, go by its own merit and not by who produced it in the first place -dave
[2005-05-11 16:20:40] - dave: on the other side, you should have be able to concretely answer the question of "why ARE we passing this law" without looking to the tenets of those religions. - pierce
[2005-05-11 16:19:52] - bye that is ~a
[2005-05-11 16:19:46] - BY DAVE! ~a
[2005-05-11 16:19:40] - anyways, I'm off. have fun -dave
[2005-05-11 16:19:37] - dave: but there's more inertia towards changing the constitution, in order to protect more "fundamental" rights from temporary whims of the majority. - pierce
[2005-05-11 16:19:02] - pierce: I'm not advocating any specific law, I'm just saying that I think it's stupid to say, we can't pass this law because it is primarily supported by muslims, or christians, etc -dave
[2005-05-11 16:17:42] - pierce: that's not really an issue, since then you just change the constitution if this hypothetical law is really what people want -dave
[2005-05-11 16:16:57] - aaron: I mean I agree with you that they should try to give the reward for the exact thing they are trying to promote. Although, I'm not sure how this applies to marriage since they have benefits for marriage and benefits for having kids separate, so it seems those are already targeted pretty well, no? -dave
[2005-05-11 16:15:41] - dave: the problem is when the people want a law that conflicts with another law, or a greater law. If everybody wanted a law against publishing newspapers, they still wouldn't (ideally) be able to pass that law because it conflicts with a higher one... free speech in the constitution. - pierce
[2005-05-11 16:14:42] - aaron: yeah, I agree with you there. -dave
[2005-05-11 16:14:11] - "they're using a religious argument" is a claim that they're not playing on the same field as we are. "the policy is discriminatory" is how we beat them when they are playing on the same field. - pierce
[2005-05-11 16:14:10] - paul: Not living with someone of the same sex? Better hope the child is a... i don't know.... an oyster then - aaron
[2005-05-11 16:13:31] - pierce: perhaps, although personally, I think people should be able to try to pass whatever laws they want, regardless of the impetus behind them. If they are "bad" laws, then people should vote against them and not let them pass. If they are good laws, then why not have them regardless of their impetus? -dave
[2005-05-11 16:13:16] - dave: I guess what i'm saying is the current definition of marriage is very arbitrary, like if the government rewarded everyone who wore a blue tie, but women can't wear ties. I want to understand why the law exists, and then I want them to change the law so it fits its purpose - aaron
[2005-05-11 16:12:54] - dave: however, if they were to take the correct approach, that is, to use secular reasoning such as encouraging families to keep the population up or something, then "that it's a discriminatory policy" is an argument against the secular reasoning. - pierce
[2005-05-11 16:11:45] - Aaron: I think they're trying to push traditional values of not living together with somebody of the same sex.
-Paul[2005-05-11 16:11:40] - paul: is gay marriage legal in washington state? if it is, then the law's fine. if it isn't, then the law's stupid, the law being the one MS ended up issuing a supporting statement for -dave
[2005-05-11 16:11:38] - dave: right now, the approach that the Right is taking towards banning gay marriage is inappropriate because it's using faith-based logic from faiths that not everybody shares... - pierce
[2005-05-11 16:10:41] - dave: You're right, it must not be that simple then - aaron
[2005-05-11 16:10:31] - dave: that is unfathomable! - pierce
[2005-05-11 16:10:08] - pierce: I don't get what "being discriminatory .... to push secular agendas" means -dave
[2005-05-11 16:09:43] - a: I will admit that as a flaw in exceptions... they get very tricky when thrown from constructors, destructors, or (even worse) from within catch/finally blocks. - pierce
[2005-05-11 16:09:20] - pierce: y'know, your sentences are really hard to decipher. You use too many big words or something ^_^ -dave
[2005-05-11 16:09:06] - right, but filenotfoundexception is a required exception, right? ~a
[2005-05-11 16:08:33] - a: Java doesn't require throws for runtime exceptions, so it's definitely not an airtight system - aaron
[2005-05-11 16:08:18] - aaron: marriage isn't legally tied to religion though, is it? You can be married by a judge, correct? -dave
[2005-05-11 16:08:10] - paul: It would make a lot more sense to just reward whatever kind of "family values" they're trying to protect directly, like china's one child tax benefit kind of thing - aaron
[2005-05-11 16:08:10] - pierce: yeah, i remember that in java. i'm just complaining that (A) ImageIcon::ImageIcon(String) doesn't say anything in the javadocs and (B) that c++ doesn't require throws. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:07:48] - Paul: the tie to religion is why our current reasoning for banning it is inappropriate. being discriminatory is why it would still be inappropriate if we were trying to use it to push secular agendas. - pierce
[2005-05-11 16:07:18] - paul: Yes, governmental tax benefits should not be tied to religious institutions in my opinion. (you've been baptized, have a quarter!) - aaron
[2005-05-11 16:06:59] - maybe they just don't list thins kind of thing in the api docs, but it doesn't look like ImageIcon::ImageIcon(String) throws anything. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:05:38] - aaron: thank you, I didn't even notice paul's question until you jumped in. - pierce
[2005-05-11 16:04:23] - aaron: yeah, exactly, if gay marriage is legal, then it should be just like any other marriage, and so there shouldn't be a need to add all these clauses -dave
[2005-05-11 16:04:22] - Dave: Well, to some people, the issue IS what you call it. -Paul
[2005-05-11 16:03:57] - Aaron: So, wait, you are saying that you are against gay marriage being illegal because it's tied to religion? Not because it's discriminatory? -paul
[2005-05-11 16:03:50] - so if method A in java calls method B which has a throws declaration of ThingsAreBonedException, then A has to either try/catch a ThingsAreBonedException, or put it in its own throws declaration. It's a compile-time error if you don't. - pierce
[2005-05-11 16:03:27] - Paul: so in other words, fight the battle over the real issue, gay marriage. dont' dance around and allow them all the benefits of marriage but not call it marriage, or somesuch (aka civil unions etc) -dave
[2005-05-11 16:03:12] - does Icon::Icon throw something that needs to be caught? if so, then maybe i was mislead by the msdn.com people. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:03:04] - paul: providing a benefit for marriage. (i meant, maybe that agenda is raising kids properly. i mistyped!) - aaron
[2005-05-11 16:02:28] - Dave: That's a good way of looking at it.
-Paul[2005-05-11 16:02:28] - Paul: so for the law that the MS article was talking about, if gay marriage is legal in that state, then you'd think the law allowing med. benefits to gay partners should be there. And if not, then not -dave
[2005-05-11 16:02:15] - paul: Let me jump in for pierce. The government obviously has an agenda behind providing benefits for families. Maybe that benefit is raising kids properly, or maybe that benefit is discouraging single-person homes, or whatever. But whatever it is, it shouldn't be tied to religion. So they should just provide a benefit for that, instead of - aaron
[2005-05-11 16:02:11] - yeah, i changed my mind. i just don't like that throws isn't as required in c++ ~a
[2005-05-11 16:02:05] - a: in java, they're required if you don't handle exceptions in the throws declaration of something you've called. - pierce
[2005-05-11 16:01:23] - java has throws though, doesn't it. maybe i'd like exceptions more if people used throws more. ~a
[2005-05-11 16:01:19] - a: divide-by-zero and NPE are cases where both types of error handling fail... if you didn't know it was going to happen, then you won't know to return an error code for it. That's why subclasses of RuntimeException in java don't have to be listed in throws declarations. - pierce
[2005-05-11 16:00:19] - paul: well, whether it's special treatment or removing discrimination just probably goes to whether you think it should be legal or not. -dave
[2005-05-11 15:59:43] - pierce: nobody uses throws. g++ and vc++ both ignore them by default (although at one point g++ was requiring them). ~a
[2005-05-11 15:59:41] - Pierce: I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, if you care. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:59:28] - Pierce: So would you feel the same way about tax credits for, say, pets? For those people who choose to have pets instead of children? -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:59:00] - where as being thrown out of ten functions because i didn't do a try in every function isn't the right answer either. ~a
[2005-05-11 15:58:28] - i.e. null pointer exception or divide by zero (and the like) should be special because you don't want to check it for every thing. ~a
[2005-05-11 15:57:29] - a: that's why there are "throws" declarations. It allows the caller to recognize and handle explicit types of errors, without skipping backwards through the stack unless you explicitly want other errors to be handled by something earlier in the stack. - pierce
[2005-05-11 15:57:26] - aaron: you have a good point there. maybe i'm not saying ALL things should be error codes. just most things. ~a
[2005-05-11 15:57:12] - I mean, would you essentially have to wrap every single line in your program with an "invoke x, check x" kind of pattern? - aaron
[2005-05-11 15:56:27] - a: That is, I press a button which prompts a user for a filename, then converts their data into an XML DOM object, then exports that DOM object to a file. Maybe that's 200 lines of code (some gui code, some not). Now maybe there's a null pointer exception because one data element in memory is null. - aaron
[2005-05-11 15:56:23] - "Because it seems like breaking out of a function with an error code, and breaking out of a function with an exception, are the same thing." nope. breaking out of a function with an error code is explicit, breaking out of a function with an exception is implicit (which is what happens when a CALLEE does it for you) ~a
[2005-05-11 15:55:08] - i'd think that coders would want to be more explicit (returning status from calls) than implicit (jumping past dozens of call stack lines). examples of code ~a
[2005-05-11 15:54:53] - a: So in one style you're hard-coding the regular case, and in the other style you're hard-coding the unusual case. The only issue i have with what you're describing is it escalates infinitely with complex programs - aaron
[2005-05-11 15:53:55] - a: do you only put "return" statements at the very end of the function? Because it seems like breaking out of a function with an error code, and breaking out of a function with an exception, are the same thing. Both goto the end of the function without necessarily completing the function's task. - pierce
[2005-05-11 15:53:50] - pierce: I couldn't agree more - aaron
[2005-05-11 15:53:25] - aaron: every call returns its status. if you want to ignore the code, you do nothing. (as opposed to having a try catch every time you make a function call) ~a
[2005-05-11 15:52:39] - Paul: good phrasing of that question. IMO, laws permitting marriage rights for gay couples are just patches over another type of special treatment: that government recognition of contracts is normally gender-agnostic except in the special treatment of this one type of contract (marriage) for the special case of same-gender signees. - pierce
[2005-05-11 15:52:30] - exceptions are like gotos, only invisible. i totally agree. ~a
[2005-05-11 15:51:33] - a: Actually, what are the alternatives when it comes to error-handling? I guess a class could have an "error code" which you would check after making any call? - aaron
[2005-05-11 15:50:07] - a: The alternatives are usually uglier though, when it comes to simple sequential GUI apps - aaron
[2005-05-11 15:49:45] - Adriana: are you talking about exceptions for special treatment of certain groups, or exceptions as error-handling? - pierce
[2005-05-11 15:49:36] - Dave: I'm pretty sure I agree with you. I have a question, though. Would you say that legalizing gay marriage is a special treatment or removing discrimination? -paul
[2005-05-11 15:47:42] - i actually don't like exceptions either.
~a[2005-05-11 15:45:31] - paul: At any rate, my apparently un-illumined viewpoint makes me think that all these extra laws that give minorities, women, et al. special treatment are ridiculous and end up practically discriminated against those who can't make the list -dave
[2005-05-11 15:44:03] - paul: I mean, I suppose they're there, because everyone says they are, I just haven't seen any -dave
[2005-05-11 15:43:39] - aaron: well, if it is about gay marriage, then I could understand the conservatives being upset -dave
[2005-05-11 15:43:06] - paul: well, I think it's just hard for me because I haven't seen many concrete examples of people being discriminated against to a larger degree than is reasonable -dave
[2005-05-11 15:41:51] - dave: If i had to guess, I would guess it was something like "life partners" receiving medical benefits - aaron
[2005-05-11 15:41:45] - aaron: nm, it says "banning workplace discrimination against homosexuals" -dave
[2005-05-11 15:40:54] - pierce: Realer solution #4: Create a new local type which encapsulates a string and never use traditional strings anywhere in your application - aaron
[2005-05-11 15:40:43] - Dave: Heh, I think I tried arguing that here before. It didn't end well.
-Paul[2005-05-11 15:40:20] - Pierce: Hmmmm, I guess I'm not seeing a big jump there but there's no doubt that I'm overestimating how much sense I am making to other people.
-Paul[2005-05-11 15:40:16] - aaron: I don't know for sure tho, I didn't look up the law -dave
[2005-05-11 15:39:34] - aaron: well, actually I think it was about additional laws to benefit gays more than the common person. If you think about it, there's no reason a gay person would get any less benefits than a "normal" person. Probably something along the lines of discrimination laws, somewhat like women in the workplace -dave
[2005-05-11 15:37:46] - why is everybody misspelling my name? it's spelled "adrian" ~a
[2005-05-11 15:36:53] - Paul: hence the capitalized warning... I knew you were going to throw that back in my face.
- pierce[2005-05-11 15:36:28] - Paul: okay. The hypothesis that book sales are a less subjective measure, in the context of the preceding conversation (that of the controversiality of Maher, Franken, and Coulter), was what I was arguing against. Then you jumped track to your hypothesis that we underestimate conservative viewpoints, and I didn't jump with you. - pierce
[2005-05-11 15:35:55] - Pierce: What the hell does that have to do with anything? If nothing, then it's only purpose is to be misleading. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:33:35] - TOTALLY OFF-TOPIC: An interesting defense of hungarian notation, and an (IMO weaker) attack on exceptions as an error-handling mechanism. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html - pierce
[2005-05-11 15:33:18] - Pierce: It originated in response to something Adrian said which I may have misunderstood. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:32:58] - Pierce: It really had nothing to do with you. I brought it up because I thought it might've provided something slightly less subjective into the discussion. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:31:36] - Paul: okay, forgive me but I'm trying to do a full stack trace of this conversation. Why did you bring up book sale results? Was that a posulate of or a conclusion to another discussion we were having? - pierce
[2005-05-11 15:30:21] - aaron: don't forget abortion, that was a major criticism of Kerry: that not actively working against legalized abortion meant that he was guilty of it himself. That was the catholic church's stand at least, and considering Kerry is catholic that's pretty significant. - pierce
[2005-05-11 15:30:06] - Pierce: Going way back, I was just explaining why I wanted to see book sale results. It would've (I think) gone a little way towards backing up my belief that the public underestimates conservative causes. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:28:49] - I'm guilty of it as well. Supposedly Worldnet has more readers than Salon or Slate and I would've never guessed that. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:28:25] - Paul: okay, so your conclusion is that the public underestimates conservative viewpoints. Is that conclusion being used as a postulate in another discussion we've been having, or did it come entirely out of left (right?) field? - pierce
[2005-05-11 15:28:22] - Like "if your search engine doesn't specifically filter out this thing, then you're supporting it" or "if you treat these people the same way you treat married couples, then you're endorsing homosexuality". . . - aaron
[2005-05-11 15:27:57] - conservative people/issues/causes. I'm not pointing the finger here, I'm just saying that I think the public (I guess I'm actually just referring to people around here) isn't often aware of how popular conservative stuff is. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:26:58] - That's one of those things that really bothered me, is how a lot of conservatives seem to equate "reluctance to legislate against" or "being treated equally" with "endorsement" as far as gay issues or pornography (as far as things i've read about lately) - aaron
[2005-05-11 15:26:40] - Pierce: I'm sorry, clearly I'm unable to articulate myself today (am I ever?). At this moment, I am not complaining about liberal media bias. I'm just saying that the population would probably believe that Hillary's book did better than Coulter's and I think that would help go a little bit towards showing that the public underestimates... -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:25:27] - dave: That seems very annoying and stubborn, to get upset because a company decides to provide (presumably) equal benefits to gays. I really feel sorry for proctor and gamble too - aaron
[2005-05-11 15:24:54] - *** pierce beats Paul's head against wall.
[2005-05-11 15:24:30] - *** Paul beats head against wall
[2005-05-11 15:22:26] - Paul: I didn't think you weren't not.
What I'm saying is that the underestimation is not a result of liberal media bias, it's because it's easier for the media to communicate information about people that the public already recognizes from another forum. - pierce[2005-05-11 15:22:18] - pierce is right. the top row is the oldest posts. travis still has 350 of the last 10k. ~a
[2005-05-11 15:21:54] - Pierce: And Amy. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:20:54] - aaron: I think the top row is the oldest posts. Note the presence of Lori and Mel towards the bottom. - pierce
[2005-05-11 15:19:58] - a: The top row is the last 2000 posts right? ( the most recently made posts are at the top? ) I haven't seen travis post in a while - aaron
[2005-05-11 15:19:53] - Pierce: In this instance, I am not complaining about Coulter not getting coverage. -paul
[2005-05-11 15:19:07] - Pierce: Whatever the reason, it doesn't matter. My point is merely that I often think that conservative things are underestimated. Ann Coulter is very popular among conservatives and people like Franken and Maher are hated and I think people don't take that into consideration when labeling Coulter as more controversial than those two. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:18:35] - Paul: what? Triple negative, man, triple negative. - pierce
[2005-05-11 15:18:20] - what I find amusing is that people were upset originally because Microsoft wouldn't support either side -dave
[2005-05-11 15:17:49] - Pierce: I'm just saying that based on the media, people would probably think that Hilary's book was a bigger deal and that could cause them to think that Coulter isn't as popular. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:17:47] - http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB111577049357629873-bZstBf0RKnercE5Pdmpj6zXrWB8_20060510,00.html?mod=mktwt Hehe, Microsoft ends up angering both gay activicists and religious right -dave
[2005-05-11 15:17:35] - That's why they think books by Clinton and Maher and Franken and Moore are bigger deals, because they are famous independently of their books. - pierce
[2005-05-11 15:17:35] - Pierce: I'm not saying the media was unjustified in not covering Coulter at all. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:16:45] - Clinton, both as the first lady and as a senator, is on TV frequently. Maher has had two high-profile TV shows (as political TV shows go). Franken was on SNL and in the hit movie Stuart Saves His Family. Ann Coulter has been in print, and according to Miguel isn't even compelling when she is on TV. - pierce
[2005-05-11 15:16:06] - Pierce: I'm just saying that based on the media, people would probably think that Hilary's book was a bigger deal and that could cause them to think that Coulter isn't as popular. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:15:33] - Pierce: I'm not saying the media was unjustified in not covering Coulter at all. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:15:10] - Pierce: Again, I don't have proof, I'm guessing. I think I would be accurate, though I don't know for sure. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:14:44] - Paul: again, media exposure is not just based on the success or quality of the book. The Da Vinci Code undoubtedly outsold It Takes a Village, but would you be able to pick Dan Brown's face out of a lineup? - pierce
[2005-05-11 15:14:34] - a: Gotcha, thanks. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:14:06] - So I would imagine that some huge majority of people would probably think that Hilary's book sold better when in fact it didn't. Which I think would go a tiny ways towards showing that conservative things are sometimes underestimated by people. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:14:01] - paul: each row signifies 2000 posts. the top row is the first 2000 posts. and so on. ~a
[2005-05-11 15:13:31] - Paul: if coulter's book sold better, how are you extrapolating that people underestimate conservative issues? Where is your measure of people's estimation, other than in your head? - pierce
[2005-05-11 15:13:17] - Pierce: Right, when Hilary's book came out it got a lot of media attention. When Coulter's book came out it didn't (I don't have facts, but I never saw one news story about it). IF (and I have no idea if this is true) Coulter's book outsold Hilary's, I would wager the vast majority of people wouldn't have realized it. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:11:24] - Paul: wouldn't that indicate the opposite? That the media gave Coulter a lot more attention? And I don't know what you can prove with that because there's a huge confounding variable: Clinton was the first lady and is now a u.s. senator. Coulter has nothing famous to her name other than being a pundit. - pierce
[2005-05-11 15:10:13] - I think that could go to show that oftentimes people underestimate conservative issues/people/causes/whatever. Again, it wouldn't prove anything, but I think it might help show that often conservative things are underestimated. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:09:17] - aaron: c is cryptic (wolf (katie)'s boyfriend). cryptic made this picture on the oekaki (among others) http://aporter.org/pics/oekaki/img_000015.jpg ~a
[2005-05-11 15:08:48] - For instance, what if I found that her book outsold Hilary Clinton's book? (I have no idea if this is true or not). If so, then I think it might indicate that the media gave Hilary a lot more attention for her book than it did for Coulter (off-topic I know, but bear with me). -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:08:34] - Paul: okay, yes it's interesting, but unless you're using it to prove a point it's just uncontextual (and its presence is therefore misleading) in this discussion. - pierce
[2005-05-11 15:07:36] - Pierce: Right, this was all discussed before.
I know book sales do not translate into popularity or anything meaningful. I just think that it would be interesting to see how well her books sell compared to other famous liberal authors. -Paul[2005-05-11 15:06:59] - I don't think that rabid liberals are going to pick up copies of Treason, but there are a lot of people in the middle who might even though they disagree with her statements, because they'd consider her an interesting outlook on the far-right ideology. - pierce
[2005-05-11 15:06:45] - And that bill maher is such an assclown - aaron
[2005-05-11 15:06:13] - The problem seems to be that there is more stuff out there on Coulter than either Maher or Franken so a search on her name returns more results no matter what you pair with it. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:06:01] - http://www.googlism.com/index.htm?ism=ann+coulter&type=1 My highly scientific study shows that Ann Coulter is crazy sexy cool - aaron
[2005-05-11 15:05:50] - Paul: I don't think that means she's popular, I think it means that the book is popular. Books are popular when they're interesting. Outrageous statements are a cheap way to be interesting. Thus, Ann Coulter's books, which are filled with outrageous statements, are interesting and therefore successful. - pierce
[2005-05-11 15:05:13] - I've been doing some google searches. My highly scientific study (sarcasm) shows that Coulter is more controversial than Franken or Maher but is also funnier. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:02:53] - pierce: you should read the backposts, Paul talked about the sales figures a bit ago -dave
[2005-05-11 15:02:08] - Pierce: It wouldn't prove anything at all, like I said. I just think it would help show that she is more popular than some people might think. -Paul
[2005-05-11 15:00:31] - pierce: not really biased, but perhaps not understanding the way that conservatives in their turn perceive those like maher and franken -dave
[2005-05-11 14:59:36] - This might be a stupid question, but what does each row signify? -Paul
[2005-05-11 14:59:19] - pierce: we're not? 0_o I guess I'm mixed up. From what I could tell, the point was brought up that this board (at the time Adrian) was biased in his assessment that it was correct to call coulter controversial and the others not -dave
[2005-05-11 14:59:02] - Paul: what do her sales figures mean? She's outsold "big name liberals", such as that I'm sure Treason sold better than When You Ride Alone, You Ride With Bin Laden... but you haven't drawn a connection between that and her being uncontroversial. - pierce
[2005-05-11 14:58:46] - pierce: I think some rows are grey because adrian rounds down (or up, but either way there's a lot of unsigned posts or paulas out there) - aaron
[2005-05-11 14:57:42] - a: Who is "c"? - aaron
[2005-05-11 14:57:41] - Which I know wouldn't prove anything, but I think it would at least show that she isn't hated by a vast majority of people (because despite what Adrian says, I don't think that people who hate Ann are going to buy her book). -Paul
[2005-05-11 14:57:34] - dave: no we're not, we're talking about which viewpoints are controversial and which aren't, which applies to both (all) sides. - pierce
[2005-05-11 14:57:00] - Pierce: You're right that this could also be explained away as bias (or whatever you want to call it) on Dave and me. That's why I was trying to find book sale figures on Coulter vs some prominent liberal author. I have a sneaking suspicion that she has outsold a lot of big name liberals. -Paul
[2005-05-11 14:56:39] - pierce: done. ~a
[2005-05-11 14:56:16] - pierce: true it could be. But my viewpoint should have more clout since we're talking about understanding the conservative viewpoint -dave
[2005-05-11 14:56:00] - and the "a"s all run together. we have four active "a"s
~a[2005-05-11 14:55:37] - a: perhaps you should make the background "message board grey". - pierce
[2005-05-11 14:54:51] - aaron: except now "wolf" is at the end AND invisible. ~a
[2005-05-11 14:54:17] - I liked it better sorted by count... and maybe I'm dumb, but if each row is 2k, why are some rows shorter? - pierce
[2005-05-11 14:52:58] - dave: of course, but that's a nonstatement because I could just as easily say that that observation is triggered by your conservative bias, or that paul's claims of our bias come from his liberto-anarchist bias. - pierce
[2005-05-11 14:52:58] - aaron: actually it's easier (and i just did it) ~a
[2005-05-11 14:52:02] - I could be wrong, but I just don't think everybody here fully understand that to conservatives, Coulter isn't any more controversial than somebody like Moore or Franken or even Ted Kennedy. -Paul
[2005-05-11 14:51:55] - a: Pretty cool. If it were sorted by letter it would be easier to follow. Is that difficult? - aaron
[2005-05-11 14:51:45] - /scratch - pierce
[2005-05-11 14:51:28] - pierce: maybe, but the heart of the matter is that Paul was saying that the liberal bias has inhibited a good understanding of the conservative viewpoint, or how much support there is for those viewpoints. And in that, I would agree with him -dave
[2005-05-11 14:51:17] - Paul: I'm not sure what you're saying there. Which may itself prove your point, but would you mind clarifying? - pierce
[2005-05-11 14:51:03] - It's one thing to say you understand that Bush got more votes, I think it's another thing to fully understand that by implication, your presidential pick (and in a way, your political preferences) were the more abnormal ones. -Paul
[2005-05-11 14:49:55] - Pierce: I don't doubt that you can be see the reason behind other people's arguments and such. I just don't know if everybody can fully appreciate the implications behind things. -Paul
[2005-05-11 14:49:25] - paul: That is true. - aaron
[2005-05-11 14:47:42] - pictogram (2k per row) ~a
[2005-05-11 14:47:28] - Dave: disproportionately reasonable and objective, I said. We have our biases, but we look at things more analytically than most (IMO). - pierce
[2005-05-11 14:43:56] - Pierce: I actually wouldn't necessarily agree that we're all reasonable and objective. Especially not when it comes to liberal vs. conservative things -dave
[2005-05-11 14:43:41] - Aaron: Sorry, I was away from computer for a bit. It's hard to say for sure (and this is by no means scientific), but most of the state proposals to approve gay marriage were soundly defeated when put to a vote. -Paul
[2005-05-11 14:42:09] - furthermore, this is all in the hypothetical world where there's only one issue with two sides. Everybody has elements of normality and abnormality, but it's useful to oversimplify for political discussion. - pierce
[2005-05-11 14:41:20] - aaron: I wasn't saying that the minority is abnormal, just that the majority is normal. - pierce
[2005-05-11 14:37:58] - pierce: I guess what i'm saying is it's not fair to call a person abnormal because they have one unusual belief, since almost everybody's going to have some unusual beliefs if you look hard enough - aaron
[2005-05-11 14:36:20] - pierce: Well fine, but if you're going to try and call specific groups of people normal because they fit in little cubby categories, then that expresses bias - aaron
[2005-05-11 14:35:51] - wait, I should clarify my second-to-last statement. "Overwhelmingly liberal" -> "Overwhelmingly not conservative". - pierce
[2005-05-11 14:34:56] - aaron: okay, but what makes it normal is that it's in the class of apparently random (and valueless in poker) hands. It's part of the majority of poker hands that are "high-card". - pierce
[2005-05-11 14:33:42] - To be clear: I recognize that our friends as a group are overwhelmingly liberal in opinion. However, I think all of us are disproportionately reasonable and objective, and we're able to see the reasons behind beliefs we disagree with better than most. Maybe that's arrogant, but I don't think it's inaccurate. - pierce
[2005-05-11 14:32:56] - pierce: a 2, 3, 7, 10, K hand in poker is "normal" even if it's not a majority of all hands. I don't think it's a stretch to think of people the same way. - aaron
[2005-05-11 14:31:10] - however, something can be "normal" and "controversial" at the same time. If 51% of people believe one thing, and 49% believe the polar opposite, then even though "normal" more aptly describes the 51% belief, it's still a controversial belief. - pierce
[2005-05-11 14:30:01] - I'd disagree. Isn't "normal" just defined as "what the majority of people are"? - pierce
[2005-05-11 14:27:38] - aaron: actually I'm pretty sure Paul is correct. During the election there were fair number of statistics that were published saying that the majority (and I think even an overwhelming majority) were against gay marriage -dave
[2005-05-11 14:25:33] - paul: I'd like to know that for sure though - somehow I see that as one of those issues that would have a large amount of people who weren't sure or didn't care - aaron
[2005-05-11 14:23:55] - paul: wait - i misparsed your statement - let me think. okay never mind - aaron
[2005-05-11 14:22:55] - paul: Can something actually be "a little radical"? I would probably agree that gay marriage is "a little radical" if you were to define the term clearly - aaron
[2005-05-11 14:18:25] - and i think the majority is abnormal. would you disagree? ~a
[2005-05-11 14:17:22] - a: Wouldn't you think that somebody who is against gay marriage is a little radical and abnormal? Well, statistically speaking, I think they are in the majority. -Paul
[2005-05-11 14:17:14] - a: I mean, I bet I could list a good number of people who would agree with Paul, all of them being conservative acquaintances of mine -dave
[2005-05-11 14:16:34] - a: And I'm just saying I don't think you REALLY understand that a lot of people DO like her and DO think she is funny. -Paul
[2005-05-11 14:16:28] - a: well, he's saying that you would see things differently, like having Maher and Franken not be called controversial being a bias. -dave
[2005-05-11 14:16:14] - a: You might realize that half of the nation is conservative, but then you go and say things which make it sound like nobody likes Ann Coulter and nobody thinks she is funny. -Paul
[2005-05-11 14:14:53] - a: again, because we've grown up in a highly-liberal environment. I for one would agree with him, just because I'm surprised if I find anyone who agrees with my views outside of people I meet in church -dave
[2005-05-11 14:14:37] - but i don't. ~a
[2005-05-11 14:13:48] - a: I dont' think he's saying that you don't know that half is, just that you underestimate the fact and impact that half is -dave
[2005-05-11 14:11:14] - paul: you keep telling us that we don't know that half of the nation is conservative, and we keep telling you that we do. ~a
[2005-05-11 14:10:23] - Paul: I think I should just leave so you can stop putting "most" and "many" into your statements -dave
[2005-05-11 14:09:48] - Paul: them Roman Catholics, can't even conver their kids ^_^ -dave
[2005-05-11 14:09:09] - Seriously, though, I really honestly feel like most of the people here overly underestimate and totally do not understand the conservative half of the country. -Paul
[2005-05-11 14:08:51] - pierce: really? what on earth happened to YOU? (jk) ^_^ -dave
[2005-05-11 14:08:15] - and by "forgetting" I mean "not knowing about". - pierce
[2005-05-11 14:08:08] - Pierce: Well, then I can't explain what your problem is
(j/k) -Paul[2005-05-11 14:07:49] - Dave: No, I think it's best for your safety that you don't make more of a rukus.
-Paul[2005-05-11 14:07:36] - Paul: I grew up in a virtually identical environment, or are you forgetting my devoutly roman catholic parents and private elementary school? - pierce
[2005-05-11 14:07:16] - at any rate, I will agree with Paul in that most of the circles we run in are quite drastically disproportionate with their liberal slant as opposed to the nationwide percentages -dave
[2005-05-11 14:06:18] - Paul: or mebbe everyone just writes me off as an oddball =[ -dave
[2005-05-11 14:06:03] - Paul: aww, am I supposed to make more of a rukus, being a hardcore conservative person? -dave
[2005-05-11 14:05:53] - Pierce: I know you probably never actually said anything like that, but isn't that a little bit how you felt? Doesn't it seem like nobody in their right mind could like Bush and yet he is by the only real measure possible, the most popular choice for president. -Paul
[2005-05-11 14:04:33] - I think I have a little bit more insight into the conservative mindset because of my family and upbringing (most of my family is conservative and most of the people I went to school with K-8 were conservative). -Paul
[2005-05-11 14:04:26] - (i'm mostly joking) ~a
[2005-05-11 14:04:06] - paul: i blame the spike in anti-abortion anti-gay-marriage voting aged people who wanted to vote on their state proposals. ~a
[2005-05-11 14:03:53] - Well no, since that's not even what I said at the time. I said that Bush couldn't have won if the dems had picked a presidential candidate that was even remotely likeable. - pierce
[2005-05-11 14:03:36] - I think we all live relatively sheltered lives with respect to being in a very liberal environment and not knowing many hardcore conservative folks. -Paul
[2005-05-11 14:02:58] - I think the same applies to Coulter. You might have a hard time seeing how popular she is with some people because you don't know many people who doesn't hate her. -Paul
[2005-05-11 14:02:17] - Look at the 2004 election. Wouldn't most of you say that you couldn't imagine how Bush could've won since it didn't seem like anybody liked him? -Paul
[2005-05-11 14:01:51] - I take it back, I'm going to give this one last shot... -Paul
[2005-05-11 14:01:08] - Speaking of this topic, apropos This Modern World (the bias of which is obvious, but... but... apropos!): http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW05-04-05.jpg - pierce
[2005-05-11 14:01:05] - All of them make mean-spirited jokes about certain groups of people that they disagree with. Coulter takes on more PC targets (muslims as opposed to southerners) so she might appear more mean-spirited to some people, but I don't think there is a huge difference. -Paul
[2005-05-11 14:00:46] - tee hee
[2005-05-11 13:59:37] - I don't think I'll be able to convince either of you, so I'm not even going to try (I hope that doesn't offend you, Pierce). All I will say is that I think that plenty of people think Coulter is very funny and that I don't see a fundamental difference between her and somebody like Franken/Maher. -Paul
[2005-05-11 13:58:42] - pierce: paul doesn't like name calling either. and he likes a hot bath after a hard day of work . . . and long casual walks on beaches right after sundown. ~a
[2005-05-11 13:57:02] - a: Thank you.
-Paul[2005-05-11 13:56:56] - Paul: based on what I see as the reasons for Coulter's success, "controversial" is much like "actor" in that being controversial is essentially her profession. - pierce
[2005-05-11 13:56:23] - Pierce: You might have better luck if you just search on the web to see. I honestly don't see much difference between what Coulter does and what somebody like Moore does, except that Coulter takes on more "sacred" topics. -Paul
[2005-05-11 13:56:02] - Paul: I think it's more hostile to broader groups of people, so yes. I will say that with Moore and Coulter, it's (IMO) different magnitudes of the same problem, but I don't think Moore compares to Coulter's bile output. - pierce
[2005-05-11 13:55:15] - pierce: paul is just going to claim that we don't see the humor in her jokes because we disagree with the messages beneath her humor. ~a
[2005-05-11 13:54:57] - Pierce: In fact, they hardly ever add adjectives (except for stuff like "actor" or "writer") to people's names at the beginning of the show that I can recall. -Paul
[2005-05-11 13:54:35] - Paul: in the contexts that adrian has given, they have not appeared to be jokes. You've only claimed they were, unless I missed some messages. I'm looking for a broader scope that would make those hostile statements a darkly humorous jab instead. - pierce
[2005-05-11 13:54:22] - Pierce: Oh, I didn't mean to imply that they were never described as controversial because I have heard them described as controversial during those events. I was just saying that the Tonight Show didn't label them as such. -Paul
[2005-05-11 13:53:31] - Pierce: Do you think Coulter's humor is different from somebody like Moore? -Paul
[2005-05-11 13:53:15] - Anyway, I'm actually also going to challenge you're assumption, because come to think of it I have heard Maher and Franken described as controversial in the media. Maher after the PI comment about the 9/11 hijackers, and Franken after the publication of Lying Liars. - pierce
[2005-05-11 13:53:02] - Pierce: I think Adrian has supplied plenty today.
-Paul[2005-05-11 13:52:00] - Pierce: Obviously there is no way to prove this and you're free to disagree, but for the record I really do see her as a conservative version of Al Franken. I think that just because she is not known as a comedian doesn't mean she isn't trying to be funny (while still being serious with her points). -Paul
[2005-05-11 13:51:47] - "may be" being the key part of that last parenthetical. - pierce
[2005-05-11 13:51:08] - Paul: can you give me a little more context of one of her "jokes"? Because I think it's veryveryvery different, and not just because of the targets. Coulter's comments that I've seen, even if taken as jokes, are much more hostile than the average thing I read from Maher (Franken may be a different story). - pierce
[2005-05-11 13:50:26] - "A condom is the glass slipper of our generation. You slip one on when you meet a stranger. You dance all night. Then, you throw it away . . . the condom, I mean, not the stranger." -ann_coulter
prev <-> next