On another somewhat-related
Palin note, I was going through some old magazines and came across the recent
Time 100 Most Influential People issue and saw the entry for
Sarah Palin, written by
Ann Coulter.
I
hate Ann
Coulter. I don't even know her, but I know I hate her. She might be a delightful human being in person and it's just her on-TV persona which is a vile, nasty, hateful, little troll. Just the
titles of her books are enough to make me want to slap her in the dick. There are only a handful of people in this world that I can seriously say would make the world a better place if they would go ahead and die, and she makes it on the short list.
Now that I've set that up properly I can go on. Her entry about Sarah
Palin was innocent enough until she decides to take you for a trip down crazy person lane with this one: "
Palin is a threat to liberals because she believes in God and country and family- all values liberal pretend to believe in but secretly detest".
What the fuck???Bear in mind that Ann
Coulter is credited with doing things like "exposing liberal hypocrisy" or being "
refreshingly politically incorrect". One reviewer of her books says she is "intelligent, thoughtful, and articulate".
I just have a hard time deciding if she is serious or doing all of this as a ploy to get paid. I can't see how anyone who takes politics seriously and considers themselves a somewhat intelligent person can read that statement about Sarah
Palin and liberals and think to themselves, "what an intelligent, thoughtful and articulate statement!".
Here's what's wrong with it:
- Argument from fallacy
- Bare assertion fallacy
- Blanket statement
- Argument from repetition
- Generalization
Essentially, I am trying to use terms used in the proper art of debate to refute an asinine comment, which only begs the question:
Who's the bigger idiot, Ann or myself?
Have a good weekend. I'm hoping to get drunk. Slap hands!