Discussion: Michelle Malkin vs. Ann Coulter
Wednesday August 18, 2004
A forum member writes: What I don't get about Ann Coulter -- her insane "logic" utterly beside the point -- is how she can rationalize being an outspoken ultraconservative woman, when ultraconservatism teaches that women are to remain silent and serve as men's property. As for Michelle Malkin -- my newspaper runs her column about once a week, but just about everyone has a bad taste in the mouth about it. I have less respect for Malkin than I do for Coulter: She's the daughter or granddaughter of Philippines immigrants, and she hates herself for not being a Caucasian, a "real American," so much she wants to close all immigration into the U.S. "Now that I'm here, that's what matters," seems to be her philosophy.
Do you agree with these sentiments about Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter? Do you find anything insightful or interesting in their writings or does it all strike you as just thinly-veiled hate screeds? Read More...
Comments
Logical Fallacy
“being an outspoken ultraconservative woman, when ultraconservatism teaches that women”
What’s the fallacy?
Perhaps not a fallacy but certainly “assumptions” in mass proportions such as Your statement “. . . when ultraconservatism teaches that women are to remain silent and serve as men’s property..”
Hmmm? Now that I see it again and mull it over I conclude that was not an assumption on your part. Just a load of CRAP!
Have a nice Godless day.
1. I didn’t write the quote in question. Was that an assumption on your part?
2. If you disagree with the poster’s position on ultraconservatism, calling it “just a load of crap” isn’t a rebuttal. It’s barely even a response. If you are able to rebut the statement with facts and evidence, then please do so. If not, then you don’t exactly have much basis for disputing it, do you?