Evil By Any Other Name Is Still Evil

[Willis]

From all of your comments, which one of you even read what the woman said?

NONE. 

I guess you didn't read THIS:

There really is a bigger picture here that has nothing to do with Rush or his comments. And that's why this girl was being talked about in the first place by Rush and many others (she was the topic on a local radio station when I was driving home last night).

First, she put HERSELF on the national stage by testifying at a Congressional hearing. Isn't that where her comments were made? (I'll admit I've been so busy this week that I haven't got all the facts so correct me if I'm wrong.) I think that VOLUNTARILY appearing in front of a national political body and especially when the reason for appearing is to present one's personal issues (such as sexual activity) in such an open and public way for the purpose of influencing public policy takes away ALL pretense of both privacy and perhaps even civility. If what this person said in PUBLIC at a POLITICAL event is the topic then it's fair game. It's not like (as far as I know) that reporters were following her around trying to find something embarrassing to nail her with--at least not yet.

Secondly, and really the key issue, is that she was arguing that by PUBLIC POLICY the government (i.e., me and you) should give her $3,000 worth of product and services for a completely OPTIONAL purpose. Now of course, she went on to throw in the red herrings concerning her sick friend and a married couple. The issue is NOT medically therapeutic hormonal treatments. Few would argue against that. Nor is the issue the use of contraceptives by married couples.

No, the issue that raised this entire controversy is that this unmarried woman wants to have sex and have the contraceptives paid for with Other Peoples Money even when those other people do not want to pay for them. What right does she have to demand this? To do so with the help of government's right to use deadly force or imprisonment to get what it wants just makes those with the money SLAVES to the one's who don't have the money but WANT it for whatever it THEY want to do.

But of course you don't want to discuss public policy in a logical way. All you want to do is put all Christian men in your meat-grinder.

 

[stonelifter]

I do not care in the slightest what you think of me Abc. Your anger is hurting yourself not me. I'm not sticking up for "the pig". I don't even bother with politics anymore. You should try it. It's very freeing. You have too much self righteous rage built up in you. Give it some time to simmer down before you have a heart attack.

[Kings_kid]

willis to abcoH:  "All you want to do is put all Christian men in your meat-grinder"

s.l. to abcoH:  "You have too much self righteous rage built up in you. Give it some time to simmer down before you have a heart attack."

K_k:  I can see some of the same thing in your posts, abcoH.  Have you been personally  hurt badly by some man?  (None of my business, perhaps, but it might help us understand your hostility toward men.)

[BigOrange]

 Peeple R peepL,s0 Y shood it bee...

 U & eye sh00d get @lonG s000 awfulleeee.....

[Jeffrey]

I understand ABC's frustration.

Some of you guys are arguing general policy when your sisters came to you and asked for a strong shoulder to stand against an insult to our entire gender.  The answer was largely "get over it."  (Like we've never heard that one before. It's okay--we'll live.)

It's two separate things, sure, but understand it's much more personal to some of us.

Like LA said, this rich, influential guy had his insurance paying for his Viagra and his doc-shopping addiction for Oxycontin.  And yet, a woman who asks for universal birth control coverage (in many cases, NOT unmarried sluts, and in several cases, medically advised for non-contraception issues), is called to justify her REPUTATION before determining the medical viability of her request.

Really?  You can't see a teensy bit of the problem there?

I think the problem in that area is that, as far as I could tell, none of the men here are Rush devotees. For the most part they don't care for him, and at most think he may only on occasion get something right. But the way Mary was coming across was as if we are in the Rush camp, and followers of him and defenders of him or something. Like we are responsible because we are men and some number of the men here lean more conservative or libertarian and thats enough to make us responsible for Rush.
We aren't responsible. Most if not all of us do not endorse speaking in such ways of a woman in public. (though it was pointed out she made herself public first). How worked up should we  get on that aspect if we aren't his followers or endorsers of a lot of what he says and does? Men here were getting lumped in with Rush for no reason beyond the fact that we are men, and christian men. Thats how I think it came across. I personally can't make myself apologize for Rush's BS. I and others I think made it clear we don't believe it was a good thing to publicly speak that way of a young woman. I am just not going to apologize or behave as if I said it or applauded it when I didn't.

[CPB]

I understand ABC's frustration.

Some of you guys are arguing general policy when your sisters came to you and asked for a strong shoulder to stand against an insult to our entire gender.  The answer was largely "get over it."  (Like we've never heard that one before. It's okay--we'll live.)

It's two separate things, sure, but understand it's much more personal to some of us.

Like LA said, this rich, influential guy had his insurance paying for his Viagra and his doc-shopping addiction for Oxycontin.  And yet, a woman who asks for universal birth control coverage (in many cases, NOT unmarried sluts, and in several cases, medically advised for non-contraception issues), is called to justify her REPUTATION before determining the medical viability of her request.

Really?  You can't see a teensy bit of the problem there?

I kinda agree with you on the issue. The fact that we even have a debate over non abortive birth control in this counry in the year 2012 is insane. And while I dont think there should be socialized health care in this country if there is birth control should be part of it. "But I dont believe in birth control why should I have to pay for it?" We ALL have to pay for things we dont like, its what happens when you have an out of control government. So to quote Jon Steward "OK Catholics as soon as you pay me back for the Iraq War, then condoms are on me"

Now as to the point about how us men folk are insensitive to your hurt feelings, I really dont care. Sorry but I dont, we're talking politics here. We need to all be less sensitive not more if we are to have a meaningful debate. Dont like what he said call his show and challange him, tell your firends why he's wrong. Defend your position calmly and logically. Trying to simply silence the other side is for cowards.

[Kings_kid]

KK, you can call her out on that issue on the day you explain your own hostility toward all sinners.

Please feel free to call me on my "hostility toward all sinners".  Jesus Christ died to pay the death penalty for all our sin, which payment / freedom anyone can have if we will receive His Gift of total forgiveness and unending Life -- Himself.

So if we love sinners, like ourselves, we will help them see their need for His forgiveness and His Life, so they won't have to be destroyed in the End as they pursue a false righteousness from themselves instead of Him.

Where exactly is the hostility in that?

Now, back to the question.  When strong anger is being shown toward all men, especially "christian men", there is likely some man (probably a false "christian") who has caused the person great pain.  Same thing applies in the reverse situation of men hating women.  

[CPB]

I really don't care...tell your firends why he's wrong.

I thought that's what I was doing here.  My mistake.

And, in my understanding, this wasn't a political thread.  It was about an injustice.

Its not what you were doing. You said Some of you guys are arguing general policy when your sisters came to you and asked for a strong shoulder to stand against an insult to our entire gender.

You are whining about being insluted. So yes get over it. And an injustice? Really? Someone was called a slut and thats an injustice. Wow. I wish I lived in a world so close to perfect that someones feelings getting hurt was an injustice worth getting upset over. The funny thing is I actually agree with you that Rush shouldnt have called her that, it just makes him look bad. And I although Im against socialized health care as a whole Im not against birth control nor do I think using it makes you a slut. But if you truly get this upset over someone called a name, if you truly take it that personally then you probably out to advoid talking politics altogether. And I still stand by this statement: Boycotts and blacklists are for cowards who cannot defend their position.

[CPB]

You are whining about being insluted.

You have to admit that's a pretty fun line in this particular thread.

And, I don't think stating your position has more power than cold, hard cash (which boycotts cut off).  Rush would never have apologized without the loss of 20-plus sponsors and a few stations dropping him altogether.  Do you really think he actually would listen to you if you just calmly defend your position?

Yeah that is pretty funny. And no he wouldnt listen but maybe some of his audiance would. Because Im much more concerned about the issues at hand then whos calling who a bad name.

[another beloved child of HIS]

It was never just about him calling one bad name.  It went on and when he finally got to the part about the videos, he went far far far beyond anything acceptable to say.  

It is not just me who was angry.  It had NOTHING to do with politics.  I have complained about other personalities, even liberal ones and each was removed from the air for some amount of time.

His attacks had no basis ever.

and dear Jeffrey, You show me where once these guys said the guy was wrong.

 

[But the way Mary was coming across was as if we are in the Rush camp, and followers of him and defenders of him or something./quote]

[Jeffrey]

I don't have to look far for an example. Myself.  I did say and do say that its wrong to speak of another person the way he did. I was raised to not use lanquage like that in general, and very certainly not to a woman.

Another.....Chris Betchloff,  (in the VERY FIRST response to your opening post) started off with “I think his comments were obnoxious”.

The thing is, the thread, for better or worse pretty much immediately evloved into a discussion of the soical/political issues that started all this. The questions about government forcing certain entities to provide contraceptive and other reproductive services and also the question of people demanding such to be provided. And all these issues like cases where its for other than contraceptive purposes, or it is married people wanting this just to forestall children a little while. The issue of Rush's specific words kind of got moved to the back burner by most of the posters to discuss the political/social issues. A lot of the reason there wasn't a lot of condemnation of Rush I think was because it was understood his lanquage was uncallef for, and people wanted more to discuss the issues behind the story itself, regarding healthcare, the government, religious organizations etc. Threads often go elsewhere and this one did too.
I don't know what white christian men could possibly do to earn your good will at this point anyway. I think we are all very bad men in your opinion and thats that.

[Kings_kid]

So, if i remember correctly, the real issue was does government have the right to tell a religious organization that they must violate their own principles, to offer a service to their employees which they object to.

How quickly the underlying issue gets wrapped up in personality conflicts.

[Jeffrey]

Well, the thread took off on a different tack from that which was intended by the original post. Mary started it to point out Rush's mean remarks. Most everyone else set that aside to some degree, with minimal comment on Rush to discuss the issues that are going on with regard to the government and health care, etc.
That kind of thing happens pretty frequently. I don't think Mary was satisfied that Rush had been denounced soundly enough.
For me, it wasn't going to happen with quite the vengence it might have because I don't associate myself with Rush politically or in any way that I can think of. I don't listen to him and am only vaguely aware of his way of doing his radio job. There are millions of people who express things I don't agree with, or with words I would never use, but I can't spend too much effort getting worked up about it because it IS millions of people. And even if Rush is broadcast way too much and has such a wide audience, that alone doesn't inspire me to get worked up about him. He is not one of mine.

[CPB]

Bill Maher was actually defending Rush the other day on his show. He said "do we really want a country where they try to make you disapear when you say the wrong thing and step out of politically correct bounds." And thats why I dont support boycotts. Im not going to try to silence somebody because of a bad joke.

[stonelifter]

I personally don't like vulgar comments from either side. News should be more professional then it is. The problem is everyone would use this to silent the points being made instead of the vulgar comments. The lesser of 2 evils is to let free speech rain and turn off people you don't like. That being said I really wish these news guys would quit trying to be the next Howard Stern.