(September 14, 2012 at 1:25 pm)A Theist Wrote: I'll agree that the use of those terms either politically or to reference a woman's personal sexuality is wrong under any circumstance. I wouldn't do it. Shultz could have just as easily used the terms "shill" or "drone" if he wanted to insult Ingrham politically, but he chose to use the 'slut' word instead. Both Shultz and Limbaugh were wrong....as distateful as it was, the law is going to see this as just stated opinions by both of these guys.
Apples to apples in my book.
Sorry, but insulting a person politically =/= defaming them personally.
Also, using a tasteless insult =/= demanding the person to produce a sex tape.
Now I agree, Schultz's words were tasteless and unprofessional but it was nowhere near the personal defamation of character and creepy demands that Limbaugh made.
The two are nowhere near equal. Apples and oranges.
This is, however, a classic example of conservatives trying to deflect responsibility for their abusive ways by searching for some liberal somewhere who said something offensive and trying to conflate the two, even when the liberal example pales in comparison. They then say, "See, both sides do it! You're just picking on us because we're conservatives! ...but the Democrats... etc."
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist