(September 14, 2012 at 3:16 pm)A Theist Wrote: ....then the use of that term should be tasteless and unprofessional under any circumstance.
Agreed.
Again, did you miss the last four times I called Schultz "unprofessional" and "tasteless".
Quote:To me it seems as if you're saying that although you agree the term is tasteless and unprofessional, you can see the justification of using it to describe a woman under some circumstances.
Not at all. At no time did I defend Schultz or justify his use of the term.
My point, and somehow you keep missing it, is...
a political attack =/= personal defamation of character.
...Ed Schultz was attacking Ingram politically, using very inappropriate and unprofessional language, but still a political attack as is clear by the context. Limbaugh was attacking Fluke personally and sexually, as well as coming on to her to make a sex tape for him.
The two are not equivalent. Kind of like how a misdemeanor is not equivalent to a felony. Both are breaking the law but they're not the same.
You are desperate to make them equivalent to run cover for Limbaugh. Just so you know, I see what you're trying to do.
Quote:Apples and apples DP.
Apples and oranges, AT.
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
