|
Thank you to "The Witch" who wrote the open letter to Scarborough who this week gave Ann Coulter another forum in which to twist the truth. I was one of the "hundreds" who e-mailed Scarborough that morning, and without mentioning my name, he did mention the e-mail I sent him. "Mention," however, is the wrong verb. He sneered, mocked, and insulted me when referencing my e-mail in which I questioned why he was defending Ann Coulter's name calling (specifically about John Edwards), a tactic that I pointed out is never considered part of logic or fair argumentation (clearly I hit a nerve since after calling me a moron, he scoffed, "As if she knows more than I do"). Yes, folks, his response to my entirely civil request to not defend name callers like Ann Coulter by putting her on the show was to turn around and call me a name! I was amazed at the vindictiveness of his response, frankly, when I thought at times he could be fair. But that morning, his screed against all the "losers" and "leftwingers" was unbelievably bitter and mean and childish (this man was once in Congress, too). I also thought it was interesting he highlighted my email on the air — in which I did not call him derogatory names as he said so many of the others did, yet did resort to good old logic and fairness — which appeared to infuriate him (along with the fact I told him I knew a little bit about logic and argumentation, having taught it)! He responded by insulting me, calling me a moron (I'm Phi Beta Kappa, by the way, not that it matters, but moron I'm not!). Mika, his news reader, chuckled as he spewed out his insults. Go figure. I was disappointed that after he continued with the ad hominem attacks, Mika said, "I do understand your point" (about his allowing Coulter a chance to put her remarks in context). But, when is name calling ever allowed "a context" in so-called civil discourse? How can you explain away ad hominem attacks in a fair and logical argument? That was my question then — and now. Even if Coulter used sarcasm, as she said she did, in reference to the terrorist remark about Edwards, then how does that explain away her original remark in reference to him? Or her passing herself off as a serious commentator by insulting people on their looks, their weight, or their dead relatives? How can any of that be explained away in a logical, fair way? It can't. Scarborough certainly knows that at some level, but clearly would prefer not to be called out on it. And when he is, his response is to call people names. His reward? A forum on MSNBC. Yes, I'll be switching the channel.
|