Bill Maher is right

[Atomic Playboy]

Craig, I see where you're coming from, but that's the whole point of free speech; it goes both ways. Ann Coulter can call John Edwards a "lovely human" and other people can say "wow, what a bitch." A reporter can make a racist joke and his company can fire him for being bad at his job. I wish more people would say what they really think instead of walking on eggshells around sensitive issues. It's just bullshit pandering.

 

[fskimospy]

You didn't answer my question. What does his weight have to do with his political views? Would his politics be better if he were thin?

If you say it's ok to attack him for his weight, why not women for their gender, why not for race, why not the handicapped (that gimp FDR, Republicans should have called him)?

Why shouldn't Republican attacks on Obama regularly refer to him as a 'half breed' as an insult, why not attack his children? Why any limits on gratuitous attacks on people?

His weight has nothing to do with his political views, he's just a vile person who happens to also be fat.

Republicans are free to refer to Obama as a half breed if that's what they want to do. Only a total fool would think that being multiracial is something bad. Same thing with attacking someone for being female. Additionally, being overweight is not the same as being crippled by polio.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

If you say it's ok to attack him for his weight, why not women for their gender, why not for race, why not the handicapped (that gimp FDR, Republicans should have called him)?

I remember that year where I stopped exercising and ate nothing but burgers and pizza... I turned into a woman.

 

[Craig234]

His weight has nothing to do with his political views, he's just a vile person who happens to also be fat.

Republicans are free to refer to Obama as a half breed if that's what they want to do. Only a total fool would think that being multiracial is something bad. Same thing with attacking someone for being female. Additionally, being overweight is not the same as being crippled by polio.

You don't understand it. When attacking people for these things is 'ok', it fosters a cultural bigotry that is harmful. How long was it ok to treat, say, blacks as 'inferior' in our society, to deny them opportunities, to lynch them as good family entertainment a town could bring the kids to watch, to use the N word as a constant reminder they were second class, to segregate the country for a century from drinking fountains to restaurants to nightclubs where blacks could entertain but not enter as guests? Where did that mentality come from?

Your defense of 'it's no problem' leads to those bigotries being stronger - you might remember women couldn't vote for over half of American history. That's the 'gender attack' in action when it's accepted by society. The only reason it's not rewarding to exploit attacks on women now is because of a century of people fighting against that bigotry. NOW they're 'equal', at least in many ways. You would roll those gains back. Not your intent to do so, but the effect of your condeming the stands against bigotry.

Should we slide back on things like respect for people without bigotry for race - so that Rick Perry's '******head' ranch is not a problem, maybe a bit funny, instead of a negative for him showing a background of tolerance for racism? When Ann Coulter isn't criticized for 'lovely human', bigotry harming equality such as gay marriage, gay adoption, military increases.

It's unthinkable that the progress for gay equality could have happened for most of American history - you would protect the bigotry to return in the name of free speech.

Let's be clear - I'm not saying to shoot people who say offensive things. I'm basically for the 'free speech' and 'market' of speech too.

But that's what I'm demanding - that the market be a market and condemn the bad speech, while people like Maher - and you here - are demanding the market be quiet.

As for the place of insults about weight, epsecially about political figures - they have the same relvance as race or physical disability. They're irrelevant and wrong to people.

Maybe you want to defend Limbaugh's attacks on Michael J. Fox while you're defending your own attacks on Liimbaugh's weight. Your comments are no better.

 

[fskimospy]

Being fat is not the same as being a woman, gay, black, or a Parkinson's victim.

 

[Craig234]

Craig, I see where you're coming from, but that's the whole point of free speech; it goes both ways. Ann Coulter can call John Edwards a "lovely human" and other people can say "wow, what a bitch." A reporter can make a racist joke and his company can fire him for being bad at his job. I wish more people would say what they really think instead of walking on eggshells around sensitive issues. It's just bullshit pandering.

As I said to Eskimo, what you're missing is the role that tolerance of 'hate speech' plays in allowing societal bigotry to thrive - and it hurts people.

See that post for examples, from voting rights to segregation to marital rights to adoption rights to employment rights to lynching in the extreme - all 'ok' at some point.

Your examples of 'the other side' rely on the culture not being bigoted - on Ann Coulter being called a 'bitch' for hate speech against gays instead of calls to elect her to pass laws against gays; for terminating the racist reporter instead of promoting him and terminating the reporter who DEFENDS blacks and attacks racism.

The thing is, now that things are better, you forget the issue of bigotry and only consider some absolutist 'free speech' - who cares who it hurts. The 'other side' you cite disappears.

If you called a black the N word in 1940 in a Southern town, how would white society have punished you in the 'market of speech'? They wouldn't have. They couldn't even get any convictions for killing blacks in many places - no way 12 whites would unanimously vote guilty against a white for killing a black. Trayvon Martin wouldn't be a problem.

You need to support values if you don't want that bigotry, and you are the enemy of values when you call supporting values 'bullshit pandering'.

No, it's not. It's opposing bigotry.

 

[Ninjahedge]

You didn't answer my question. What does his weight have to do with his political views? Would his politics be better if he were thin?

It has to do with what he is doing with his life.

If he were thin and healthy w/o the signs of aging due to drug use, he might be thought of as a prick rather than a strung out prick.

If you say it's ok to attack him for his weight, why not women for their gender, why not for race, why not the handicapped (that gimp FDR, Republicans should have called him)?

Because 99% of the people out there who are fat can lose the weight if they tried. 99% of the women, handicapped people or "ethnic" people have not been able to change their race, gender, or paralysis.

Why shouldn't Republican attacks on Obama regularly refer to him as a 'half breed' as an insult, why not attack his children? Why any limits on gratuitous attacks on people?

Because the two are completely unrelated. You had a moderate point with asking about "why is fat important in regards to his POV". It shouldn't be, but in context it has some, pardon the pun, weight.

Calling Obama a Half Breed is SO FAR in left field that you ruined any point you were making. GJ!

 

[Zebo]

Being fat is a choice and directly relates to being lazy. No where near the same as race or disease. Scrawny meth addicts are also fair game.

 

[thraashman]

I think the people bitching about the Mitzkrieg comment are idiots. The Blitzkrieg was different from the Holocaust. Just because both were done by Germany during WWII doesn't make them equivalent. It's not like if a politician evoked Pearl Harbor that the Chinese would start bitching about the Rape of Nanking.

 

[xBiffx]

Being fat is a choice and directly relates to being lazy. No where near the same as race or disease. Scrawny meth addicts are also fair game.

Not always. Some people are just born to be fat. Genes can be a major factor. Now people who weight 400lbs+, sure that's probably a choice, but just being fat can be just as hit or miss as some other genetic disorders.

 

[thraashman]

Not always. Some people are just born to be fat. Genes can be a major factor. Now people who weight 400lbs+, sure that's probably a choice, but just being fat can be just as hit or miss as some other genetic disorders.

There is indeed some genetic predisposition to being overweight, but then there also is to being an alcoholic. Behavior is a much larger factor though as it is more than possible even with a genetic predisposition to avoid becoming obese.

Regardless using someone's weight as an argument against why their views are stupid is just invalid. The left doing it to Limbaugh is the same as when the right does it to Michael Moore. It adds nothing to the argument and holds no validity. I hate Limbaugh because he's a racist, sexist, homophobic, dickheaded blowhard. His being fat and having drug problems just means I think he should work on improving himself before he attacks traits in others.

 

[Zebo]

Not always. Some people are just born to be fat. Genes can be a major factor. Now people who weight 400lbs+, sure that's probably a choice, but just being fat can be just as hit or miss as some other genetic disorders.

Always. there were no fatties in concentration camps or plains of Africa because they didnt eat as much or are exercising all the time. We eat a lot and live sedentary. Do some ppl pack it on more? yes there are three body types , the supermodel (ectomorphs) who can eat whatever and metablim burns it, the muscular mesomorph in between, and the lumpy endomophs but no matter what one can be thin with proper calorie intake, exercise or both.

 

[silverpig]

Does anyone else find it hypocritical that he is raging against outrage?

Also, Bill: Canada says shut the fuck up

 

[woolfe9999]

There is indeed some genetic predisposition to being overweight, but then there also is to being an alcoholic. Behavior is a much larger factor though as it is more than possible even with a genetic predisposition to avoid becoming obese.

Regardless using someone's weight as an argument against why their views are stupid is just invalid. The left doing it to Limbaugh is the same as when the right does it to Michael Moore. It adds nothing to the argument and holds no validity. I hate Limbaugh because he's a racist, sexist, homophobic, dickheaded blowhard. His being fat and having drug problems just means I think he should work on improving himself before he attacks traits in others.

You're pretty correct here. I suspect that Eskimospy's reference to Limbaugh's weight is a product of him not respecting Limbaugh on many levels more serious than that, many of which he itemized. It's almost inevitable that when your disagreement is so strong that it turns to justifiable disrespect, that other things of less substance about that person seem like fair game. We might give a pass to someone for being obese if he is a decent human being, but not feel like giving him a pass when he's an asshole. Strictly speaking, the weight references are not really substantive or justified in this context, but I think I understand where it comes from.

 

[xBiffx]

Always. there were no fatties in concentration camps or plains of Africa because they didnt eat as much or are exercising all the time. We eat a lot and live sedentary. Do some ppl pack it on more? yes there are three body types , the supermodel (ectomorphs) who can eat whatever and metablim burns it, the muscular mesomorph in between, and the lumpy endomophs but no matter what one can be thin with proper calorie intake, exercise or both.

You just took that to a severe extreme. Of course if you don't eat anything you won't be fat at all regardless of genetics. That's just the first law of thermodynamics. But there are people who can eat a "normal" amount of food and still get fat. It's all about how your body uses/stores the energy you give it.

As far as this topic goes, some people have as much control over being fat as they do to getting a debilitating disease or disorder and becoming handicapped.

 

[fskimospy]

You're pretty correct here. I suspect that Eskimospy's reference to Limbaugh's weight is a product of him not respecting Limbaugh on many levels more serious than that, many of which he itemized. It's almost inevitable that when your disagreement is so strong that it turns to justifiable disrespect, that other things of less substance about that person seem like fair game. We might give a pass to someone for being obese if he is a decent human being, but not feel like giving him a pass when he's an asshole. Strictly speaking, the weight references are not really substantive or justified in this context, but I think I understand where it comes from.

Pretty much. I called him fat without thinking twice about it, and it comes from my total contempt for the man.

 

[Moonbeam]

Not always. Some people are just born to be fat. Genes can be a major factor. Now people who weight 400lbs+, sure that's probably a choice, but just being fat can be just as hit or miss as some other genetic disorders.

That titanic hog has enough money to hire somebody with a taser to keep him away from food, but I have to agree with you on your point. It is unseemly to attack antibody's ideas because the person who holds them is fat. Always, the way to answer idiots is with truth not put downs.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think the people bitching about the Mitzkrieg comment are idiots. The Blitzkrieg was different from the Holocaust. Just because both were done by Germany during WWII doesn't make them equivalent. It's not like if a politician evoked Pearl Harbor that the Chinese would start bitching about the Rape of Nanking.

Just scrolled down to make this point, not that they are idiots, of course, because that is a needless bias, but because Blitzkrieg is a kind of warfare, not a kind of antisemitism.

 

[werepossum]

I tend to agree that the left originally drove political correctness, but the right has learned from it and has picked up its own version of it. More to the point here, Gingrich is being a tool, not only because De Niro's remark wasn't intended as racist and he's smart enough to know it, but because he had the audacity to insist that Obama apologize for the remark.

This. Much as I dislike Maher, he's absolutely right here. And Gingrich is a tool mainly because he's desperately searching for something to make him relevant again.

 

[homercles337]

But there are people who can eat a "normal" amount of food and still get fat.

No they do not. By definition, normal is not excessive. As much as you want to believe that you eat a "normal" amount of food, you are a fat ass because you do NOT eat normal amounts of food. This is basic biology, how you managed to wedge thermodynamics into it is truly dumbfounding. I take it you are also a creationist?

 

[Ninjahedge]

Just scrolled down to make this point, not that they are idiots, of course, because that is a needless bias, but because Blitzkrieg is a kind of warfare, not a kind of antisemitism.

Been there, said that.

So are we supposed to be insulted when someone gets a Bonsai tree because somehow we are demeaning all those that died in Iwo Jima?

 

[Moonbeam]

Pretty much. I called him fat without thinking twice about it, and it comes from my total contempt for the man.

I, of course, think that the country would be better off if he died of a heart attack because I think he spreads mental illness among the population. I think like the Germans. 50 million dead in WW2 ends your freedom to be a member of the Nazi party and I think Rush plays to the exact same sensibility among the self hating as the Nazis did. If I were making the laws nobody would be allowed to broadcast on the publicly owned airwaves a single point of view but would have to grant equal time to others who see things differently. Limpbrow would quickly be revealed for the fool he is if that were allowed to happen and millions of idiots, oops, I shouldn't use that word, millions of gullible, insular, uneducated, and irrational folk wouldn't become ditto heads.

 

[xBiffx]

No they do not. By definition, normal is not excessive. As much as you want to believe that you eat a "normal" amount of food, you are a fat ass because you do NOT eat normal amounts of food. This is basic biology, how you managed to wedge thermodynamics into it is truly dumbfounding. I take it you are also a creationist?

Sorry but you can in fact eat a normal amount of food but if you eat it at the right times, you can signal your body to store this energy. You can trick your body into thinking that you are starving so that when you do feed it, it will store it all. This can be done with a normal amount of food. Some people don't have to trick their body to do this, their genes already fucked them ahead of time. THAT is basic biology. Your genes.

My background is Chemical Engineering. That is how I "wedged" thermodynamics into this. If you weren't such an idiot you would know that its already in everything. I don't have to "wedge" it in.

 

[homercles337]

Sorry but you can in fact eat a normal amount of food but if you eat it at the right times, you can signal your body to store this energy. You can trick your body into thinking that you are starving so that when you do feed it, it will store it all. This can be done with a normal amount of food. Some people don't have to trick their body to do this, their genes already fucked them ahead of time. THAT is basic biology. Your genes.

My background is Chemical Engineering. That is how I "wedged" thermodynamics into this. If you weren't such an idiot you would know that its already in everything. I don't have to "wedge" it in.

Its called metabolism. It has a time course on the order of weeks to months. This is well established. Please inform me of any system governed by thermodynamics that has the same time course.

BTW, reading casually about ChemE is not the same as having a background in ChemE. Plus, given your posts here i am going to guess that your notion of "ChemE" is 50 years old. This is very different than ChemE now.

 

[Moonbeam]

Maybe without getting too politically correct we can agree that basic biology and basic chemistry have a lot in common. Eating, after all, is just natures way of staving off entropy.