22
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: + Line 35:
Line 36: + + + + +
no edit summary
:LoL, you should get out more :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 15:56, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:LoL, you should get out more :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 15:56, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
Hitchens is certainly not a conservative--or if he is, not one of very old vintage. He is a supporter of the Iraq war, but that does not a conservative make. He's also a staunch critic of Reagan, Kissinger, etc., etc. I would put him as an iconoclast, an image he's worked very hard to maintain. As for the article, I would simply delete "conservative" and leave it at that.[[User:Reaganetics|Reaganetics]] 16:43, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
Hitchens is certainly not a conservative--or if he is, not one of very old vintage. He is a supporter of the Iraq war, but that does not a conservative make. He's also a staunch critic of Reagan, Kissinger, etc., etc. I would put him as an iconoclast, an image he's worked very hard to maintain. As for the article, I would simply delete "conservative" and leave it at that.[[User:Reaganetics|Reaganetics]] 16:43, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
: Maybe there was in the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article, but I didn't detect any. There definitely wasn't in the "Liberal hawks" article because, well, how can you insert sarcasm in the title of the article you co-wrote? With seven other people? That's totally absurd and you know it. --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 10:12, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
: Maybe there was in the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article, but I didn't detect any. There definitely wasn't in the "Liberal hawks" article because, well, how can you insert sarcasm in the title of the article you co-wrote? With seven other people? That's totally absurd and you know it. --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 10:12, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:: By the way, I've got the full quote here to demonstrate the total lack of sarcasm in the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article.
"Let me give another example of linguistic slippage. In ACLU circles, we often refer to ourselves as "First Amendment absolutists." By this we mean, ironically enough, that we prefer to interpret the words of the Founders, if you insist, literally. The literal meaning in this case seems (to us) to be that Congress cannot inhibit any speech or establish any state religion. This means that we defend all expressions of opinion including those that revolt us, and that we say that nobody can be forced to practice, or forced to foreswear, any faith. I suppose I would say that this is an inflexible principle, or even a dogma, with me. But who dares to say that's the same as the belief that criticism of religion should be censored or the belief that faith should be imposed?"
He was using his membership as an example. If he was being super-subtle and injecting sarcasm into his article, he'd be purposefully sabotaging his point. Why? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 10:22, 18 July 2007 (EDT)