# Want to see Ann Coulter get fucking OWNED on Canadian TV? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 2, 2005, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956 "2005-02-02T06:25:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/261 "2005-02-05T16:27:24Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > **Desmo** and others, I’ve done the work for you. Please take your problems with Liberal [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=300811) and let the rest of us have a discussion. Of course **Liberal** , you are invited also. Thanks, Harborwolf. Incidentally, I second FinnAgain’s suggestion. A [Cochrane study](http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/revabstr/AB001957.htm) of Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum concluded that the data are insufficient but promising, and that further research is warranted. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/262 "2005-02-05T16:28:33Z")
> [@Kaspar Hauser](#): > > Isn’t the fact that he said: “Second World War, of course. Korea, yes.” imply that he was talking about combat troops and only combat troops? Possibly. Except for the fact that in saying, “No, Australia was there, not Canada,” implies (at least to me) that Canada was not even there. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/263 "2005-02-05T16:37:16Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Possibly. Except for the fact that in saying, “No, Australia was there, not Canada,” implies (at least to me) that Canada was not even there. :rolleyes: Of course, it’s just not possible that the implication is that Canada was not there in the sense that Australia was. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/264 "2005-02-05T16:38:52Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Possibly. Except for the fact that in saying, “No, Australia was there, not Canada,” implies (at least to me) that Canada was not even there. Wrong again. “Australia was there,” fighting beside the U.S. troops, “not Canada.” You are inferring something that was not even vaguely implied. ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/265 "2005-02-05T16:53:17Z")
**Liberal** , assuming you missed my earlier post, here is it again. Hope this helps: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Liberal > Well, you can’t have it both ways. Let us set aside that there are quite many logical systems and everyday circumstances in which the Law of Excluded Middle does not apply. If you insist that troops means uniformed military personnel, then Coulter was right and McKeown was wrong. If you insist that troops means oh, say, several battalions intended to do battle, then McKeown was right and Coulter was wrong. However, as many of your cohorts here have pointed out in between insults, it is likely the case that Coulter meant battalions and McKeown meant uniformed military. Thus, both were wrong. That’s the crux of the argument. I think Coulter meant battalions and McKeown in response was ALSO talking about battalions, which makes Coulter wrong and McKeown right within that context. Addendum: McKeown may have known Canada sent troops as part of a peace-keeping effort later but that was irrelevant to Ann Coulter’s claim. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/266 "2005-02-05T21:27:48Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > In the midst of your hysteria, there would be a small point were the US in the Falklands to secure a ceasefire or otherwise participate in the war itself. For someone fond of literal accuracy when it suits him, your use of hyperbole (“hysteria”: 1: a psychoneurosis marked by emotional excitability and disturbances of the psychic, sensory, vasomotor, and visceral functions 2 : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess) leaves much to be desired, as it is even less accurate about me than Coulter was about Canada’s involvement in Vietnam. So, was the U.S. involved in the Falklands War or not, by your standards? I’m trying to establish a frame of reference. If it turns out that in your view that “any involvement in any capacity by any member of the military” is the same as “sending troops”, then the overall argument is simply too tenuous and digressive to pursue. It would be like referencing factoids about cellular biochemistry in a discussion on dog training. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/267 "2005-02-05T22:35:01Z")
Canada had a handful of troops seconduded to the USA military when the USA invaded Iraq, so where does that take us? Never mind. Don’t answer that. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/268 "2005-02-05T22:52:47Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > :rolleyes: > Of course, it’s just not possible that the implication is that Canada was not there in the sense that Australia was. It is, as I have said a couple of times, metaphysically possible. But so are so many other interpretations. But that’s the nature of implications, as I just said above. The inference does not always match the implication. Naturally, we all tend toward that interpretation which best suits our purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/269 "2005-02-05T22:56:00Z")
> [@litost](#): > > That’s the crux of the argument. I think Coulter meant battalions and McKeown in response was ALSO talking about battalions, which makes Coulter wrong and McKeown right within that context. That’s the sort of evidence that I would find compelling, but I don’t see it. He made six statements during the interview — all categorical denials. He made a statement after the interview, which was nothing more than a final shot. Can you give a good reason why a man of his journalistic integrity would fail at every single opportunity to correct the record and report the facts? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/270 "2005-02-05T23:28:45Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > It is, as I have said a couple of times, metaphysically possible. In what sense do you use the word “metaphysics”? As per Merriam-Webster: (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology (2) : ONTOLOGY 2 b : abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience Is a difference between Canada’s involvement and Australia’s involvement a violation of the fundamental nature of reality, or would such a difference be simply outside objective experience? Feel free to suggest some other definition with which we can agree. I mean, if individual interpretation is going to be a stumbling block in this thread, let’s take steps to reduce it. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/271 "2005-02-05T23:29:49Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Can you give a good reason why a man of his journalistic integrity would fail at every single opportunity to correct the record and report the facts? How about because he had every reason to believe that an adult audience of even minimal intelligence would understand from context exactly what he was referring to? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/272 "2005-02-05T23:31:07Z")
I beg your pardon, “metaphysically”. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/273 "2005-02-05T23:43:00Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Can you give a good reason why a man of his journalistic integrity would fail at every single opportunity to correct the record and report the facts? Because the facts that you’re obsessively clinging to are _totally_ irrelevant to the argument. Coulter was arguing that the Canadian government supported the United States in the Vietnam war, when it manifestly did not. Interjecting comments about peacekeeping presence after the war would be a non sequitur. If Ms. Coulter was thinking about Canada’s role in Vietnam after “Vietnam” (in the sense of the twenty year period of war,) then it should be left up to _her_ to make that non sequitur – it isn’t the role of an interviewer to offer every possible interpretation of a _fragment_ of the subject’s argument, when the intended meaning is clear if it is kept in context with the sentence it was originally uttered in. Suppose Bill Moyers is interviewing Michael Jackson, and Mr. Jackson explains why he’s unconcerned about the possibility of being incarcerated thusly: > [@Thought Experiment Michael Jackson](#): > > I’m not worried at all. I _do_ believe in fairies. I do. I do. If I’m ever imprisoned, I’ll just wait until I’m in the exercise yard, and then think happy thoughts and fly away to freedom! Mr. Moyers responds with: > [@Thought Experiment Bill Moyers](#): > > You can’t fly, Michael. > [@Thought Experiment Michael Jackson](#): > > I think you’re wrong. > [@Thought Experiment Bill Moyers](#): > > No, that’s impossible. > [@Thought Experiment Michael Jackson](#): > > You’re so wrong about that. Should Mr. Moyers, in the interest of journalistic integrity, dedicate valuable air-time to a tangential exposition on the variety of ways that human beings, _can_ fly, before informing Michael that the whole pixie-dust thing is a non-starter? Or would it maybe be more sensible to just react to the point that he was actually making, and leave it to him to elaborate if he _really_ meant that he was counting on the assistance of a dedicated fan with a hot-air balloon for his wonderful escape? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/274 "2005-02-06T00:20:17Z")
> [@Bryan Eckers](#): > > In what sense do you use the word “metaphysics”? Metaphysical in the sense of a metaphysical modality (or possibility), as discussed here: > **[Modal logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic)** > > Modal logic is a type of formal logic primarily developed in the 1960s that extends classical propositional and predicate logic to include operators expressing modality. A modal—a word that expresses a modality—qualifies a statement. For example, the statement "John is happy" might be qualified by saying that John is usually happy, in which case the term "usually" is functioning as a modal. The traditional alethic modalities, or modalities of truth, include possibility ("Possibly, p", "It is poss... (See the section titled, “Metaphysical and other modalities”) It is basically the difference between saying that it is possible _that_ something happen for all we know (epistemic possibility) and saying that it is possible _for_ something to happen logically (metaphysical possibility). We cannot draw any epistemic conclusion because we don’t know what was in their heads. We can draw metaphysical conclusions only — what it is possible for them to have been thinking. And there are so many possibilities in that regard. (More for McKeown than for Coulter, I think.) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/275 "2005-02-06T00:23:52Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > Coulter was arguing that the Canadian government supported the United States in the Vietnam war, when it manifestly did not. I’m sorry, but that is completely false. Even without sending batallions, it sent quite a lot of support. Please see these reports from McKeown’s employer, CBC: > **[CBC Archives](https://www.cbc.ca/archives)** > > CBC archives - Canada's home for news, sports, lifestyle, comedy, arts, kids, music, original series & more. Especially the section called, “Supplying the war machine” ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/276 "2005-02-06T00:28:00Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > We cannot draw any epistemic conclusion because we don’t know what was in their heads. We can draw metaphysical conclusions only — what it is possible for them to have been thinking. This is, of course, complete bullshit. It is perfectly reasonable to draw inferences about what they were thinking based on the context of their comments. In fact, _you are drawing inferences about what McKeown was thinking too_. You are insisting that he did not intend his comments to be implicitly qualified. Everyone else in this thread thinks that it’s blazingly obvious that he did intend his comments to be implicitly qualified in the same fashion that Coulter’s statement was implicitly qualified. You have no evidence whatsoever for your interpretation of what he said beyond that it would be the default interpretation of the literal meaning of his words if they were completely contextless. But since every contextual element in the entire exchange supports the interpretation everyone else sees, it just obstinacy on your part that keeps you rejecting it. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/277 "2005-02-06T00:33:42Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > This is, of course, complete bullshit. It is perfectly reasonable to draw inferences about what they were thinking based on the context of their comments. In fact, _you are drawing inferences about what McKeown was thinking too_. You are insisting that he did not intend his comments to be implicitly qualified. Everyone else in this thread thinks that it’s blazingly obvious that he did intend his comments to be implicitly qualified in the same fashion that Coulter’s statement was implicitly qualified. You have no evidence whatsoever for your interpretation of what he said beyond that it would be the default interpretation of the literal meaning of his words if they were completely contextless. But since every contextual element in the entire exchange supports the interpretation everyone else sees, it just obstinacy on your part that keeps you rejecting it. First of all, it isn’t _everyone_ else. John Mace agreed with me. Second, even if it were, it would mean nothing. Third, McKeown had every element necessary to qualify his point if he wished — the knowledge, the opportunity, the venue. He even had a post-interview, last-word, stage all to himself on which to clarify what he meant. He never did. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/278 "2005-02-06T00:33:46Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > That’s the sort of evidence that I would find compelling, but I don’t see it. He made six statements during the interview — all categorical denials. He made a statement after the interview, which was nothing more than a final shot. Can you give a good reason why a man of his journalistic integrity would fail at every single opportunity to correct the record and report the facts? I don’t get this. If you posit that Ann was talking about sending battalions the first time she mentioned it (and I believe you have indeed posited such), and he refutes her, don’t you think he’s refuting the battalions? If she tries again to make her point about sending battalions, and he refutes her again, don’t you think he’s still refuting battalions? If she tries a third time, by telling him, “I think you’re wrong,” isn’t she still talking about the battalions? When he denies that he’s wrong, isn’t he still talking about the battalions? No matter how many times they have the back in forth, “You’re wrong,” “No, _you’re_ wrong,” isn’t the issue still about battalions? Why would he suddenly be talking about anything else but battalions when that’s all that Ann is talking about? Why do you think the denials suddenly become categorical when the issue has been battalions the whole time? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/279 "2005-02-06T00:41:02Z")
> [@Stricker van Gogh](#): > > I don’t get this. > > If you posit that Ann was talking about sending battalions the first time she mentioned it (and I believe you have indeed posited such), and he refutes her, don’t you think he’s refuting the battalions? > > If she tries again to make her point about sending battalions, and he refutes her again, don’t you think he’s still refuting battalions? > > If she tries a third time, by telling him, “I think you’re wrong,” isn’t she still talking about the battalions? When he denies that he’s wrong, isn’t he still talking about the battalions? > > No matter how many times they have the back in forth, “You’re wrong,” “No, _you’re_ wrong,” isn’t the issue still about battalions? Why would he suddenly be talking about anything else but battalions when that’s all that Ann is talking about? Why do you think the denials suddenly become categorical when the issue has been battalions the whole time? I understand what you mean, and that would be quite a compelling argument indeed were it not the case that I also posited that they were talking past one another. He probably did know what she meant, but remarkably, he chose to make a game of it, rather than pin her down with something like, “You mean when our tiny contingent attended your ceasefire ceremony?” ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956/280 "2005-02-06T00:41:30Z")
Seperate issue, **Lib.** Try this: “The United States supported Saddam Hussein’s pogrom against the Kurds. After all, they sent troops to Halabja.” “The United States categorically did not support Hussein’s attempted genocide of Iraqi Kurds.” “[I’m sorry, but that is completely false. Even without sending batallions, it sent quite a lot of support.](http://www.politrix.org/foia/iraq/gov-sponsored.shtml)” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/want-to-see-ann-coulter-get-fucking-owned-on-canadian-tv/287956.md?page=15)