Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Michelle debates which sex is smarter on O’Reilly

Video: Michelle debates which sex is smarter on O’Reilly

posted at 9:35 pm on September 18, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view

Res ipsa loquitur.

Topics for discussion. Topic 1: Krazy Keith Olbermann pinched off his fourth “special comment” in three weeks tonight opposite O’R on MSNBC, and proved once again that his douche-itude is of such mass as possibly to affect the tides, or even to draw small cosmic objects into orbit around him. Johnny Dollar’s just posted the recap. If you want it straight from the horse’s ass, head over to Olby’s MSNBC blog and read the transcript. As predictable as the, well, tides, he’s seized on Bush’s remark that it’s “unacceptable” to think America’s treatment of prisoners overseas is morally equivalent to terrorism as proof that Bush believes it’s “unacceptable to think,” period. And thus a chill wind blows, etc. This, while Olby’s “new” book of recycled hit pieces from his show has cracked the top 100 on Amazon. What a preening, amoral, insufferably disingenuous jerkoff. As Johnny says,

Smugness (“Mister” Bush), phony outrage (“frightening”, “dangerous”), and stale guilt-by-association smears (“Richard Nixon”) do not make for heroic journalism. They are the tools of demagogues, tricksters, and propagandists. And they are at heart un-American, as is Herr Olbermann’s “special comment”.

So that’s topic 1. Topic 2: We haven’t worshipped at the altar of the lovely KP in awhile, so I’ll throw it open for debate. Girl next door or supervamp?

There are no wrong answers here.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

JackLewis.net

Comments

Comment pages: « Previous 1 2

Yeah, Sister Toldjah totally rocks huh! I’ll take you at your word Entelechy and assume I’m misunderstanding the situation. I was willing to let it go, but my ‘damsel in distress’ button got pressed, and I can’t turn the danged thing off, even when it misfires. No doubt tiekitwist can handle things herself, but as I said, button pressed… I’ll bow out of this conversation, much like I said I would in my second to last post. Maybe this time I’ll mean it :)

Oh dear. I knew I shouldn’t have mentioned that site, since it seriously detracts from my ability to claim that I’m rational. I think it’s been hacked or something. Yeah, I’m going with that. Hackers!!!!!

Kevin M on September 20, 2006 at 12:16 AM

Jeez,

Here we have an issue of gender differences in IQ and nobody talks about it. All you do is drool over two beautiful (and very bright) women. So let me say four things:

1: If I remember correctly, women used to score higher on IQ tests and in the 1930s psychologists solved that problem by removing those items in which women performed better than men.

2: Even if an innate difference of 4 points existed, it would not mean all men are smarter than women. IQ is normal curved. If you drew verlapping curves based upon the reported data, you would find about 40% of women would still be smarter than 50% of men.

3: Within 1/2 a standard IQ deviation (which is typically 15 points) there is no measureable real-world advantage. For one reason, other factors are also important. To wit, women are more likely to seek degrees than men are: currently, there are more women than men in college, getting degrees, graduate degrees, and doctorates. Furthermore, such formal training increases what is called “crystalized” intelligence. So if the study had looked at older individuals it might have found women somewhat more intelligent than men.

4. There are many valuable life skills not measured by IQ tests. Creativity, for example. And for some of these, such as reading non-verbal behaviors, women usually do better than men.

So, in short, as far as I can see, this IQ research finding is much ado about virtually nothing.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on September 20, 2006 at 1:19 AM

No one’s asking you to apologize for being a man, Pablo. We’re just asking you to act like one. You might take your own words, “Grow up” to heart. Picking on ladies (as I believe tiekitwist is, apologies if I’m wrong) is not a sign of being a man. Just a FYI.

I’m a firm believer in equality, Kevin. I will not “pull punches” with a woman in debate because I won’t condescend to her ability to engage. I suggest that you read the quote again:

To the “conservative woman” who replied to me stating clearly (and I agree with wytammic, rather desperately) that you like it when your men act heterosexual, I say drop that crap like a hot potato. When you start saying things like that, you’re implying that rape is just a man acting heterosexual.

And note that “When you say things like that…” refers to BlueStateBlues’ comment:

I love men when they are men: intelligent, funny, witty, tough, and unashamed to be heterosexual.

So, men being men = men being rapists. Welcome to NOW, and don’t enjoy your stay, you patriarchal pig. They’re going Duluth, from here and they’re not looking back. And we men will just shut up because, well…we’re rapists, who cares what we think?

This is a social disease that’s been creeping into our society for 40+ years and tiekitwist has been kind enough to drop a letter perfect example of it into our laps. You want to defend that, good luck to you. I’m going to condemn it in strong terms whenever I see it.

Meanwhile,

What bothers me most is not that Pablo made those remarks, but that others like BlueStateBlues agreed with the attack.

Which remarks were those that you have a problem with, Kevin? Please quote them. I see a Khomeni quote about having fun and some lighthearted snark in response to a couple of people telling Allah how to run this blog. What do you see?

Pablo on September 20, 2006 at 6:02 AM

tiekitwist tells BlueStateBlues:

I don’t really enjoy repeating myself, but that is a gross misinterpretation of what I said.

Direct quote = gross misrepresentation.

Whoops, sorry. Didn’t mean to pick on you, honey! Are you gonna be OK?

Pablo on September 20, 2006 at 6:07 AM

Pablo says,

sorry

Apology accepted! I’m sure I’m not misinterpreting you, since it’s a direct quote.

Kevin M on September 20, 2006 at 12:15 PM

Unfortunately Kevin, I wasn’t speaking to you when I said it. I was addressing your damsel in distress, who I surely harmed with my evil pixels on her pure, innocent screen. I offered an apology precisely as valid as the offense, to her not you. A bit of reading comprehension would do you a world of good.

Now, where are those quotes of things that I said which compelled you to mount an attack of you own, sir?

Pablo on September 20, 2006 at 12:36 PM

Direct quote. They can’t be misinterpreted as you made clear a comment ago. Apology still accepted :). Or, are you saying that it’s possible that “Direct quote = gross misrepresentation”?

I’d be willing to agree with you on that one. But I’m accepting your apology, regardless.

Kevin M on September 20, 2006 at 1:01 PM

Or, are you saying that it’s possible that “Direct quote = gross misrepresentation”?

No, I’m saying “You have a comprehension problem.”

Instead of doing this little moron dance, why don’t you try defending your adored’s quote and perhaps providing those of mine which offended you so?

Please, quote me.

Pablo on September 20, 2006 at 1:12 PM

I already did that 4 comments ago Pablo. You chose to ignore it and continue “this little moron dance” of yours, so I decided to play on your terms and make the moron dance a duo. I know it’s silly and pointless, and not very funny. Maybe now you know it as well.

But I still accept your apology. No hard feelings, huh?

Kevin M on September 20, 2006 at 1:34 PM

I already did that 4 comments ago Pablo.

No, you said:

I have to say that I mistakenly assumed that when the attack on tiekitwist began, most clear thinkers would make a request for the infighting to stop. Guess I was wrong. What bothers me most is not that Pablo made those remarks, but that others like BlueStateBlues agreed with the attack. Entelechy even suggested Pablo’s comments were so funny that (jokingly) she’d marry him. This is the response, rather than noting that his statements have no argumentative substance and since it is less humorous than just rude, and should be deplored by clear thinkers on the right? Something’s wrong here.

You don’t adress a whit of substance, nor a word either of us said. You don’t like my remarks and you like tiekitwist’s. I get that, Now, I’d like to know which remarks of mine you didn’t like and why, as well as what you find so reasonable about tiekitwists comparison of behavior such as Allah’s virtual flirtations with rape.

Show me my “flippantly non-factual remars”. Show me my statements that have “no argumentative substance and since it is less humorous than just rude, and should be deplored by clear thinkers on the right”.

Come on, buddy. Put up or shut up.

Pablo on September 20, 2006 at 2:10 PM

Good Lord! You actually read my comment and still couldn’t find where I quoted you twice? I’m unsure how to help you find them. Look for the quotation marks? Your words are in between them. If that doesn’t help you find them, then you are on your own :(

Kevin M on September 20, 2006 at 2:23 PM

We should probably stop this now. I’ll give you the last word. And accept your apology.

Kevin M on September 20, 2006 at 2:24 PM

You’re talking about this?

Or, are you saying that it’s possible that “Direct quote = gross misrepresentation”?

You need to go back to where you decided to open your yap and stick your foot in it, cupcake. Harken back to when you decided to take my name in vain. And you do not have my apology, only my disdain for weak argument fu, and your absolute lack of honor.