Oldbear83 said:
Looks like "Free Speech Week" (as they advertised it) was 6 months ago.
The little mobbies should have planned better.
Saying "yes" to a really simple question would not have derailed the topic at all.90sBear said:Just for you and to help keep this thread from getting derailed because that's rude to everyone else who wants to stay on topic:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He is saying I'm right only because I "say so". So I'm reminding him of a past debate where I asked him: "if a hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains 'x'?"D. C. Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's a ONE WORD answer. So it required even less words than what you just posted right here. Nice try.90sBear said:Oh well. I offered.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Likely excuse. In lesser words than what you just posted, you could have easily answered it. I don't need to create a whole other thread for it, the question is right before you now. You balked. I've proven my point.90sBear said:I won't because I'm not going to derail this thread. However, if you would like I will create another thread later where I will respond to that question.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, that's why you couldn't answer the question there, just as you are completely unable to answer them here. If you disagree, then prove me wrong - answer it: if a certain hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains "x"?90sBear said:Yeah you quoted logic in that thread about as well as you quoted law in this one. But I remember you won! (Because you said so).BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yes, yes, I'm SO wrong, that you are completely unable to argue why.90sBear said:Yes, yes, you are right (because you say so). Even though you don't cite any laws and say other people are lying when they do.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I've asked you repeatedly - did I have sufficient cause for it, or no?90sBear said:
Go back to accusing people of lying since you don't want to talk about thread topic anymore.
The fact that you won't answer says it all, and that your argument against me has failed. Go away.
Toodles.
"Toodles" is exactly what you said when you argued with me for 2 pages about absolute vs. relative truth and later realized you had been proven wrong.
You won't, and we all will know why.
What exactly was the question?
The only correct answer is "yes". The above is a tautology. Logically, tautologies are always true no matter what, therefore they are absolute truths. His answer, however, was that it is a relative truth. I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right, and it was based on logic and reason, NOT simply "because I said so".
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/139135/replies/3728867
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Saying "yes" to a really simple question would not have derailed the topic at all.90sBear said:Just for you and to help keep this thread from getting derailed because that's rude to everyone else who wants to stay on topic:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He is saying I'm right only because I "say so". So I'm reminding him of a past debate where I asked him: "if a hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains 'x'?"D. C. Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's a ONE WORD answer. So it required even less words than what you just posted right here. Nice try.90sBear said:Oh well. I offered.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Likely excuse. In lesser words than what you just posted, you could have easily answered it. I don't need to create a whole other thread for it, the question is right before you now. You balked. I've proven my point.90sBear said:I won't because I'm not going to derail this thread. However, if you would like I will create another thread later where I will respond to that question.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, that's why you couldn't answer the question there, just as you are completely unable to answer them here. If you disagree, then prove me wrong - answer it: if a certain hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains "x"?90sBear said:Yeah you quoted logic in that thread about as well as you quoted law in this one. But I remember you won! (Because you said so).BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yes, yes, I'm SO wrong, that you are completely unable to argue why.90sBear said:Yes, yes, you are right (because you say so). Even though you don't cite any laws and say other people are lying when they do.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I've asked you repeatedly - did I have sufficient cause for it, or no?90sBear said:
Go back to accusing people of lying since you don't want to talk about thread topic anymore.
The fact that you won't answer says it all, and that your argument against me has failed. Go away.
Toodles.
"Toodles" is exactly what you said when you argued with me for 2 pages about absolute vs. relative truth and later realized you had been proven wrong.
You won't, and we all will know why.
What exactly was the question?
The only correct answer is "yes". The above is a tautology. Logically, tautologies are always true no matter what, therefore they are absolute truths. His answer, however, was that it is a relative truth. I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right, and it was based on logic and reason, NOT simply "because I said so".
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/139135/replies/3728867
Columbia student’s “Epstein worked for Mossad” sign has enraged Israeli supporters to the point they’re trying to climb a 20 ft fence and raid campus themselves pic.twitter.com/MEGP1r3mT1
— Jeremy Loffredo (@loffredojeremy) April 26, 2024
ShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago...
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied...
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
I dont think the universities have been shutting down Shapiro and Coulter. Its antifa and violent commie students that riot and shut them down. The schools cant afford the security it takes to have those speakers come.ShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago.
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied. Any students who illegally started or participated in such a racist event would be arrested and most likely expelled from campus.
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
So if a university can ban KKK rallies because the KKK is a hateful, racist, terrorist group; why can't they do the same for the hateful, racist, terrorist Hamas/Gaza groups?
This isn't some watershed moment. If anything, it is remarkably consistent.
ShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago.
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied. Any students who illegally started or participated in such a racist event would be arrested and most likely expelled from campus.
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
So if a university can ban KKK rallies because the KKK is a hateful, racist, terrorist group; why can't they do the same for the hateful, racist, terrorist Hamas/Gaza groups?
This isn't some watershed moment. If anything, it is remarkably consistent.
Harrison Bergeron said:I was being slightly tongue in cheek ... realize completely lost online.Frank Galvin said:Harrison Bergeron said:Have to find a way to BLAME TRUMP!Frank Galvin said:My personal opinion is that Hamas chose now to start the war in part because it did not like the thawing of Israel's relatinonship witht he rest of the Arab world. It needed to provoke Israel to kill more Arabs.Wangchung said:But will they try again? Or just keep using Hamas to do their dirty work through terrorism and propaganda wars?Frank Galvin said:Its irrelevant because it is not going to happen.Wangchung said:My recollection is that the countries surrounding Israel aren't too fond of them, either...Frank Galvin said:I agree. That is not the same as the people that live there. Hamas contends that Palestine should self-rule the territory. It does not cotned that all Jews should die.Wangchung said:
The "From the river to the sea" chant is about wiping Israel off the map.
Huh?
Why would that be Trump's fault? I give him props for his Mideast work while being uncomfortable with his celebrating the Saudi's given their brutality on human rights issues.
I won't go this far. Most of these kids don't even know what they are protesting about.ShooterTX said:boognish_bear said:🚨#BREAKING: Snipers have been spotted on top of roofs at Ohio and Indiana universities as pro-Palestine protests causing a uproar ⁰⁰📌#Ohio | #Indiana
— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) April 26, 2024
As dozens of protests break out across the United States at numerous universities, students and protesters have reported… pic.twitter.com/q8kAj9KkJP
May they shoot straight, and never run out of ammo!
100%. It is dangerous to eve discuss. Anyone should be allow to say, sign or make a sign that says "Kill the Jews." The problem is when they start attacking the Jews or preventing others to freely move about on campus, in public, on roads, etc., as well as "occupying" public spaces. I am 100% for free speech but I do not support the SCOTUS precedent that other physical activities is "speech." Speech is words, verbal or written. It is not physical activity.Frank Galvin said:ShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago.
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied. Any students who illegally started or participated in such a racist event would be arrested and most likely expelled from campus.
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
So if a university can ban KKK rallies because the KKK is a hateful, racist, terrorist group; why can't they do the same for the hateful, racist, terrorist Hamas/Gaza groups?
This isn't some watershed moment. If anything, it is remarkably consistent.
There is a difference between not hosting a speaker and putting a speaker in jail based on the content of their speech. Not speaking for anyone else but my point has been remarkably simple.
We should not be arresting people for the content of what they say. Trespass, obstruction, disorderly, assault, etc. I have no problem with.
Even more remarkable is the number of alleged conservatives who disagree and think the content of the speech (ie anti-semitism) alone justifies criminal penalty.
muddybrazos said:I dont think the universities have been shutting down Shapiro and Coulter. Its antifa and violent commie students that riot and shut them down. The schools cant afford the security it takes to have those speakers come.ShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago.
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied. Any students who illegally started or participated in such a racist event would be arrested and most likely expelled from campus.
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
So if a university can ban KKK rallies because the KKK is a hateful, racist, terrorist group; why can't they do the same for the hateful, racist, terrorist Hamas/Gaza groups?
This isn't some watershed moment. If anything, it is remarkably consistent.
True, but is it worth it for a school to have **** set on fire and a full scale battle on the campus? Remember back in the early Trump days when there were literal battles on Berkeley campus? Based Stick man was out there fighting commies with make shift swords. All of those proud boys that were there battling antifa are all in prison but antifa is still there doing their thing.nein51 said:muddybrazos said:I dont think the universities have been shutting down Shapiro and Coulter. Its antifa and violent commie students that riot and shut them down. The schools cant afford the security it takes to have those speakers come.ShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago.
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied. Any students who illegally started or participated in such a racist event would be arrested and most likely expelled from campus.
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
So if a university can ban KKK rallies because the KKK is a hateful, racist, terrorist group; why can't they do the same for the hateful, racist, terrorist Hamas/Gaza groups?
This isn't some watershed moment. If anything, it is remarkably consistent.
Distinction without difference.
And they could definitely afford the security if they wanted to. They don't. And it's easier to just "aw, bummer".
muddybrazos said:I dont think the universities have been shutting down Shapiro and Coulter. Its antifa and violent commie students that riot and shut them down. The schools cant afford the security it takes to have those speakers come.ShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago.
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied. Any students who illegally started or participated in such a racist event would be arrested and most likely expelled from campus.
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
So if a university can ban KKK rallies because the KKK is a hateful, racist, terrorist group; why can't they do the same for the hateful, racist, terrorist Hamas/Gaza groups?
This isn't some watershed moment. If anything, it is remarkably consistent.
Frank Galvin said:ShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago.
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied. Any students who illegally started or participated in such a racist event would be arrested and most likely expelled from campus.
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
So if a university can ban KKK rallies because the KKK is a hateful, racist, terrorist group; why can't they do the same for the hateful, racist, terrorist Hamas/Gaza groups?
This isn't some watershed moment. If anything, it is remarkably consistent.
There is a difference between not hosting a speaker and putting a speaker in jail based on the content of their speech. Not speaking for anyone else but my point has been remarkably simple.
We should not be arresting people for the content of what they say. Trespass, obstruction, disorderly, assault, etc. I have no problem with.
Even more remarkable is the number of alleged conservatives who disagree and think the content of the speech (ie anti-semitism) alone justifies criminal penalty.
Well, you and I are talking about 2 different things here. I'm talking about conservative speakers not being able to come to a campus bc of antifa rioters. I dont know who had to pick up the tab for the cops and troopers to run out protesters. I dont know if these protesters actually broke the laws so I will just defer to Frank Galvin on that.ShooterTX said:muddybrazos said:I dont think the universities have been shutting down Shapiro and Coulter. Its antifa and violent commie students that riot and shut them down. The schools cant afford the security it takes to have those speakers come.ShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago.
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied. Any students who illegally started or participated in such a racist event would be arrested and most likely expelled from campus.
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
So if a university can ban KKK rallies because the KKK is a hateful, racist, terrorist group; why can't they do the same for the hateful, racist, terrorist Hamas/Gaza groups?
This isn't some watershed moment. If anything, it is remarkably consistent.
So how much money did UT spend to have the DPS arrest the protestors?
This is a BS argument. The universities are not required to pay the cops for enforcing the law. It is just a convenient excuse to ban certain groups. Antifa always acts in violation of the law... always. So any university could easily dail 911 as soon as they see the thugs arriving. They just don't want to arrest Antifa, as many of them are professors, family members and students.
Enforce the laws. Arrest them and charge them with terrorist and hate crime charges. Have them serve REAL jail time... and this crap will dissolve very quickly. We know that many of them are traveling all over the nation, from violent protest to violent protest. So lock them up for years, and see how quickly Antifa dissolves.
Yes, universities ban the KKK from campus and they should. No, KKK's anti-semtic speech is not criminal. Instead, it is protected by the First Amendment.ShooterTX said:Frank Galvin said:ShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago.
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied. Any students who illegally started or participated in such a racist event would be arrested and most likely expelled from campus.
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
So if a university can ban KKK rallies because the KKK is a hateful, racist, terrorist group; why can't they do the same for the hateful, racist, terrorist Hamas/Gaza groups?
This isn't some watershed moment. If anything, it is remarkably consistent.
There is a difference between not hosting a speaker and putting a speaker in jail based on the content of their speech. Not speaking for anyone else but my point has been remarkably simple.
We should not be arresting people for the content of what they say. Trespass, obstruction, disorderly, assault, etc. I have no problem with.
Even more remarkable is the number of alleged conservatives who disagree and think the content of the speech (ie anti-semitism) alone justifies criminal penalty.
Their speech is a call to violence.
"Death to America" is both a call to violence and a terroristic threat.
If 10 people surrounded you on the street and chanted "Death to Frank Galvin"... you KNOW that it would be a call to violence and a terroristic threat... or would you need to wait until they violently attacked you?
"From the river to the sea" is another call to violence and a terroristic threat. We have already seen examples of these groups attacking Jewish people, which just proves that their speech is a call to violence against Jewish Americans.
If none of this is accurate, then why are all of these universities telling Jewish students that they cannot protect them? Why are these schools shutting down classes and graduation ceremonies? Obviously, these Hamas lovers are a terroristic & violent threat to normal people... otherwise there would be no need to shut down the campus.
Again, this is no different than banning the KKK from a campus... except they are calling for violence against ALL Americans, not just Black Americans.
muddybrazos said:True, but is it worth it for a school to have **** set on fire and a full scale battle on the campus? Remember back in the early Trump days when there were literal battles on Berkeley campus? Based Stick man was out there fighting commies with make shift swords. All of those proud boys that were there battling antifa are all in prison but antifa is still there doing their thing.nein51 said:muddybrazos said:I dont think the universities have been shutting down Shapiro and Coulter. Its antifa and violent commie students that riot and shut them down. The schools cant afford the security it takes to have those speakers come.ShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago.
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied. Any students who illegally started or participated in such a racist event would be arrested and most likely expelled from campus.
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
So if a university can ban KKK rallies because the KKK is a hateful, racist, terrorist group; why can't they do the same for the hateful, racist, terrorist Hamas/Gaza groups?
This isn't some watershed moment. If anything, it is remarkably consistent.
Distinction without difference.
And they could definitely afford the security if they wanted to. They don't. And it's easier to just "aw, bummer".
I hope the pendulum swings back the other way and we can start locking up these communist agitators. That will probably never happen in Cali, though.
Yea, this has to be the dumbest ideology this administration has taken, and they have taken a bunch of them.Wangchung said:
According to the Biden administration white supremacists are the number one threat to America and they HATE democrats, therefor, out of safety concerns for the nation, we shouldn't allow democrats to hold office or campaign. You know, for safety...
To be fair the Obama administration was pushing this stuff as well.Forest Bueller_bf said:Yea, this has to be the dumbest ideology this administration has taken, and they have taken a bunch of them.Wangchung said:
According to the Biden administration white supremacists are the number one threat to America and they HATE democrats, therefor, out of safety concerns for the nation, we shouldn't allow democrats to hold office or campaign. You know, for safety...
We can, have, and should arrest people for what they say. I don't know why this is even a debate or controversial.Frank Galvin said:ShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago.
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied. Any students who illegally started or participated in such a racist event would be arrested and most likely expelled from campus.
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
So if a university can ban KKK rallies because the KKK is a hateful, racist, terrorist group; why can't they do the same for the hateful, racist, terrorist Hamas/Gaza groups?
This isn't some watershed moment. If anything, it is remarkably consistent.
There is a difference between not hosting a speaker and putting a speaker in jail based on the content of their speech. Not speaking for anyone else but my point has been remarkably simple.
We should not be arresting people for the content of what they say. Trespass, obstruction, disorderly, assault, etc. I have no problem with.
Even more remarkable is the number of alleged conservatives who disagree and think the content of the speech (ie anti-semitism) alone justifies criminal penalty.
The University of Florida, not messing around when it comes to protests. Love this. Content neutral policies on protected speech and what is permitted on campus. Violate them and the consequences are severe. This is how it’s done. Dare I say, #gogators pic.twitter.com/SP1nrdm9Zk
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) April 26, 2024
I don't understand why people have difficulty grasping this.ShooterTX said:Frank Galvin said:ShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago.
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied. Any students who illegally started or participated in such a racist event would be arrested and most likely expelled from campus.
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
So if a university can ban KKK rallies because the KKK is a hateful, racist, terrorist group; why can't they do the same for the hateful, racist, terrorist Hamas/Gaza groups?
This isn't some watershed moment. If anything, it is remarkably consistent.
There is a difference between not hosting a speaker and putting a speaker in jail based on the content of their speech. Not speaking for anyone else but my point has been remarkably simple.
We should not be arresting people for the content of what they say. Trespass, obstruction, disorderly, assault, etc. I have no problem with.
Even more remarkable is the number of alleged conservatives who disagree and think the content of the speech (ie anti-semitism) alone justifies criminal penalty.
Their speech is a call to violence.
"Death to America" is both a call to violence and a terroristic threat.
If 10 people surrounded you on the street and chanted "Death to Frank Galvin"... you KNOW that it would be a call to violence and a terroristic threat... or would you need to wait until they violently attacked you?
"From the river to the sea" is another call to violence and a terroristic threat. We have already seen examples of these groups attacking Jewish people, which just proves that their speech is a call to violence against Jewish Americans.
If none of this is accurate, then why are all of these universities telling Jewish students that they cannot protect them? Why are these schools shutting down classes and graduation ceremonies? Obviously, these Hamas lovers are a terroristic & violent threat to normal people... otherwise there would be no need to shut down the campus.
Again, this is no different than banning the KKK from a campus... except they are calling for violence against ALL Americans, not just Black Americans.
I think a rational argument would be the KKK has 0 good people and these protestors have at least some good people although sightly confusedShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago.
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied. Any students who illegally started or participated in such a racist event would be arrested and most likely expelled from campus.
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
So if a university can ban KKK rallies because the KKK is a hateful, racist, terrorist group; why can't they do the same for the hateful, racist, terrorist Hamas/Gaza groups?
This isn't some watershed moment. If anything, it is remarkably consistent.
We certainly can and have. Being enthusiastic about the should is terrifying. They arrested Galileo for the heresy that the sun, rather than the earth, was the center of the solar system.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:We can, have, and should arrest people for what they say. I don't know why this is even a debate or controversial.Frank Galvin said:ShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago.
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied. Any students who illegally started or participated in such a racist event would be arrested and most likely expelled from campus.
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
So if a university can ban KKK rallies because the KKK is a hateful, racist, terrorist group; why can't they do the same for the hateful, racist, terrorist Hamas/Gaza groups?
This isn't some watershed moment. If anything, it is remarkably consistent.
There is a difference between not hosting a speaker and putting a speaker in jail based on the content of their speech. Not speaking for anyone else but my point has been remarkably simple.
We should not be arresting people for the content of what they say. Trespass, obstruction, disorderly, assault, etc. I have no problem with.
Even more remarkable is the number of alleged conservatives who disagree and think the content of the speech (ie anti-semitism) alone justifies criminal penalty.
Because they like freedom?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I don't understand why people have difficulty grasping this.ShooterTX said:Frank Galvin said:ShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago.
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied. Any students who illegally started or participated in such a racist event would be arrested and most likely expelled from campus.
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
So if a university can ban KKK rallies because the KKK is a hateful, racist, terrorist group; why can't they do the same for the hateful, racist, terrorist Hamas/Gaza groups?
This isn't some watershed moment. If anything, it is remarkably consistent.
There is a difference between not hosting a speaker and putting a speaker in jail based on the content of their speech. Not speaking for anyone else but my point has been remarkably simple.
We should not be arresting people for the content of what they say. Trespass, obstruction, disorderly, assault, etc. I have no problem with.
Even more remarkable is the number of alleged conservatives who disagree and think the content of the speech (ie anti-semitism) alone justifies criminal penalty.
Their speech is a call to violence.
"Death to America" is both a call to violence and a terroristic threat.
If 10 people surrounded you on the street and chanted "Death to Frank Galvin"... you KNOW that it would be a call to violence and a terroristic threat... or would you need to wait until they violently attacked you?
"From the river to the sea" is another call to violence and a terroristic threat. We have already seen examples of these groups attacking Jewish people, which just proves that their speech is a call to violence against Jewish Americans.
If none of this is accurate, then why are all of these universities telling Jewish students that they cannot protect them? Why are these schools shutting down classes and graduation ceremonies? Obviously, these Hamas lovers are a terroristic & violent threat to normal people... otherwise there would be no need to shut down the campus.
Again, this is no different than banning the KKK from a campus... except they are calling for violence against ALL Americans, not just Black Americans.
Unhinged UCLA Professor getting schooled by Jewish student.
— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) April 26, 2024
Her idiocy and hypocrisy is astounding.
pic.twitter.com/rt5mEXBDkR
ron.reagan said:I think a rational argument would be the KKK has 0 good people and these protestors have at least some good people although sightly confusedShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago.
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied. Any students who illegally started or participated in such a racist event would be arrested and most likely expelled from campus.
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
So if a university can ban KKK rallies because the KKK is a hateful, racist, terrorist group; why can't they do the same for the hateful, racist, terrorist Hamas/Gaza groups?
This isn't some watershed moment. If anything, it is remarkably consistent.
They like the freedom to threaten but when they are threatened in return it's the end of the world. Hell, imagine telling one of the protestors you have the freedom to misgender them. Woooo boy, that becomes a public mental breakdown.Frank Galvin said:Because they like freedom?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I don't understand why people have difficulty grasping this.ShooterTX said:Frank Galvin said:ShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago.
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied. Any students who illegally started or participated in such a racist event would be arrested and most likely expelled from campus.
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
So if a university can ban KKK rallies because the KKK is a hateful, racist, terrorist group; why can't they do the same for the hateful, racist, terrorist Hamas/Gaza groups?
This isn't some watershed moment. If anything, it is remarkably consistent.
There is a difference between not hosting a speaker and putting a speaker in jail based on the content of their speech. Not speaking for anyone else but my point has been remarkably simple.
We should not be arresting people for the content of what they say. Trespass, obstruction, disorderly, assault, etc. I have no problem with.
Even more remarkable is the number of alleged conservatives who disagree and think the content of the speech (ie anti-semitism) alone justifies criminal penalty.
Their speech is a call to violence.
"Death to America" is both a call to violence and a terroristic threat.
If 10 people surrounded you on the street and chanted "Death to Frank Galvin"... you KNOW that it would be a call to violence and a terroristic threat... or would you need to wait until they violently attacked you?
"From the river to the sea" is another call to violence and a terroristic threat. We have already seen examples of these groups attacking Jewish people, which just proves that their speech is a call to violence against Jewish Americans.
If none of this is accurate, then why are all of these universities telling Jewish students that they cannot protect them? Why are these schools shutting down classes and graduation ceremonies? Obviously, these Hamas lovers are a terroristic & violent threat to normal people... otherwise there would be no need to shut down the campus.
Again, this is no different than banning the KKK from a campus... except they are calling for violence against ALL Americans, not just Black Americans.
D. C. Bear said:ron.reagan said:I think a rational argument would be the KKK has 0 good people and these protestors have at least some good people although sightly confusedShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago.
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied. Any students who illegally started or participated in such a racist event would be arrested and most likely expelled from campus.
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
So if a university can ban KKK rallies because the KKK is a hateful, racist, terrorist group; why can't they do the same for the hateful, racist, terrorist Hamas/Gaza groups?
This isn't some watershed moment. If anything, it is remarkably consistent.
That's not a rational argument.
Reps. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) and Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) plan to introduce the COLUMBIA Act, a bill that would create "antisemitism monitors" at select colleges.https://t.co/1J6Y43TTHP
— Axios (@axios) April 26, 2024
It's kind of funny, but they are not so different.muddybrazos said:Well, you and I are talking about 2 different things here. I'm talking about conservative speakers not being able to come to a campus bc of antifa rioters. I dont know who had to pick up the tab for the cops and troopers to run out protesters. I dont know if these protesters actually broke the laws so I will just defer to Frank Galvin on that.ShooterTX said:muddybrazos said:I dont think the universities have been shutting down Shapiro and Coulter. Its antifa and violent commie students that riot and shut them down. The schools cant afford the security it takes to have those speakers come.ShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago.
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied. Any students who illegally started or participated in such a racist event would be arrested and most likely expelled from campus.
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
So if a university can ban KKK rallies because the KKK is a hateful, racist, terrorist group; why can't they do the same for the hateful, racist, terrorist Hamas/Gaza groups?
This isn't some watershed moment. If anything, it is remarkably consistent.
So how much money did UT spend to have the DPS arrest the protestors?
This is a BS argument. The universities are not required to pay the cops for enforcing the law. It is just a convenient excuse to ban certain groups. Antifa always acts in violation of the law... always. So any university could easily dail 911 as soon as they see the thugs arriving. They just don't want to arrest Antifa, as many of them are professors, family members and students.
Enforce the laws. Arrest them and charge them with terrorist and hate crime charges. Have them serve REAL jail time... and this crap will dissolve very quickly. We know that many of them are traveling all over the nation, from violent protest to violent protest. So lock them up for years, and see how quickly Antifa dissolves.
Maybe in communist Russia you have rights to do what you want on private property, but not in the US.Redbrickbear said:D. C. Bear said:ron.reagan said:I think a rational argument would be the KKK has 0 good people and these protestors have at least some good people although sightly confusedShooterTX said:
This is all very interesting.
Many here keep talking about free speech, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that most universities abandon free speech decades ago.
If a group wanted to hold a KKK protest on campus, it would be denied. Any students who illegally started or participated in such a racist event would be arrested and most likely expelled from campus.
The reality is that universities have been shutting down certain types of speech for many years now. Just look at what happens when Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, or others on the right are invited to speak at Berkley.
So if a university can ban KKK rallies because the KKK is a hateful, racist, terrorist group; why can't they do the same for the hateful, racist, terrorist Hamas/Gaza groups?
This isn't some watershed moment. If anything, it is remarkably consistent.
That's not a rational argument.
It is in ron's trotskyite world view.
"good people" have rights..."bad people" don't
