So....
-
I've already said I don't agree with PC police, and also I'm a bit ambivalent about what he said too. I think that it would be fine to say among friends, but is questionable if he says it in his official position, unless he backs it up with evidence. Freedom of speech is great, but there still has to be some limits. I don't know exactly what the limits are, and perhaps they depend on each circumstance. I think we can all agree with the often-cited example of yelling Fire! in a theatre. It might be okay if there really is a fire. A Danish paper can print cartoon about Allah, but could they print an article saying Muslims are descended from apes? Could they print one saying that humans in general are - based on scientific evidence - descended from apes? If you read the linked article, Summers chose to resign because the faculty did not agree with his management style and because people were upset about his comments. It wasn't the comments alone and he wasn't forced out.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Freedom of speech is great, but there still has to be some limits
There are limits and they are clearly defined and very limited. The problem is liberals approach restrictions on speech as basically anything that is opposed to their ideology as in this case. That is NOT free speech. Conservatives are content with true ideology-agnostic speech with restrictions based on local senses of decency (e.g. limitations on public cursing, etc...).
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
f you read the linked article, Summers chose to resign because the faculty did not agree with his management style and because people were upset about his comments. It wasn't the comments alone and he wasn't forced out.
He was forced out. Nobody complained about his management style before he made those comments. They immediately started applying pressure (as this was the only way to oust him) to get him out. The odd thing is that the guy is a liberal. I don't agree with his ideology, but I don't think he should be punished for expressing his viewpoint on something so trivial. Because it didn't comply with the liberal hive mind, though, he was forced out.
-
I've already said I don't agree with PC police, and also I'm a bit ambivalent about what he said too. I think that it would be fine to say among friends, but is questionable if he says it in his official position, unless he backs it up with evidence. Freedom of speech is great, but there still has to be some limits. I don't know exactly what the limits are, and perhaps they depend on each circumstance. I think we can all agree with the often-cited example of yelling Fire! in a theatre. It might be okay if there really is a fire. A Danish paper can print cartoon about Allah, but could they print an article saying Muslims are descended from apes? Could they print one saying that humans in general are - based on scientific evidence - descended from apes? If you read the linked article, Summers chose to resign because the faculty did not agree with his management style and because people were upset about his comments. It wasn't the comments alone and he wasn't forced out.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
I think that it would be fine to say among friends, but is questionable if he says it in his official position, unless he backs it up with evidence.
I believe he was commenting on the evidence and provoking thought is an integral part of his official position. I listened to students as well as graduates of the school comment on the appropriate nature of his comments and of the arrogance of the tenured staff, the same staff that ran him out.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Freedom of speech is great, but there still has to be some limits
oh?
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
If you read the linked article, Summers chose to resign because the faculty did not agree with his management style
Roughly translated, the patients are now running the asylum. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry!
-
They're both unlikely, but the leftists supporting Osama is far more unlikely because there's no motivation for them to do so, and even if they did have a motivation, how did they manage to coordinate their own activities when they don't even had a leader? On the other hand, it's not likely that Bush planned 9/11 with Osama so that he could avenge his father and get some oil. It wouldn't be the least bit surprising for him to take advantage of huge support after 9/11 though.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
They're both unlikely, but the leftists supporting Osama is far more unlikely because there's no motivation for them to do so, and even if they did have a motivation, how did they manage to coordinate their own activities when they don't even had a leader?
Nonsense. Just listen to Osama and various leftist (such as Michael Moore) speak. Their essential anti-American points are virtually indistinquishable. As there is no longer a viable military threat from Communist forces against the US, the left has a powerful vested interest in encourageing violent terrorist operations against the US and other pro-capitalistic centers. Thats motive. When you also consider that the 9/11 terrorists had close ties to various European countries, there are also strong leftist elements in the middle east, it would have extremely easy for them to have conspired and collaborated on a mission that was to both groups mutual advantage. Thats opportunity. Finally, consider that the WTC was exactly the kind of target a committed leftist would have taken out, and that the attack occured 8 months into the administration of a conservative president after a contested election. Thats evidence. On the other hand, all the other side really has for evidence is that Bush has connections in the oil indsutry. That he acted on evidence that was supported by numerous organizations, and that he took out a tyrant who was in violation of numerous UN resolutions and also happened to be in control of large oil supplies. (Could it be that it was the leftist themselves feeding the WMD intelligence to Bush in order to encourage him to attack on a false pretext?) I believe it is entirely possible that the left had some kind of influence of the 9/11 attacks. I think the entire thing may well be an elaborate attempt by the left to advance their agenda. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 17:11 Wednesday 1st March, 2006
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
How can you prove that the left made no efforts to attack Osama?
Why would I need to prove that? It's a statement of my observations. If you disagree, it's your responsibility to prove me wrong.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Bush is an idiot who should not be President, but he's not an enemy. It's not a black and white thing.
So you're saying that we should not have Democracy in the US? I disagree that the left sees Bush as anything other than an enemy. Here's my proof: http://www.moveon.org/[^]. There isn't anything that Bush does that isn't met with irrational contempt and attack from the left. That goes beyond disagreement and becomes pure hatred.
espeir wrote:
Why would I need to prove that? It's a statement of my observations. If you disagree, it's your responsibility to prove me wrong.
I can reply by saying, "I am also stating my observations and it's your responsibility to prove me wrong," but when does that end? You made a statement that the left has made no effort to attack Osama without backing it up. I'm suggesting that you back it up.
espeir wrote:
So you're saying that we should not have Democracy in the US?
I think the US should have a democracy and I understand that Bush was elected, though the elections were not a clear victory. (edit: I'm referring to Florida in the 2000 election and the 'irregularities' in the 2004 election.)
espeir wrote:
there isn't anything that Bush does that isn't met with irrational contempt and attack from the left.
I don't generally agree with Republican presidents in general, but Bush is far, far worse and there's a lot of people who think that way both outside and inside the US.
espeir wrote:
That goes beyond disagreement and becomes pure hatred.
There are wacky extremists on both sides. Try to ignore them.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-- modified at 15:39 Wednesday 1st March, 2006
-
link[^] Why do liberals think it's patriotic to feed Osama Bin Laden with such precious lines like "Bush Lied", but they think it's criminal to protest abortion? Am I misinterpreting the constitution? Should "freedom of speech" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" actually be read as "freedom of liberal speech" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble for liberal causes"?
(1) I can't see in the article linked where "liberals" [quote]think it's criminal to protest abortion[/quote] (trying to block a legal business on moral grounds might be considered Anti-American, though) (2)
espeir wrote:
Why do liberals think it's patriotic to feed Osama Bin Laden with such precious lines like "Bush Lied"
Because "Truth" is a USAmerican value, but "Bush" is not?
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
espeir wrote:
Why would I need to prove that? It's a statement of my observations. If you disagree, it's your responsibility to prove me wrong.
I can reply by saying, "I am also stating my observations and it's your responsibility to prove me wrong," but when does that end? You made a statement that the left has made no effort to attack Osama without backing it up. I'm suggesting that you back it up.
espeir wrote:
So you're saying that we should not have Democracy in the US?
I think the US should have a democracy and I understand that Bush was elected, though the elections were not a clear victory. (edit: I'm referring to Florida in the 2000 election and the 'irregularities' in the 2004 election.)
espeir wrote:
there isn't anything that Bush does that isn't met with irrational contempt and attack from the left.
I don't generally agree with Republican presidents in general, but Bush is far, far worse and there's a lot of people who think that way both outside and inside the US.
espeir wrote:
That goes beyond disagreement and becomes pure hatred.
There are wacky extremists on both sides. Try to ignore them.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-- modified at 15:39 Wednesday 1st March, 2006
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
I can reply by saying, "I am also stating my observations and it's your responsibility to prove me wrong," but when does that end? You made a statement that the left has made no effort to attack Osama without backing it up. I'm suggesting that you back it up.
uhhh...It's a discussion. How do I prove that the Democrats have done nothing? Ummm...By...uhhh... That's why I told you that you have to prove that they have done something because, if they have, then it is provable while the opposite is not. Of course, the fact that you refused to offer any evidence says a lot.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
I think the US should have a democracy and I understand that Bush was elected, though the elections were not a clear victory. (edit: I'm referring to Florida in the 2000 election and the 'irregularities' in the 2004 election.)
The elections were a very clear victory both times. The 2000 election was very close, but every legal recount before and after the supreme court disallowed the Democrats' attempt at a travesty of justice clearly showed Bush a winner. As for 2004 voting irregularities, the only evidence occurred in Ohio and was on the Democrat side of the aisle. Because Republicans won so big, though, there wasn't much hullaballoo made about it.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
I don't generally agree with Republican presidents in general, but Bush is far, far worse and there's a lot of people who think that way both outside and inside the US.
It doesn't matter if you agree or not. He was voted in by his constituents. He is definately not perfect, but I and most Republicans know when to assign blame and praise. Democrats are nearly universally maligned in their irrational hatred for him. They treat him as an enemy and call him a terrorist and compare him to Hitler. That's just ridiculous, but I would expect no less out of the left. They tend to be of pretty low character.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
There are wacky extremists on both sides. Try to ignore them.
That is true...Except Republicans managed to suppress the extremist voice in their party decades ago so that they do not have power within the ideology. Democrats recently failed in that regard and they are now very polarized. I mean they voted Howard Dean as their chairman...what does that say?
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
How can you prove that the left made no efforts to attack Osama?
Why would I need to prove that? It's a statement of my observations. If you disagree, it's your responsibility to prove me wrong.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Bush is an idiot who should not be President, but he's not an enemy. It's not a black and white thing.
So you're saying that we should not have Democracy in the US? I disagree that the left sees Bush as anything other than an enemy. Here's my proof: http://www.moveon.org/[^]. There isn't anything that Bush does that isn't met with irrational contempt and attack from the left. That goes beyond disagreement and becomes pure hatred.
espeir wrote:
There isn't anything that Bush does that isn't met with irrational contempt and attack
There are few things Bush does that don't deserve rational contempt and attack.
-
espeir wrote:
If a basketball is round and a baseball is round, does that make a basketball a baseball? I'm not saying one IS the other in entirety, but there is apparently a significant overlap in ideology.
I'm beginning to understand your logic[^]. Alvaro
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt
How does that logic apply more to one side than the other? "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Jim A. Johnson wrote:
The reason it's OK to say "Bush Lied" is because, in fact, he did.
Fact? Ok, what did he lie about? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
Try # 2 :) Either because I'm a glutton for punishment or I like throwing gasoline on a fire.... or maybe both. http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060301/D8G31KPG2.html[^] Specifically the last paragraph: Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility - and Bush was worried too. <Edit> I'm not looking for this stuff, I just happened across it on my home page. </Edit> -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect -- modified at 17:40 Wednesday 1st March, 2006
-
Christians tend to shy away from mass murder. That whole religion thing gets in the way. Atheists and Muslims on the other hand...
espeir wrote:
Christians tend to shy away from mass murder.
The only reason why that hasn't happened in quite some time, is the secularisation of society. Before people gradually woke up and stood up against the oppresion from the christian leaders, people with different beliefs were executed like cattle. Hell, even christians with a bit too liberal beliefs were persecuted and killed. All in the name of god.
espeir wrote:
That whole religion thing gets in the way.
No. Secularised society got in the way.
