RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date”

RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

PeonForHer -> RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (5/12/2016 1:27:04 AM)
quote: The real reason is that you are the one who is just dumping horse manure with no reasoning, no argument, just a bunch of stilted opinions against my character. Oooh, you nearly did, it Nick. You so nearly said 'You had no right to say that to me, Peon!' [;)]

respectmen -> RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (5/12/2016 1:31:30 AM)
Feel free to point out where I even came close to indicating that you don't have the right to your free speech. However, I do have the right to criticise what you say and what attitudes you have. That is totally different compared to trying to censor your speech, like what feminists do all the time in universities. Your totalitarian freak friends.

PeonForHer -> RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (5/12/2016 1:55:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: respectmen Feel free to point out where I even came close to indicating that you don't have the right to your free speech. However, I do have the right to criticise what you say and what attitudes you have. That is totally different compared to trying to censor your speech, like what feminists do all the time in universities. Your totalitarian freak friends. It's useless to have a conversation with you, Nick. You either can't or won't even get to first base by, for instance, accepting widely accepted definitions of terms. Despite all of my efforts and those of others, you still don't use the word 'feminist' correctly. Likewise you don't know what 'leftists' are and don't want to find out, either. Now, apparently, you'd like to use 'fascist' and 'fascism' in the same slack-arsed, lazy, stupid way. And your way of trying to win your point is not to argue rationally, but to say the same thing over and over and over again. You are just a tiresome propagandist with a head full of pus, which you keep squeezing at this forum but, each time, claiming triumphantly that it's a searing insight. Your posts make me want to go outside and wipe my shoes on the kerb. In fact I have strong sympathy for the idea of free speech and especially within universities (because I've seen the inside of a university and have known students - unlike yourself, who clearly has done neither). But when I see you supporting it - for the stupid, ill-informed, utterly prejudiced and basically unpleasant 'reasons' that you do - it helps me remember that I have strong criticisms of that 'free speech', too. What, essentially, is the point in your posting here? This is what I don't get. I mean all of us could post the same thing you do for ourselves. All we'd have to do is scan YouTube for the latest right wing rant, then post it here for ourselves. Add the words 'gotta larf' - and presto: we'd each have homemade Nick-posts!

WhoreMods -> RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (5/12/2016 4:55:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Define one conservative university. Well maybe BYU. T^T Liberty University? That's been around since the early '70s.

stef -> RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (5/12/2016 9:43:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: respectmen You sad pathetic little man. Congratulations on making an idiot of your self for everyone to see. Someone has been taking their Irony supplements.

WhoreMods -> RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (5/12/2016 10:28:06 AM)
I thought his mum did his irony for him?

Awareness -> RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (5/12/2016 12:45:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I personally approve of this new policy. I don't have to like what is being said, I don't even have to listen to it. But, that doesn't take away the speakers right to say it under the First Amendment of the Constitution. To change that would require a Constitutional Amendment defining what is "approved" speech. I think you'll find the regressive left is attempting to construct such a definition. "Approved" speech is speech which doesn't offend anyone. Yes. The regressive left is rather totalitarian.

Awareness -> RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (5/12/2016 12:56:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer It's useless to have a conversation with you, Nick. You either can't or won't even get to first base by, for instance, accepting widely accepted definitions of terms. Despite all of my efforts and those of others, you still don't use the word 'feminist' correctly. Citation required for this "widely accepted definition". That should be easy... well... except for the fact that even feminists can't agree on what feminism is - apparently they're all creating their own branches of feminism because they're all special snowflakes. People calling themselves feminists keep engaging in behaviours which are remarkably similar. Namely the vilification of men. You can't just revoke their claim to feminism because their behaviour highlights the hypocrisy of the ideology - that's just out and out intellectual dishonesty.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (5/12/2016 1:40:28 PM)
quote: Yes. The regressive left is rather totalitarian. True, and very unfortunate as well.

PeonForHer -> RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (5/12/2016 2:04:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness Citation required for this "widely accepted definition". That should be easy... well... except for the fact that even feminists can't agree on what feminism is - apparently they're all creating their own branches of feminism because they're all special snowflakes. What is the matter with you, Awareness? quote: Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, personal, and social rights for women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/feminism Simple Definition of feminism : the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities : organized activity in support of women's rights and interests http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism I'm beginning to think Google is your enemy. But since you use the word an awful lot, you must have your own definition. I know that this is going to be a fruitless request, but care to provide a definition for us, at last?

CreativeDominant -> RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (5/12/2016 3:47:43 PM)
Interesting...you haven't got time to answer what I asked you about the ORIGINAL subject matter of the post...allowing people of differing beliefs to hear and be heard in campus...but you have the time to attack the OP's and others' beliefs about feminism.

PeonForHer -> RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (5/12/2016 3:58:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Interesting...you haven't got time to answer what I asked you about the ORIGINAL subject matter of the post...allowing people of differing beliefs to hear and be heard in campus...but you have the time to attack the OP's and others' beliefs about feminism. It's simple really. I wasn't interested in respectmen's OP, for reasons previously stated - that it was just dumped on here without consideration. You didn't add anything to RM's OP and I certainly wasn't going to give you my view just because you demanded to hear it. I became more interested later on, as often happens, hence my comments.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (5/12/2016 4:37:37 PM)
quote: you haven't got time to answer what I asked you Or he just didn't give a fuck about your question.

CreativeDominant -> RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (5/12/2016 7:25:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Interesting...you haven't got time to answer what I asked you about the ORIGINAL subject matter of the post...allowing people of differing beliefs to hear and be heard in campus...but you have the time to attack the OP's and others' beliefs about feminism. It's simple really. I wasn't interested in respectmen's OP, for reasons previously stated - that it was just dumped on here without consideration. You didn't add anything to RM's OP and I certainly wasn't going to give you my view just because you demanded to hear it. I became more interested later on, as often happens, hence my comments. Ah yes...higher interest because you were able to take him where you wanted to go instead of answering a straightforward question about what the original topic. Nice deflection...and trolling.

CreativeDominant -> RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (5/12/2016 7:27:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: you haven't got time to answer what I asked you Or he just didn't give a fuck about your question. I'm sure, given his interest only in the feminist beliefs (or lack thereof) in the OP.

Phydeaux -> RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (5/12/2016 8:51:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: respectmen Feel free to point out where I even came close to indicating that you don't have the right to your free speech. However, I do have the right to criticise what you say and what attitudes you have. That is totally different compared to trying to censor your speech, like what feminists do all the time in universities. Your totalitarian freak friends. The word is fascists. Its simpler, more precise, and infinitely more enjoyable to call a spade a spade: they are fascists.

Phydeaux -> RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (5/12/2016 8:54:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Interesting...you haven't got time to answer what I asked you about the ORIGINAL subject matter of the post...allowing people of differing beliefs to hear and be heard in campus...but you have the time to attack the OP's and others' beliefs about feminism. Nice to see you again CD. US on the right deal with this crap day in and day out. You and I don't see eye to eye poliically - but I respect your integrity

DaddySatyr -> RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (5/12/2016 9:06:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: you haven't got time to answer what I asked you Or he just didn't give a fuck about your question. I'm sure, given his interest only in the feminist beliefs (or lack thereof) in the OP. Hello, there, CD! I think there's another answer, here, maybe. Being on this website has taught me that "no response is a response". At least that's what the vast majority seem to believe. Michael

PeonForHer -> RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (5/13/2016 12:48:48 AM)
quote: Ah yes...higher interest because you were able to take him where you wanted to go instead of answering a straightforward question about what the original topic. Nice deflection...and trolling. No, just not interested in being trolled - either by the OP, or by you, in support of him. I have mixed views about the issue of free speech in universities, as indicated in post 23 - as indeed anyone with any brains would, I think. Nick didn't present anything worth considering and nor did you. I'm sorry I didn't get more angry with either you or Nick, CD - but there we are. Better luck next time.

thishereboi -> RE: University of Minnesota’s proposed free speech protections would be “the most comprehensive to date” (5/13/2016 3:27:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer There's no point in getting pissy about it, Termy. All Nick ever does is open threads then dump horse manure on the top of them that masquerades as an OP. No reasoning, no argument ... just a bunch of stilted opinions. If he wants more consideration, he needs to post with more consideration. The ball's in his court - and yours, if you support him. While you are more than partially right about the person who started this thread, let's hear your opinion on what the U. of M. is doing, as stated in the OP. I agree with their stance. While you have every right to protest, you do NOT have the right to stop others from listening to things that they may want to hear. Especially when it's something they may have paid to hear. I agree, it's funny how some people are all for free speech until they disagree with the message.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875