1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

FIRE takes on more libs

Discussion in 'Education Policies' started by Libsmasher, Sep 17, 2008.

  1. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. r0beph

    r0beph New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama
    Your association with Liberl and Fascism is one of the most ignorant claims I've seen from the cons. I don't see how they're even related. If you take a look fascism is considered a far RIGHT idealism. Hey how about PATRIOT, FISA, ACTA, mmm mmm bush backed fascism right there. Italy for example, extreme right conservative fella there, is trying to support italy's fascist regime from the 40s, quite the apologist...the liberal left there? They think he's insane.

    As for FIRE, it is a good idea at heart, but in action its a bit dangerous. If they decide to enact such speech codes, they should limit it to dangerous speech that is well outlined in such a manner that it requires NO interpretation and is not subject to use against your enemy by deriding their speech. eg. Someone with a sign saying "Faggots should die" should not be allowed, this is intentionally harassing and mildly violent in thought (versus the more violent Hang all N*****, which is both violent and harassing) On the other hand someone saying something along the lines of "Homosexuality is a Sin" is neither harassing nor violent, it's acceptable even if I do not agree with it. Just the same in response to that one could call the other a Bigot and Ignorant without worry for their academia.
     
  3. n0spam4me

    n0spam4me Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    This whole "right"vs"left" thing is really wrong!
    what shoulld be is a spectrum that runs from maximum Government control, to anarchy.
    Both Facism and Communism are heavy into state control of everything.
    AMERICA post revolution and up to aprox 1830 something, was very free and open, not quite anarchy but very free.

    May I point out that in a TRULY free society, the ban on calling for the overthrow of the current government would not be law, because if some crazie person where to stand on a street corner and preach the overthrow of the present system, and everybody in said free society just happened to like the present system, then the crazie person would be ignored. oh well.....

    the pen is mighter than the sword,
    but no match for a gun.
     
  4. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Excuse me, but you sound too stupid to live. :D The liberal roots and connection with fascism has been delineated chapter and verse - for starters, read Goldberg's book:

    http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Liberal-Fascism/Jonah-Goldberg/e/9780385511841

    And you don't get at all the actual use speech codes are put to. Like the Penn State student who was trying to study for finals in his dorm, and finally got tired of some black girls yelling and screaming, and yelled out his window "Shut up you buffaloes!" For this, he was subjected to two years of legal harassment by the university, had his academic career severely disrupted, and was forced to leave the university. Conservative students have had their newspapers confiscated and burned by liberal campus brown shirts. Conservative speakers have been systematically hounded off campus. Anyone who isn't a liberal and is interested in politics has to be VERRRRRRRRRY careful what they say. Get a clue - read up - you know nothing of what's going on.
     
  5. r0beph

    r0beph New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama
    Oh please do not use that ridiculous book to argue this. That guy, jonah goldberg is a froth at best. his book is filled to the brim with weak and ludicrous assiciations based on one of many logical fallacies, he fails to make any decent connections, "Some fascists were vegetarians; some liberals are vegetarians; ergo... Some fascists were gay; some liberals are gay... Fascists cared about educating children; Hillary Clinton cares about educating children. Aha! . . . or Woodrow Wilson 'was the twentieth century's first fascist dictator' and that it is 'impossible to deny that the New Deal was objectively fascistic" This types of discourse would be a laughable comedy of errors if it didn't concern me so much that people believed it. And watch your tongue, you're bordering on the edge of the boards rules with that "To stupid to live" comment. Watch it.
     
  6. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The whole "guy" is "froth"? :D AH, GEEZ, another lightweight poster...

    Care to use actual QUOTES, NOT lifted out of context, and rebut his arguments? My guess is not. :)

    You're talking about your refusal to debate? I agree!

    I just tell it like it is - deal with it.

    And along with your anti-Goldberg tantrum, you refuse to respond to the actual actions of libs on US campuses? That's understandable. :rolleyes:
     
  7. r0beph

    r0beph New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama
    Lightweight poster? Because I don't post 2000 posts that are simply reiterates of the same thing over and over, then yes, if that is the definition. By froth, I simply meant he's frothing at the mouth, I sort of used it in an original manner as a noun versus a verbal method; that means very little. Quibbling semantics is a paltry tactic and you're approaching ad hominem.

    I made my statement about what I thought of the "libs" on campus, in my first post. As I stated in the former paragraph, I don't go through reposting the same arguments ad nauseam.

    As for quoting the book, I don't have it, that would require I go back to the library and hope they have it in and then find the quotes to use. I don't feel it necessary to do this. How about this, since YOU have the book, and YOU know the context, why don't you quote WORD for WORD that which I am taking out of context and show me how it should be taken? I place the onus on you for this, since you have the material on hand to do so, it isn't much of a request...

    Your arguments are so full of fallacies that a freshmen in highschool should already know better than to use. I am not refusing to debate, you simply assume that because it suits you so you don't have to actually use reality in your arguments.

    As for his politico ranting, fascism he calls "liberals", Nazis were socialist, Nazis were Fascist, therefor Socialism == fascism. Quaint...All gorillas have black hair, black labs have black hair, therefor all black labs are gorillas? Does this make sense?

    rf
     
  8. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But but buuuuuuuuut your opening post didn't deal with anything - you gave a mini-rant aimed at goldberg with no facts or argument or quotes, and your second paragraph conjured up some supposed "danger" attached to free speech, while demonstrating a complete unawareness of how the speech codes and other oppressive mechanism eneacted by the libs who run the universitries is curtailing freedom in a setting that even in the middle ages was recognized as a place for free expression.

    Uh, no, sorry - the notion that I have to repair YOUR distortions is fatuous. However, if I have time I will post non-truncated/distorted excerpts.

    Cool! :D Let me try:

    "Your posts are stupid....and a two your old monkey wouldn't buy them ..... and and and......... THEY'RE JUST NO GOOD! :p So there! :rolleyes:

    No, and Goldberg of course didn't resort to such illogic - thank you very much Captain Strawman.
     
  9. r0beph

    r0beph New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama
    Like this opening post?
     
  10. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I.........just.........commented.......on......that. :eek:

    You on drugs, or what? :rolleyes:
     
  11. r0beph

    r0beph New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama

    I think you are... Re read and see if this makes any sense....

    THAT IS MY OPENING POST, REMEMBER THIS.

    My first post dealt with everything, did not mention goldberg, nor quoted anything he'd written... in fact, you didn't mention goldberg until AFTER that initial post by me.

    All that aside, free speech is simply not going to cover rabid harassment. It is VERY disruptive at school to see a bunch of racio-biased-religious nuts carrying on riling up other students by calling them racial epitaphs and being a general nuisance to the school. as I stated in my obviously unread FIRST post...This cannot be allowed. I don't however agree with the over zelous zero tolerance policy, and should be looked at with a balanced hand. As I mentioned, intolerance is a right, if you don't like homosexuals, fine, but you can't carry a sign about calling them faggots. In fact if I called someone a faggot even 20 years ago in highschool I'd likely be suspended. I just think some language should be restricted in that it's pejorative rank removes all intellectual functionality and its only purpose is to incite oppositional anger. this "restricted" language that I support is far from what FIRE supports, FIRE is much to overzealous, and I thought I made my agreement with you in this apparent in my first post.

    I see now that you're too high on your horse to realize when those who you normally may oppose, in fact agree with you in principle. Funny isn't it? You always expect someone to disagree, so you make them disagree by straying the debate out of the real matter at hand.

    The real matter? FIRE...it's overzealous and unneeded in its current form. This has nothing to do with Liberal / Conservative movements, simply has to do with bad wording and over generalization of rules.
     
  12. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're inventing your own facts out of thin air - what happens is the OPPOSITE of this, as I already said. Are you having a discussion with yourself?
     
  13. r0beph

    r0beph New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama
    What facts have I created. Highschool for example... if you hold up a sign deriding the educational ability of "negros" and their burden on tax dollars... yes, expulsion is too good for you, but we'll settle. Same in college. No one wants it, the rules lay it out straight. (a kid was expelled from my highschool for this very thing... Gotta love alabama.)
     
  14. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You just don't know what you're talking about. Read up.

    Start here:

    http://www.thefire.org/
     
Loading...

Share This Page