Yep, people have a right to call for a ban from people using the university system to promote their hatred and plans for discrimination.

Of course where were conservatives when "communists" (I.e., freedom loving Americans) were banned from speaking on college campuses. Oh, they were leading the charge for the ban!

Total hypocrisy.

Look mate... they can love freedom all they want to. But to insult people for not believing like them, to want to BAN others from speaking out their ideas... is that tolerant to you? — Agustino

BWHAHHAHAHAHHA. Conservatives never insult people who don't agree with them! BWHAHAHHAHHAHAH!

Projection? You're soaking in it.

I'm glad you're working so hard to get rightwing purveyors of hateful rhetoric off the airwaves. Wait, you're not!

Yep, people have a right to call for a ban from people using the university system to promote their hatred and plans for discrimination. — Landru Guide Us

So in the name of freedom of speech, they have a right to ban freedom of speech of individuals who promote different values than they believe in? You for real?

Look friend, some conservatives may, but I haven't here. You're talking with me now, not with all conservatives on the Earth...

I think your discourse here is just putting these forums to shame. Everyone else is attempting to offer productive arguments, while all you do is make statements containing blatant generalisations. Just look around for a moment will you? Do you see anyone else behaving this way? No. Because I'm not here to spew propaganda, but rather to discuss an issue rationally. If you give rational arguments, I can respond - but there's no response I can give to blatant "You're lying" type of statements. If you believe I am lying, fair enough, but at least let us show it instead of merely state it.

So in the name of freedom of speech, they have a right to ban freedom of speech of individuals who promote different values than they believe in? You for real? — Agustino

So you're for allowing people to appear on campuses and recruit jihadists to kill Christians right? Because you're for free speech, right?

Stop pretending. There is no absolute right to speech and speakers speak by invitation of the universities that invite them. Nobody is banning anybody from speaking. They are protesting who the college invites to speak.

This isn't even a free speech issue. It's who the college invites and why.

So you're for allowing people to appear on campuses and recruit jihadists to kill Christians right? Because you're for free speech, right? — Landru Guide Us

So were these conservative speakers going to discuss the toppling of England's government, or how to undermine England's national security? Really? How can you compare the two? On what basis?

So were these conservative speakers going to discuss the toppling of England's government, or how to undermine England's national security? Really? How can you compare the two? On what basis? — Agustino

On the basis that your premise is false from the start. Nobody is being banned from speaking. The issue is who is invited to speak. If conservative weirdos want to spout their homophobia on street corners, they have a perfect right. Nobody has a right to speak on a campus at an event unless invited.

See the difference yet? Or are you going to pretend not to because you've used inflammatory and false lingo to describe the issue. I.e., you used a meme

On the basis that your premise is false from the start. Nobody is being banned from speaking. The issue is who is invited to speak. If conservative weirdos want to spout their homophobia on street corners, they have a perfect right. Nobody has a right to speak on a campus at an event unless invited.

See the difference yet? — Landru Guide Us

Ok but these people were invited, otherwise they wouldn't just show up because they felt like it. And since Universities are educational environments, it makes sense to allow students to be exposed to a diversity of views, both conservative and progressive. It's not like conservatives are the equivalent of radical jihadists...

Yep and the issue is whether particularly odious speaker should be allowed to be invited onto a campus, which give some credence to their views, and which promotes their obvious intended purpose of intimidating miniorities.

That's not a ban of free speech. So the fact that you used that to describe the issue shows how dishonest you are.

If you don't think so, then you should be OK with Muslim students inviting ISIS to the campus to discuss how to behead infidels. So stop pretending you care about free speech. You care about using the campus to intimidate people you don't like -- apparently minorities, et. al.

Yep and the issue is whether particularly odious speaker should be allowed to be invited onto a campus, which give some credence to their views, and which promotes their obvious intended purpose of intimidating miniorities. — Landru Guide Us

So those speakers were odious? Peter Hitchens is the equivalent of a jihadist?

You care about using the campus to intimidate people you don't like -- apparently minorities, et. al. — Landru Guide Us

A strange statement to make when I personally agree with most of the current liberal values (while of course disagreeing with their universality)... I don't know which minorities you were referring to.

So those speakers were odious? Peter Hitchens is the equivalent of a jihadist? — Agustino

Rightwingers are odious, yes. HItchens was mostly just dumb. Gallaway really wiped him out in his debate with him over Iraq.

But you seem to be saying that people you find odious shouldn't appear on campus, but people others find odious should.

I sense an entitlement issue here.

A strange statement to make when I personally agree with most of the current liberal values ... I don't know which minorities you were referring to. — Agustino

No you don't. That's a trope conservatives often use.

That's rather extreme don't you think? It's the equivalent of me saying leftists are all communist. And I'm sorry, but I haven't watched the debate, so I wouldn't know, thus I'll take your word for it.

No you don't. That's a trope conservatives often use. — Landru Guide Us

Okay, give proof please, I'm willing to listen and give counter evidence to you.

↪Landru Guide Us That's rather extreme don't you think? It's the equivalent of me saying leftists are all communist. And I'm sorry, but I haven't watched the debate, so I wouldn't know, thus I'll take your word for it. — Agustino

So now you're pretending to be reasonable after 30 posts dripping vitriol about the Left.

Won't work with me.

So now you're pretending to be reasonable after 30 posts dripping vitriol about the Left.

Won't work with me. — Landru Guide Us

Yes, because I think the Left is wrong in attempting to universalise the values it shares. Those values aren't all universal, and people should be allowed to be different and choose different ways of organising themselves as well...

↪Landru Guide Us Okay, give proof please, I'm willing to listen and give counter evidence to you. — Agustino

No you won't. After one of your meme is exposed (something I and others have done), you'll go to the next one. There is no factual content to anything that you've said, starting with your labeling the issue as a ban on free speech, a total lie.

If the proposition is: should colleges be selective about who is invited to speak on campus, because it suggests an endorsement, and in particular colleges should not allow speakers who attack or demean minorities, then I fail to see how any rational person would disagree with the proposition.

But I bet you'll gloss it as a "ban".

Let's take the group that was largely discussed today: homosexuals. Am I personally against homosexuals?

This is problematic. A nation's self-interest may not be sustainability at all costs - in other words, a nation may have certain desires regarding the form it wants to exist in which are more important than mere survival. For example, I can imagine an Islamic state having as prime goal the flourishing of an Islamic culture - this can mean a culture which upholds Islamic values and a measure they may want to implement is laws against homosexuality for example. So I suggest instead of disallowing them to do this, which can never be justified because no values are universal - other nations choose to help them in the following way: "We'll take your homosexuals and make them our citizens, and instead we want X reduction in tariffs on Y good". In this way, trade is helped, and both nations fulfill their values, instead of one nation imposing its values on the other. — Agustino

Yeah right, and I recommend the West to take on Iranian homosexuals, because I'm so anti-gay. I'm not anti-gay, I'm pro freedom. There's regions of the world where homosexuals obtain all the liberty they want. There's also regions where they don't. Why don't we all collaborate with each other to make sure homosexuals are in such a region, instead of attempting to make all regions accept homosexuals?

Yes, because I think the Left is wrong in attempting to universalise the values it shares. Those values aren't all universal, and people should be allowed to be different and choose different ways of organising themselves as well... — Agustino

They are. What does that have to do with being invited to a campus to speak and to intimidate minorities?

You believe they were intimidating minorities. That is just that, your opinion, and I understand you believe like that. I don't think all conservatives in the world intimidate minorities. You seem to think all do. That remains to be proven.

Yeah right, and I recommend the West to take on Iranian homosexuals, because I'm so anti-gay. I'm not anti-gay, I'm pro freedom. There's regions of the world where homosexuals obtain all the liberty they want. There's also regions where they don't. Why don't we all collaborate with each other to make sure homosexuals are in such a region, instead of attempting to make all regions accept homosexuals? — Agustino

Because people should be able to live in their own country without being persecuted for having gender preferences? History shows that when hatred and discrimination is allowed to hound people out of country, that country is probably going to find other people to oppress, even if that means going to war.

Your post would have been well received by Nazis, who said the same thing about Jews.

But now you've changed the subject, another conservative trope.

↪Landru Guide Us You believe they were intimidating minorities. That is just that, your opinion, and I understand you believe like that. I don't think all conservatives in the world intimidate minorities. You seem to think all do. That remains to be proven. — Agustino

The students on the campus, many of them minorities, believe that. So I'm going to listen to them.

In addition to that I have heard enough of hateful conservative rhetoric to know it is all dog whistling intent on attacking minorities and inciting violence and discrimination. So bravo to those students for speaking out against the conservative bullies.

Because people should be able to live in their own country without being persecuted for having gender preferences? History shows that when hatred and discrimination is allowed to hound people out of country, that country is probably going to find other people to oppress, even if that means going to war. — Landru Guide Us

Who says they should in all cases?

Your post would have been well received by Nazis, who said the same thing about Jews. — Landru Guide Us

Nazism was based on a racial theory which claimed that the Jewish race was INHERENTLY inferior, AND EVIL. The theory I presented above doesn't claim that homosexuals are INHERENTLY inferior, AND/OR EVIL. See the difference? It merely claims that homosexuals should be helped to live under regimes which favor their disposition.

Who says they should in all cases? — Agustino

Nobody, so this is a false dilemma. Another conservative strategy for avoiding discussing real issues.

The students on the campus, many of them minorities, believe that. So I'm going to listen to them.

In addition to that I have heard enough of hateful conservative rhetoric to know it is all dog whistling intent on attacking minorities and inciting violence and discrimination. So bravo to those students for speaking out against the conservative bullies. — Landru Guide Us

But surely you have to recognise that this must be prejudice... you can't possibly claim that millions of conservatives are all evil and hateful people who want to oppress others... it's just so unfair.

Ok, if nobody says that, then why enforce such a value?

Nazism was based on a racial theory which claimed that the Jewish race was INHERENTLY inferior, AND EVIL. The theory I presented above doesn't claim that homosexuals are INHERENTLY inferior, AND EVIL. See the difference? It merely claims that homosexuals should be helped to live under regimes which favor their disposition. — Agustino

No, I don't. Hatred of peoples' condition is a sickness. Claiming discrimination against Jews is bad, but not against gays, is borderline pathological.

I'm glad you've exposed your ugly homophobic agenda.

↪Landru Guide Us Ok, if nobody says that, then why enforce such a value? — Agustino

You need to pay attention to what you say, but that's asking a lot of the right.

But surely you have to recognise that this must be prejudice... you can't possibly claim that millions of conservatives are all evil and hateful people who want to oppress others... it's just so unfair. — Agustino

Yes, I can say without contradiction that all conservatives are evil. Conservatives are pathological and hate the other. Eschew it before it consumes you.

But nice distraction from the issue, since you were losing. Poor put-upon conservatives. How do they survive in this hostile land of ours?

No, I don't. Hatred of peoples' condition is a sickness. Claiming discrimination against Jews is bad, but not against gays, is borderline pathological.

I'm glad you've exposed your ugly homophobic agenda. — Landru Guide Us

Where have I said that I discriminate against gays in that post? Nowhere. I simply said that those who wish to build communities without homosexuals should be respected, and we can help them achieve this, because we have nothing against homosexuals, and we can treat them as first class citizens... This is doing good for both - respecting the freedom of both.