It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Confederate Flag on Truck at La Crosse Campus Stirs Debate

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

I have never owned or flown a confederate flag, but didn't the man have rights too. Is there a new law I am not aware of?

I think the new law is that your rights disappear when they cause fear and angst in others.

Like my right to smoke tobacco or even vapors, because others are afraid that it may cause them to get cancer, yet they are exposed to more toxic fumes for longer periods of time daily without making any complaints against those agents.

Or my right to refuse to have toxins injected into my body because others are afraid that my not getting a vaccine, "may" cause them to get the flu, even when they are exposed, and consume, far more harmful agents that "may" cause them to contract a disease for more likely, and deadly then the transient flu.

The new law is that anything that enough people will go along with, and make enough noise about, that the government or big business can use to push their agenda, no matter how ridiculous, it will be the new law and it
trumps you rights.

Or my right to wear a cross on the the job is forbidden, because others find it offensive, but I can wear a hijab or a burka because to refuse it to me is considered racist.

He rights disappeared when he took a job on campus where others took offense to his message and became fearful.


In other words; you have no rights unless they say you can have them.




posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

It should also be noted that it is history revisionism that Lincoln fought the Civil War to end slavery. So you are painting a strawman about my argument here. I never claimed that Lincoln fought to end slavery, just that the south fought to maintain it. Lincoln actually only wanted to end the expansion of slavery into new territories, he had no intention of actually challenging slavery, but the South didn't believe him and starting with SC they seceded one by one upon him being elected (he didn't even have any chance to adopt any Presidential policies before the South grabbed its ball and went home).
edit on 30-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Imagine, for a moment, if the construction worker DIDN'T "comply"....and the 'fear and angst'-ridden student body decided to step up their rhetoric, complaints and demonstrations.

What would happen?

Perhaps, large numbers of students would petition the university's chancellor to have the construction firm's contract cancelled if their employee wasn't fired or 'forced to comply' with student demands? Maybe the football team will stage a strike before the next big game?

Based on what we've seen on campuses recently, I could see that actually happening.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

So are any of those things illegal to do?



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

SCOTUS also upheld the right to own slaves...



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well people who disagreed took it up with SCOTUS and that changed now didn't it?



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mokoa
a reply to: LSU0408

probably should also make the point is slavery was such a big issue why did Lincoln wait 3 years after the civil war started to free the slaves in the southern states? and then another 2 years after that to free the rest. If slavery was such a big issue to the civil war why not free them all from the beginning?


Exactly right... He started with the states below the border states. And the slaves were only free IF they escaped and made it past the Mason-Dixon. Lincoln only did this to take the Confederates off guard because he was losing and got desperate. Unfortunately for him, most of the Confederates had no interest in catching runaway slaves, so Lincoln's plan didn't work.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: IAMTAT

So are any of those things illegal to do?


Illegal?...Not at all.
Reasonable?...Not at all.

EDIT: The construction worker and construction firm would probably be able to bring a lawsuit of 'Supreme Court' proportions against the university.
edit on 30-11-2015 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So she defends free speech by denying it to others.

Got it.

Again, how can anyone defend free speech while denying it at the same time?



How did she deny free speech to anyone? Are you sure you "got it" here? I'm not sure you read the same text I did, because I clearly read that he removed the sticker willingly with no arguments whatsoever. So no speech was denied at all.
edit on 30-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: IAMTAT

So are any of those things illegal to do?


Illegal?...Not at all.
Reasonable?...Not at all.


Since when is "reasonable" a justifiable reason for Americans not to do or to do anything? It's unreasonable that there is a part of the media that lies about science to get people to deny it without using evidence to do so, but that doesn't make it illegal or anything.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So are any of those things illegal to do?

That would now...depend.


What is considered legal on a campus would not necessarily be legal on a construction site. Which is what would make the waters real muddy, real fast. Especially with what is 'visually' deemed a site, versus what is 'legally' deemed a site.

God forbid the students protested, and ended up against OHS compliance officers...yikes! Talk about two immovable objects colliding. The videos would be epic though.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420

Well we have PLENTY of examples of two different ideologies squaring off in the free speech area, so it would be nothing new there.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you threatened my job and told me to shut up or get fired, I'd willingly shut up (if I didn't want to get fired).



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

How exactly is the 1st Amendment on life support? Can you name ONE law that has been passed, EVER, that infringes on your 1st Amendment rights?

I can't name you a law. but there are tons of scenarios that show people blatantly attacking peoples right of expression because they don't like they way it makes them 'feel'
This story being one of them. A few people got upset about something, and some guy ended up defacing his own property.

Think about how much work people did to make this go away.. The VC makes the guy scrape it off, then has to go around to the 'student groups' and reassure them that she is trying to protect them. She probably has more important things to do.
If it wasn't for the other guy that was forced out of his job in Missouri, she might have had the guts to tell the students to grow a backbone and get back to their studies, instead of trying their best to find something to be offended by and 'take a stand' against it, like they are some type of freedom fighters.
They are not PC warriors, they are PC wussies



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

How exactly is the 1st Amendment on life support? Can you name ONE law that has been passed, EVER, that infringes on your 1st Amendment rights?

I can't name you a law. but there are tons of scenarios that show people blatantly attacking peoples right of expression because they don't like they way it makes them 'feel'


Well that's legal, so what's the problem? I hope you realize that you just shot your whole argument to hell here with your first sentence.


This story being one of them. A few people got upset about something, and some guy ended up defacing his own property.


So? Nothing illegal was done, so no problem. Just you being upset that other people are upset about something.


Think about how much work people did to make this go away.. The VC makes the guy scrape it off, then has to go around to the 'student groups' and reassure them that she is trying to protect them. She probably has more important things to do.


Irrelevant. Again, everything done in this article was legal.


If it wasn't for the other guy that was forced out of his job in Missouri, she might have had the guts to tell the students to grow a backbone and get back to their studies, instead of trying their best to find something to be offended by and 'take a stand' against it, like they are some type of freedom fighters.
They are not PC warriors, they are PC wussies


That's her problem. Still nothing done here was illegal, and that's all that matters no matter how you want to spin the narrative to make these protesters look like bad guys.

Here's the 1st Amendment's text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (Source)


Note the part in bold.
edit on 30-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you threatened my job and told me to shut up or get fired, I'd willingly shut up (if I didn't want to get fired).



Can you link me or quote me where this guy was threatened to be fired for not removing that decal?



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
I can't name you a law. but there are tons of scenarios that show people blatantly attacking peoples right of expression because they don't like they way it makes them 'feel'
This story being one of them. A few people got upset about something, and some guy ended up defacing his own property.


Then that would not be a First Amendment issue since it only applies to the government limiting your rights.


The VC makes the guy scrape it off...


She asked him to and he agreed. If you think he should not have removed that sticker the blame lies with him for doing it as he could have told her to take a hike.






edit on 30-11-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you threatened my job and told me to shut up or get fired, I'd willingly shut up (if I didn't want to get fired).



Can you link me or quote me where this guy was threatened to be fired for not removing that decal?


Can you link me or quote me where he WASN'T?



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then your request to name any passed law that has infringed on the First was a purely rhetorical request which has no rplies you would accept... The laws which have been passed have also passed the SCOTUS. That doesn't make those laws Constitutional, it only means that this court's opinion is that they are Constitutional. To be blunt, this courts opinions have become worse and worse over the past decade, indicating that this court is woefully compromised. Nobody "takes it up with the SCOTUS" when they disagree with a SCOTUS decision... they elect a president who will hopefully seat a couple of logical, trustworthy justices during his term. Unfortunately, the main issues presently impacted by the SCOTUS are also centered around tools in the president's toolchest. Both parties seem to love the free speech zones when they are around each party's events or representatives, so it is unlikely to go away anytime soon. It certainly is an infringement on the First Amendment, however.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Um... No... Burden of proof rests in your lap buddy. You made the claim that he was forced to remove the decal under threat of termination. The article says he it was done willingly. So you are inventing part of the narrative by saying that he was forced to remove it under threat of termination, so you have to prove that is what happened. Not me proving it didn't happen. I can't prove a negative.
edit on 30-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join