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.

 

Geraldo Rivera quits Yale over college name change --"political correctness is lame"

page: 14
26
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Look buddy, I love how we can have opinions and share them freely. But no, it is not that you have an opinion that bothers me, and I will defend your right to say them with my life. It is when your thinking and reasoning and evidence are false that bothers me. I'm not a relativist, so I will point out the faults in reasoning and evidence as I see them, and I hope people will do the same for me. If you want similar opinions and no need to defend them, there are plenty of echo-chambers one can find.
edit on 13-2-2017 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You have no reason to fear, seasonal (3rd person) is here.

Edit: I have had too much coffee.
edit on 13-2-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

That's how we roll.


It's all over the place, or is it just me?



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
Geraldo is a snowflake. Who quits their job over a name change? I guess he can afford to be a crybaby.


Reminds me of the "Trump" in chalk triggering..



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

False...in your opinion.

Lol your hypocrisy is astounding. Keep going, eventually I'll unsubscribe and you can high five yourself.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Lets burn down the whitehouse and scrap the constitution. Those damned slave owning founders were scum. Also we ned to cut ties with england as they started all this mess with that damn mayflower bunch. While we are at it.....lets burn everything made before 2016.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: lakenheath24

Wow, I want to be on your side.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

False...in your opinion.

Lol your hypocrisy is astounding. Keep going, eventually I'll unsubscribe and you can high five yourself.


Not in my opinion, but according to the principles of valid reasoning. I didn't come up with those principles.

If you cannot handle that then you should have unsubscribed long ago. Running from debate seems to be the going rate.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So it's a fact because you say so that my opinion is incorrect but my opinion is just an opinion, not a fact.

Got it.

Debate is easy when you make the rules up as you go along.

Nobody is running from anything. You're just making # up as you go and declaring everybody you disagree with wrong. At this point you're complaining about me expressing my opinion that another opinion which isn't yours is correct, but then saying you'll defend my right to express that opinion, while at the same time declaring my opinion wrong because you say so.

That's not valid reasoning. Because if it was valid reasoning, then the fact that I've now declared it to not be valid reasoning means it isn't because I say it isn't, and apparently that's the standard you operate on: you say something is or isn't, and it is or isn't.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Use the standard principles of valid reasoning, logic, and evidence to state your case, because relying on your feelings and declaring your right to do so doesn't make your opinion any more or less right and wrong.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
History, real history, should stay in the foreground of our minds, because to forget it or hide it only predicates creating the same mistakes, over and over again.


I guess the positive is this event caused the Original Poster to go out and learn some real history about John Calhoun of whom he was previously completely unfamiliar with.


Time and location changes ones perspective. I lived in South Africa for four years in the 80's. I had maids and gardeners, 90% of our manufacturing and field assembly/construction staff were black. Doesn't make me racist, that was the available manpower. I was giving jobs to people, not races. I also paid them much better than my neighbours or other businesses. I took real risk and garnered a lot of hate and complaints because I treated my employees well. You can't make positive change using negative methods and again, change is slow, it doesn't happen overnight.

Calhoun was according to the times an average business owner, time and location eh. Talking his name off the Yale building was a retarded step by socially incompetent people to try and force a world view change. You can't sweep everything under the rug to cater to a bunch of twits being zealously oversensitive for the sake of their tiny overrated sensibilities.

You can't bend the past without breaking the future.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle





They're not called "social justice warriors" for nothing. It's time for Common Sense Rationality to fight back. There is a line in the sand, and if it gets crossed, the other side has to say "enough is enough...you're going too far".



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
You can't sweep everything under the rug to cater to a bunch of twits being zealously oversensitive for the sake of their tiny overrated sensibilities.


But the point I am making is they can, because it is there property.

When people (not you) come in and say that they should not be able to do this because that person disagrees I find it antithetical to the concept of property owners having the right to manage their property as they deem.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No. You are splitting hairs in order to try to save a semblance of your argument after I showed you that infringing on free speech is only protected against the government doing it.


You said it but you didn't show it. People say a lot of things. Yes the first amendment applies to the government, but you cannot answer why free speech is a fundamental human right, nor why the constitution has a law protecting free speech. Therefor I must infer that you will not defend that right in others, leaving the government to take care of it for you.

Believe what you want. The only thing that matters is what the first amendment protects. Everything else is just noise. And the first amendment HAS always only applied to the government restricting speech. It was just the right who wanted to argue stuff like you trying to alter its meaning because they find it inconvenient that people on the left constantly called them racists for saying racially insensitive remarks.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




When people (not you) come in and say that they should not be able to do this because that person disagrees I find it antithetical to the concept of property owners having the right to manage their property as they deem.


How do you feel when a group of protesters come in demanding they change the name of their property?



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
There is a line in the sand, and if it gets crossed, the other side has to say "enough is enough...you're going too far".


Is this the line? Fighting over what a private entity can do with its property?



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
How do you feel when a group of protesters come in demanding they change the name of their property?


We covered this already. People can demand anything they want, if a private business wishes to acquiesce to their demands that is their issue.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No. You are splitting hairs in order to try to save a semblance of your argument after I showed you that infringing on free speech is only protected against the government doing it.


You said it but you didn't show it. People say a lot of things. Yes the first amendment applies to the government, but you cannot answer why free speech is a fundamental human right, nor why the constitution has a law protecting free speech. Therefor I must infer that you will not defend that right in others, leaving the government to take care of it for you.

Believe what you want. The only thing that matters is what the first amendment protects. Everything else is just noise. And the first amendment HAS always only applied to the government restricting speech. It was just the right who wanted to argue stuff like you trying to alter its meaning because they find it inconvenient that people on the left constantly called them racists for saying racially insensitive remarks.


The only thing that matters is what the first amendment protects, and that is free speech. Yet you argue free speech only matters because of the first amendment. Can't get any more circular than that.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
You can't sweep everything under the rug to cater to a bunch of twits being zealously oversensitive for the sake of their tiny overrated sensibilities.


But the point I am making is they can, because it is there property.

When people (not you) come in and say that they should not be able to do this because that person disagrees I find it antithetical to the concept of property owners having the right to manage their property as they deem.


Is anybody really saying that they don't have a right to change the name? Having the right to do something, doesn't necessarily mean that others can't say it's stupid and weak-minded to do so.

Does Yale receive any federal tax dollars for anything? I think they do. If so, the public has a right to express objections because it is our tax dollars funding part of it.



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Ahhh the moral high ground claim.

My opinion is based off the reasoning and logic applied to the evidence of your posts that you're continuing to post wildly off-topic comments and going all over the map at this point in an effort to be right about something utterly irrelevant to the OP. My reasoning and logic tell me that people generally do that because they have some need to able to declare themselves the victor in an encounter, and will continue to go all over the place as long as they need to.

Your continued posting of irrelevant crap is the evidence thereof.

Now, can I irrefutably prove my opinion to be a fact? No, because I'm not in your head. Nor do I want to be. All I can do is draw conclusions from your behavior, which is all I've done, and somehow that's triggered you into the current display of "logic" we're now in.

And with that, I bid you adieu. Until some other thread that you crop up in to argue some more irrelevant stuff, adieu. You'll no doubt interpret it as running away (based off the evidence of your previous comment that ceasing to engage with you is running away) and hey, that's cool. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

You'll be unable to help yourself to the last word in 3...2...



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join