Berkeley professors cancel classes for 'mental safety'

originally posted by: TerryMcGuireFor all your dislike of the ''protesters'' (one which I share)
you do not seem to hold the involvement of Milo and crew to the same moral standards.

Can you point to where Milo tried to prevent someone from exercising Free Speech?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
No, I cannot, nor do I think that he has.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Well then I can only speak for myself but I hold them all to the same standard, and am against anyone trying to do that. People have the right to speak without thread of violence, others have the right to listen without threat of violence, and anyone interfering in that right should be locked up.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

As you point out, the right to free speech is a limitation on government's ability to silence us, not the right to say anything and not expect reactions.

When the only intention is to provoke others for self-aggrandizement and the spreading of divisive hate, one shouldn't whine when the targets get provoked and stand up.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

As you point out, the right to free speech is a limitation on government's ability to silence us, not the right to say anything and not expect reactions.

When the only intention is to provoke others for self-aggrandizement and the spreading of divisive hate, one shouldn't whine when the targets get provoked and stand up.

No one is saying there should be no consequences, violent rioting to prevent someone from being able to speak is not an acceptable consequence.

Refusing to go and listen is an acceptable consequence.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

... and going to protest and provoke the prevention of an event if possible when one fundamentally stands against the message is also a reasonable consequence.

Violent assault on others, vandalism, etc. These are not acceptable, stipulated.

What Milo and Coulter do is not conservatism, it's narcissism calculated to appeal to the lowest common denominator for their own self-aggrandizement. It's more comparable to yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre than it is to the "I Have a Dream" speech.

When's the last time anyone got violent over a speech on supply side economics? Or extolling the value of a free market?

It's false to say that what is being opposed here is "conservative values."

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

... and going to protest and provoke the prevention of an event if possible when one fundamentally stands against the message is also a reasonable consequence.

Feel free to go and protest, that's not what they are going to do though.

Violent assault on others, vandalism, etc. These are not acceptable, stipulated.

And that is their response, which is not acceptable.

It's false to say that what is being opposed here is "conservative values."

The only value that is being opposed is free speech, which is an American value.

How in the world did America get to a place where the mere thought someone with a different view is going to speak, without you being a part of it, or hearing it, or going to it, just the fact they are speaking brings a whole group of people such mental anguish they are unable to function?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

In rough order of your last ...

You're not a soothsayer or fortune teller.

You're generalizing according to your own agenda.

What Coulter and Milo are doing has nothing to do with "free speech" as previously demonstrated.

How in the world did Conservatives devolve to the point that they are more interested in playing childish and selfish identity political games rather than supporting the values of traditional fiscal and individual responsibility?

Soon i will put all your brains in my overmind device and i will rule you from the shadows. Muwahahaha.

Seriously who cares about any of them. They get $ from having a political persuasion. Id rather pay my stubborn grandpa for his views.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

As you point out, the right to free speech is a limitation on government's ability to silence us, not the right to say anything and not expect reactions.

When the only intention is to provoke others for self-aggrandizement and the spreading of divisive hate, one shouldn't whine when the targets get provoked and stand up.

Yet they do and that seems to me to be the real objective to , at least, this proposed Speek-a-Fest put on by Mr. Milo. And for all the moralizing around here by members about defending free speech, the apparent inability to take stock of, even in the abstract, the motivations of this scenario goes directly to the blindness brought on by strong partisanship.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Well then I can only speak for myself but I hold them all to the same standard, and am against anyone trying to do that. People have the right to speak without thread of violence, others have the right to listen without threat of violence, and anyone interfering in that right should be locked up.

Occam. You reposted that same quote, twice, yet I have no idea where it came from, certainly not me. The one about the ndaa and Stalin.

Oh, and did you not notice what I said in that first reply you quoted? Let me point it out to you.

QUOTE.'' For all your dislike of the ''protesters'' (one which I share) '' You copied and pasted it yet seem to not have read it.