(03-05-2014 09:04 AM)bobcat95 Wrote:  

(03-05-2014 08:20 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-04-2014 04:58 PM)bullsnotbills Wrote:  Homophobic slurs from a wrestler. That's ironic to say the least.

Yet bobcat95 doesn't take offense at this. hmm

You don't know a thing about me.

Really? I had to endure this bit of solipsism.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-676777-post-104...id10499572

Quote:But you've already made assumptions about my ilk.

You don't know a thing about me. That's why you insult me, then justify it by stating explicitly that you don't know me.

I make no assumptions here. My best friend from HS was in those same Columbus gay bars at the same time as you. I'm familiar w/ the gay sub-culture, and its objectives. Heck, who couldn't be? Gays won't shut up about it. (And yeah, that includes Michael Sam)

And yes, I've seen firsthand how gays persecute those who don't agree with them, or these days it is those who don't vocally affirm them. That includes you, b/c you're adamant about your disdain for freedom of speech.

So save your tired wrongheaded clichés of how I'm just making assumptions. That shtick is for college freshmen.

(03-05-2014 09:18 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-05-2014 09:04 AM)bobcat95 Wrote:  

(03-05-2014 08:20 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-04-2014 04:58 PM)bullsnotbills Wrote:  Homophobic slurs from a wrestler. That's ironic to say the least.

Yet bobcat95 doesn't take offense at this. hmm

You don't know a thing about me.

Really? I had to endure this bit of solipsism.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-676777-post-104...id10499572

Quote:But you've already made assumptions about my ilk.

You don't know a thing about me. That's why you insult me, then justify it by stating explicitly that you don't know me.

I make no assumptions here. My best friend from HS was in those same Columbus gay bars at the same time as you. I'm familiar w/ the gay sub-culture, and its objectives. Heck, who couldn't be? Gays won't shut up about it. (And yeah, that includes Michael Sam)

And yes, I've seen firsthand how gays persecute those who don't agree with them, or these days it is those who don't vocally affirm them. That includes you, b/c you're adamant about your disdain for freedom of speech.

So save your tired wrongheaded clichés of how I'm just making assumptions. That shtick is for college freshmen.

You think you know me because you have a small back story of my life? But you are right, we met in those bars in the mid 90's to develop a plan to take over the world. I know your HS friend well. He was high up in our cult. We aren't quite there yet, but 20 years of work hasn't gone to waste. Michael Sam is our savior and we worship at his altar.

I don't know why you think I have distain for freedom of speech because I'm offended by language used by someone. And I come to a MAC message board, why?

(03-05-2014 09:45 AM)bobcat95 Wrote:  You think you know me because you have a small back story of my life? But you are right, we met in those bars in the mid 90's to develop a plan to take over the world.

Ah yes, throw out the snark as soon as you're shown to be wrong again. Standard play...for a simpleton.

Quote:I don't know why you think I have distain for freedom of speech because I'm offended by language used by someone.

That's just too damn funny. Of course you're lying again, but it's close enough to the truth that it's funny.

(03-05-2014 09:47 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-05-2014 09:45 AM)bobcat95 Wrote:  You think you know me because you have a small back story of my life? But you are right, we met in those bars in the mid 90's to develop a plan to take over the world.

Ah yes, throw out the snark as soon as you're shown to be wrong again. Standard play...for a simpleton.

Quote:I don't know why you think I have distain for freedom of speech because I'm offended by language used by someone.

That's just too damn funny. Of course you're lying again, but it's close enough to the truth that it's funny.

I'm not sure how you think I've been shown to be wrong. You think my attempt at humor over your throwing my beliefs into a box with a so called gay bar culture (I don't go to gay bars) from the 90s that was revealed to you by a high school friend shows that I'm wrong? Talk about having such a simple view of gay people.

Freedom of Speech protects one's rights to express their opinion no matter what that opinion is or how unpopular it may be. However, the fallacy of the majority of people who cry foul in a situation like this is that they somehow interpret freedom of speech to mean that one can say whatever they want, whenever they want, WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES OR REPERCUSSIONS. That last part somehow gets attached to the right to free speech.

This young man is certainly allowed to say whatever he wants, however, he is not immune to the consequences. He does not have a right to wrestle for KSU. It's a privilege that may taken away. It's not as if he has been arrested and thrown in prison for making gay slurs on the internet.

If you believe that Freedom of Speech also means immunity from any repercussions or consequences no matter what you say, please walk into your bosses office today and tell him/her to go f*ck him/herself and let me know how that works out for you.

(03-05-2014 10:37 AM)eich41 Wrote:  Freedom of Speech protects one's rights to express their opinion no matter what that opinion is or how unpopular it may be. However, the fallacy of the majority of people who cry foul in a situation like this is that they somehow interpret freedom of speech to mean that one can say whatever they want, whenever they want, WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES OR REPERCUSSIONS. That last part somehow gets attached to the right to free speech.

This young man is certainly allowed to say whatever he wants, however, he is not immune to the consequences. He does not have a right to wrestle for KSU. It's a privilege that may taken away.

It most certainly is not. . It's not a privilege at all. (Maybe from a private institution) That's complete horseshit, and I'm tired of seeing such nonsense. Come up w/ a real answer.

Quote:It's not as if he has been arrested and thrown in prison for making gay slurs on the internet.

So? That's not what protection means. Once again, stop making **** up.

Quote:If you believe that Freedom of Speech also means immunity from any repercussions or consequences no matter what you say, please walk into your bosses office today and tell him/her to go f*ck him/herself and let me know how that works out for you.

Please keep your fallacious reasoning by analogy to yourself.

Since no one can come up w/ a rebuttal that isn't fallacious, it's clear that my position is the only sound one.

(03-05-2014 10:19 AM)bobcat95 Wrote:  Talk about having such a simple view of gay people.

I have the view you and others have given me. Take some responsibility.

But it's even funnier that the uproar about Wheeler was based on much less: a simple twitter comment.

(03-05-2014 10:57 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-05-2014 10:37 AM)eich41 Wrote:  Freedom of Speech protects one's rights to express their opinion no matter what that opinion is or how unpopular it may be. However, the fallacy of the majority of people who cry foul in a situation like this is that they somehow interpret freedom of speech to mean that one can say whatever they want, whenever they want, WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES OR REPERCUSSIONS. That last part somehow gets attached to the right to free speech.

This young man is certainly allowed to say whatever he wants, however, he is not immune to the consequences. He does not have a right to wrestle for KSU. It's a privilege that may taken away.

It most certainly is not. . It's not a privilege at all. (Maybe from a private institution) That's complete horseshit, and I'm tired of seeing such nonsense. Come up w/ a real answer.

Quote:It's not as if he has been arrested and thrown in prison for making gay slurs on the internet.

So? That's not what protection means. Once again, stop making **** up.

Quote:If you believe that Freedom of Speech also means immunity from any repercussions or consequences no matter what you say, please walk into your bosses office today and tell him/her to go f*ck him/herself and let me know how that works out for you.

Please keep your fallacious reasoning by analogy to yourself.

Since no one can come up w/ a rebuttal that isn't fallacious, it's clear that my position is the only sound one.

LOL. It's clear that there is no point in debating a topic with someone is who is a self-righteous, pompous blowhard, who thinks that his opinion is gospel, despite the fact that it is just that, opinion.

(03-05-2014 11:09 AM)eich41 Wrote:  LOL. It's clear that there is no point in debating a topic with someone is who is a self-righteous, pompous blowhard, who thinks that his opinion is gospel, despite the fact that it is just that, opinion.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between opinion and fact. That certainly does make it impossible to debate this topic, since by debate you mean that your flawed ideas must be accepted as valid, all trappings of a self-righteous pompous blowhard.

Quote: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.

Quote:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

(03-05-2014 11:15 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-05-2014 11:09 AM)eich41 Wrote:  LOL. It's clear that there is no point in debating a topic with someone is who is a self-righteous, pompous blowhard, who thinks that his opinion is gospel, despite the fact that it is just that, opinion.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between opinion and fact. That certainly does make it impossible to debate this topic, since by debate you mean that your flawed ideas must be accepted as valid, all trappings of a self-righteous pompous blowhard.

Quote: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.

Quote:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Thank you for posting that, can you point out to me where the "right to wrestle for any public university is"?

(03-05-2014 11:29 AM)eich41 Wrote:  

(03-05-2014 11:15 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-05-2014 11:09 AM)eich41 Wrote:  LOL. It's clear that there is no point in debating a topic with someone is who is a self-righteous, pompous blowhard, who thinks that his opinion is gospel, despite the fact that it is just that, opinion.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between opinion and fact. That certainly does make it impossible to debate this topic, since by debate you mean that your flawed ideas must be accepted as valid, all trappings of a self-righteous pompous blowhard.

Quote: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.

Quote:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Thank you for posting that, can you point out to me where the "right to wrestle for any public university is"?

So you can't read? Why are you debating this then?

Relevant

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/original...st_am.html

(Disclaimer: Need to be literate to read the linked article)

(03-07-2014 10:47 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Relevant

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/original...st_am.html

(Disclaimer: Need to be literate to read the linked article)

"Interestingly, it has been reported that the national fraternity organization has suspended the Ole Miss chapter and expelled the three allegedly responsible members. This is as it should be: since freedom of association has been held to be protected by the First Amendment, a private membership organization has the undoubted constitutional right to discipline or expel members who have brought shame to themselves and to the organization. In other words, the same First Amendment that prevents a public university or a government from punishing wayward students, also protects the right of a private organization to decide what conduct is unacceptable for its members. Acting as these three students allegedly have acted does have a price, but in a free society that price is exacted by private citizens rather than by the government (or by the administrators of a public university)."

I'm not a lawyer, and it's possible that the noose/flag combo is just offensive and not actually illegal; I'll leave that to the constitutional law scholars on here to debate. However, it seems to me that the fraternity took action that was roughly equivalent to what the wrestling team did to the young man who was the original topic of this thread.

(03-07-2014 11:56 AM)CMichFan Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 10:47 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Relevant

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/original...st_am.html

(Disclaimer: Need to be literate to read the linked article)

"Interestingly, it has been reported that the national fraternity organization has suspended the Ole Miss chapter and expelled the three allegedly responsible members. This is as it should be: since freedom of association has been held to be protected by the First Amendment, a private membership organization has the undoubted constitutional right to discipline or expel members who have brought shame to themselves and to the organization. In other words, the same First Amendment that prevents a public university or a government from punishing wayward students, also protects the right of a private organization to decide what conduct is unacceptable for its members. Acting as these three students allegedly have acted does have a price, but in a free society that price is exacted by private citizens rather than by the government (or by the administrators of a public university)."

I'm not a lawyer, and it's possible that the noose/flag combo is just offensive and not actually illegal; I'll leave that to the constitutional law scholars on here to debate. However, it seems to me that the fraternity took action that was roughly equivalent to what the wrestling team did to the young man who was the original topic of this thread.

Fraternities are not the same as the university's team. Complete difference.

You could do worse than have Mark Steyn repeat what you've written

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/aus...e-speech-2

Quote:A generation ago, progressive opinion at least felt obliged to pay lip service to the Voltaire shtick. These days, nobody’s asking you to defend yourself to the death: a mildly supportive retweet would do. But even that’s further than most of those in the academy, the arts, the media are prepared to go. As Erin Ching, a student at 60-grand-a-year Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, put it in her college newspaper the other day: ‘What really bothered me is the whole idea that at a liberal arts college we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion.’ Yeah, who needs that? There speaks the voice of a generation: celebrate diversity by enforcing conformity.

http://xkcd.com/1357/

(04-23-2014 05:22 PM)JSF Wrote:  http://xkcd.com/1357/

Not really relevant to this discussion. Oh, and don't believe everything you read in cartoons.

Free speech at universities is for the tenured faculty only. In fact, the only thing many tenured faculty produce is free speech.