Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

Professor Moriarty

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I could say the exact same thing about self appointed activists who like to block other people from attending political meetings/political events " a gang of thugs enforcing a law that doesn't exist " as there is no law against attending political meetings/political events.

Apart from chanting and moving a table across a door, they didn't do very much. They weren't a bunch of thugs intimidating and threatening people. However, free speech should be protected and they should have been stopped.

markodaly

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I suppose free speech winning again.

Chris_Heilong

20Cent wrote: »

There are more than two genders thats biology not politics.

Also refusing to stop talking out of turn, angry outbursts erc. Suppose if Nazi's can be given time to talk then everyine should spend every class shouting.

Since when? Biology says there is just a Y chromosome and an X chromosome which dictates what sex you will be, now if you want to say 'gender' is state of mind and is not the same as sex fine but you can not say it is biology, have things changed recently? Honest question.

Brian?

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Since when? Biology says there is just a Y chromosome and an X chromosome which dictates what sex you will be, now if you want to say 'gender' is state of mind and is not the same as sex fine but you can not say it is biology, have things changed recently? Honest question.

Hermaphroditism?

Red_Wake

Brian? wrote: »

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Since when? Biology says there is just a Y chromosome and an X chromosome which dictates what sex you will be, now if you want to say 'gender' is state of mind and is not the same as sex fine but you can not say it is biology, have things changed recently? Honest question.

Hermaphroditism?

Are we content to say there are 3 genders so?

Chris_Heilong

Brian? wrote: »

Hermaphroditism?

Yes but that is a genetic defect...or maybe I am not allowed say that any more.

20Cent

Red_Wake wrote: »

Are we content to say there are 3 genders so?

Regarding genes humans can have XX,XY, XXY , XXYY, X, or XXX.
Gender refers to something more complex than genes it includes the characteristics of that society and the person themselves.

Havockk

markodaly wrote: »

I suppose free speech winning again.

Winning by failing?

Red_Wake

20Cent wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

Are we content to say there are 3 genders so?

Regarding genes humans can have XX,XY, XXY , XXYY, X,  or XXX.
Gender refers to something more complex than genes it includes the characteristics of that society and the person themselves.

Out of curiosity, how many of these combinations would be capable of further breeding, in general.

Obviously, there are individuals with the XX/XY who are incapable of procreation, but for the others, would infertility be considered the exception or the norm?

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Stay on topic please.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Young wanna be thugs being intimated by actual thugs. Welcome to adulthood boys.

What exactly makes the flag burners thugs?

They’re expressing their opinions by burning a piece of material.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Skylinehead

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hate speech is generally against people, not a country.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Probably, yes. But it’s still free speech, a protected right.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

What exactly makes the flag burners thugs?

They’re expressing their opinions by burning a piece of material.

Yes, I would somewhat agree.

They are free to burn a flag as its protected under free speech, and the people who turned up are free to protest that. I do not see anything illegal happen in that video. There was no violence from what I can see.

johnp001

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, I would somewhat agree.

They are free to burn a flag as its protected under hate speech, and the people who turned up are free to protest that. I do not see anything illegal happen in that video. There was no violence from what I can see.

Exactly, there didn't seem like there was a massively disproportionate use of force.
Freedom of speech doesn't imply protection from the reaction of others to what you say.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, I would somewhat agree.

They are free to burn a flag as its protected under free speech, and the people who turned up are free to protest that. I do not see anything illegal happen in that video. There was no violence from what I can see.

So why did you call both sides thugs?

The Legend Of Kira

Skylinehead wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hate speech is generally against people, not a country.[/quote]
A flag represents people as in it represents the citizens/people of a country, , & burning a flag is burning something representive to a whole group of people .

markodaly

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

A flag represents people as in it represents the citizens/people of a country, , & burning a flag is burning something representive to a whole group of people .

If a group burned the rainbow flag, you can be sure that it would viewed on by many of the left as hate speech.

Professor Moriarty

markodaly wrote: »

If a group burned the rainbow flag, you can be sure that it would viewed on by many of the left as hate speech.

And by those in the centre.

The Legend Of Kira

markodaly wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

A flag represents people as in it represents the citizens/people of a country, , & burning a flag is burning something representive to a whole group of people .

If a group burned the rainbow flag, you can be sure that it would viewed on by many of the left as hate speech.

Good point,, as the rainbow flag is something that,s representive of Lgbt people.

The Legend Of Kira

markodaly wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

A flag represents people as in it represents the citizens/people of a country, , & burning a flag is burning something representive to a whole group of people .

If a group burned the rainbow flag, you can be sure that it would viewed on by many of the left as hate speech.

After you mentioned rainbow flags- I googled to see if there was any instances of the rainbow flag being burned in recent years,, & it turns out a rainbow flag was burned in Ukraine last year.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/623220/Kiev-Pride-2017-LGBT-parade-Ukraine-protest-rainbow-flags-burned-armed-police

Does anyone think its " hate speech " what they did ? & if so wouldn,t burning a countries flag also equally be " hate speech " ?

markodaly

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

After you mentioned rainbow flags- I googled to see if there was any instances of the rainbow flag being burned in recent years,, & it turns out a rainbow flag was burned in Ukraine last year.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/623220/Kiev-Pride-2017-LGBT-parade-Ukraine-protest-rainbow-flags-burned-armed-police

Does anyone think its " hate speech " what they did ? & if so wouldn,t burning a countries flag also equally be " hate speech " ?

Well, you cannot have it both ways.

You cannot burn the american flag and say it's just an action of protest but turn around complain about people burning the rainbow flag.

You either support burning both of them, while supporting free speech. Or you disagree with both.

markodaly

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

And by those in the centre.

Thus they would be hypocrites.

Sierra Eire

markodaly wrote: »

Germany in the early 1930's was a hot bed of street battles between both far left (Communists, Marxists) and far right (Nazi's). Might is right.

The "nazis" - National Socialists - were not "far right". Socialism is a left-wing movement.

If you are in support of big governments and the government controlling your life, you're a leftist. If you support small governments and more freedom and rights for individuals living in a country, you're right-wing.

The Legend Of Kira

markodaly wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

After you mentioned rainbow flags- I googled to see if there was any instances of the rainbow flag being burned in recent years,, & it turns out a rainbow flag was burned in Ukraine last year.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/623220/Kiev-Pride-2017-LGBT-parade-Ukraine-protest-rainbow-flags-burned-armed-police

Does anyone think its " hate speech " what they did ? & if so wouldn,t burning a countries flag also equally be " hate speech " ?

Well, you cannot have it both ways.

You cannot burn the american flag and say it's just an action of protest but turn around complain about people burning the rainbow flag.

You either support burning both of them, while supporting free speech. Or you disagree with both.

My own personal take on flag burning is although I might disagree with it- I don,t think it should be crime,, but Im interested in hearing people who go on about this left wing term " hate speech " what their take is on the rainbow flag being burned in Ukraine last year .

johnp001

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

My own personal take on flag burning is although I might disagree with it- I don,t think it should be crime,, but Im interested in hearing people who go on about this left wing term " hate speech " what their take is on the rainbow flag being burned in Ukraine last year .

Rothbard makes a good case that a legal position on flag-burning is not necessary over and above property rights. Similar arguments are advanced regarding the much used example of shouting fire in a crowded theatre

I agree that the term "hate speech" should always be in quotes. It is a purely subjective concept.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Absolutist tosh. It's a pure fantasy that this can be achieved. Why? Because there is a line in the sand that some people are just not willing to accept. Not to mention most people want to live in a civilised society, and in a civilised society there is no room for racism in the same way there is no room for pro-paedophilia.

I'd call that an impasse, wouldn't you?

Sierra Eire

Havockk wrote: »

Absolutist tosh. It's a pure fantasy that this can be achieved. Why? Because there is a line in the sand that some people are just not willing to accept. Not to mention most people want to live in a civilised society, and in a civilised society there is no room for racism in the same way there is no room for pro-paedophilia.

I'd call that an impasse, wouldn't you?

"There is no room for racism"

You'll have to explain what racism is to you, because that word is also subjective like "hate speech".

Havockk

Sierra Eire wrote: »

"There is no room for racism"

You'll have to explain what racism is to you, because that word is also subjective like "hate speech".

What do you mean, 'what racism is to me?'

It's the exact same for everyone...Not subjective at all. Do you really need me to explain to you what it is?

WinnyThePoo

Havockk wrote: »

What do you mean, 'what racism is to me?'

It's the exact same for everyone...Not subjective at all. Do you really need me to explain to you what it is?

We live in a sad little world where someone has to have racism spelled out them.

The Legend Of Kira

Havockk wrote: »

Sierra Eire wrote: »

"There is no room for racism"

You'll have to explain what racism is to you, because that word is also subjective like "hate speech".

What do you mean, 'what racism is to me?'

It's the exact same for everyone...Not subjective at all. Do you really need me to explain to you what it is?

What the other poster means & what I meant in my earlier replies to you- because " racism " is a term that,s loosely used these days,, what one person will see as " racism " others won,t I already cited examples in my earlier replies to you- another example I refer to is the tv show ( Friends ) some younger people recently said they saw it as " racist " among other labels- whereas other people don,t see what the fuss is about they re making over a tv show.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/friends-problematic-netflix-viewers/

This was also discussed by people on another thread also.

https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057830523

I can also point to all the recent news this week about the grooming gangs scandal in Telford & reports of the police being afraid to properly do their jobs all because they didn,t want to be accused of " racism " so the police are afraid to do the jobs because of being afraid of  being accused of" racism " its a def a term that,s too loosely when it stops people doing their job properly .

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-bbcs-shameful-silence-on-the-telford-sex-scandal/

Havockk

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

What the other poster means & what I meant in my earlier replies to you- because " racism " is a term that,s loosely used these days,, what one person will see as " racism " others won,t I already cited examples in my earlier replies to you- another example I refer to is the tv show ( Friends ) some younger people recently said they saw it as " racist " among other labels- whereas other people don,t see what the fuss is about they re making over a tv show.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/friends-problematic-netflix-viewers/

This was also discussed by people on another thread also.

https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057830523

I can also point to all the recent news this week about the grooming gangs scandal in Telford & reports of the police being afraid to properly do their jobs all because they didn,t want to be accused of " racism " so the police are afraid to do the jobs because of being afraid of  being accused of" racism " its a def a term that,s too loosely when it stops people doing their job properly .

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-bbcs-shameful-silence-on-the-telford-sex-scandal/

No... I did pick up he meant the term was 'subjective.'

I disagreed.

RDM_83 again

Havockk wrote: »

Absolutist tosh. It's a pure fantasy that this can be achieved. Why? Because there is a line in the sand that some people are just not willing to accept. Not to mention most people want to live in a civilised society, and in a civilised society there is no room for racism in the same way there is no room for pro-paedophilia.

I'd call that an impasse, wouldn't you?

Unfortunately for your point though there is a depressing link between the progressive Left (in the UK) and a organization that were hijacked by paedophiles to legitimize themselves.

Look up Harriet Harman* who is now a very senior politician within British Labour and the National Council for Civil Liberties in the 70's and 80's.

Basically you can say paedophilia is unacceptable today but this is a question the ultra tolerant left (as opposed to the workers Left) actually started to eat itself over.

If people in the 70's and 80's had gone around smashing up and threatening the National Council for Civil Liberties what would you have called them?

* You will read some denials but read the Guardian/Telegraph to see what she actually signed of on

markodaly

Havockk wrote: »

No... I did pick up he meant the term was 'subjective.'

I disagreed.

But the term is subjective, much like the term Hate Speech. These terms are banded about so much they are diluted and lose meanings.

You are on record on saying that humans cannot be trusted, so we must clamp down on free speech so that we 'eliminate' racism.

Take for example, blasphemy laws. Not so long ago, society thought it was a good idea to have these laws on their books, to protect religious doctrine, institutions and moral society. Do you think that was a good idea?

markodaly

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tom-o-carroll-labour-suspends-convicted-paedophile-and-pro-child-sex-campaigner-who-joined-party-a6877006.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10666875/Patricia-Hewitt-called-for-age-of-consent-to-be-lowered-to-ten.html

Patricia Hewitt was forced to apologise after it was revealed that she had called for the age of sexual consent to be lowered to ten.

The document published in the former Labour cabinet minister’s name also called for incest to be legalised.

A National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) press release quoted in The Sun issued in Miss Hewitt’s sole name in Mach 1976 read: “NCCL proposes that the age of consent should be lowered to 14, with special provision for situations where the partners are close in age or where the consent of a child over ten can be proved.

Hmmm, interesting bed fellows they had alright.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Please stay on Universities, not the Labour party.

Sierra Eire

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

We live in a sad little world where someone has to have racism spelled out them.

We live in a sad world where criticising mass-immigration and anti-western cultures is called racism. Not wanting Irish people to be bred out of existence by foreigners is also considered racism.

And yes, I do need racism spelt out to me. Because people in the UK, Sweden and Germany are being thrown in jail for "racism" simply because they criticised immigration.

If you think I am the one who needs racism spelt out to me, you can **** off.

ancapailldorcha

Sierra Eire wrote: »

If you think I am the one who needs racism spelt out to me, you can **** off.

Enough of the abrasive language.

Back on topic please. Any more off-topic posts will be deleted.

RDM_83 again

Havockk wrote: »

No... I did pick up he meant the term was 'subjective.'

I disagreed.

Ok so you don't think the term Racism is subjective at all then?
That makes very little sense considering that the UN's resolutions on Racism have been rather different depending on time period.

An easy example of this relates to Zionism, Zionism wasn't Racism according to the UN between 1963-1975, then from 1975-1991 Zionism was racism, from 1991 to present its not racism.

Today you have some that argue Racism requires both negative views of groups and the ability to enact that discrimination/negative view point on a wider scale via power structures.

WinnyThePoo

Sierra Eire wrote: »

We live in a sad world where criticising mass-immigration and anti-western cultures is called racism. Not wanting Irish people to be bred out of existence by foreigners is also considered racism.

And yes, I do need racism spelt out to me. Because people in the UK, Sweden and Germany are being thrown in jail for "racism" simply because they criticised immigration.

If you think I am the one who needs racism spelt out to me, you can **** off.

We don't live in a world where questioning
Immigration makes you a racist.

Actually why bother responding to you. Irish people being bred out of existence? . This is headbanger stuff.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So it's subjective because you can point to one stupid headline in one student newspaper in OK?

Then a completely bizarre segue to Huck Finn?

RDM_83 again

Havockk wrote: »

So it's subjective because you can point to one stupid headline in one student newspaper in OK?

Then a completely bizarre segue to Huck Finn?

Interesting that you focus in on a minor side point rather than engage with my example which is the UN itself?
Why?

The Legend Of Kira

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Sierra Eire wrote: »

We live in a sad world where criticising mass-immigration and anti-western cultures is called racism. Not wanting Irish people to be bred out of existence by foreigners is also considered racism.

And yes, I do need racism spelt out to me. Because people in the UK, Sweden and Germany are being thrown in jail for "racism" simply because they criticised immigration.

If you think I am the one who needs racism spelt out to me, you can **** off.

We don't live in a world where questioning
Immigration makes you a racist.

Actually why bother responding to you. Irish people being bred out of existence? . This is headbanger stuff.

"" We don't live in a world where questioning Immigration makes you a racist.  ""
We do actually-  ( Exhibit A ) A new party has a launch night in Ennis,, this new party has policies of tightly controlling inward immigration, left wing protesters crash the launch night accusing the new party of " racism " .

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/meeting-of-new-anti-immigration-group-in-ennis-disrupted-by-groups-of-protesters-1.124072

( Exhibit B )

A debate on immigration at Ucd- the speaker who was due to give a controlled immigration point of view is assaulted by self appointed thugs because they think its somehow " racist " to support controlled immigration .

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/assault-on-speaker-at-ucd-debate-25893151.html

"" We don't live in a world where questioning Immigration makes you a racist. ""

+ I can also point out the fact that most elections no tds from any of the main parties question or debate the topic of immigration.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Havockk

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Interesting that you focus in on a minor side point rather than engage with my example which is the UN itself?
Why?

I just really like and admire Permabear. Don't take offence.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nah, it's not subjective at all, nor is sexism. If you hate a person because of the colour of their skin, you're a racist. If you discriminate against them because of the colour of their skin, you're a racist. If you dislike women simply because they are female, you're sexist.

This is just fundamental. No amount of anecdotal evidence, or editorials written by fools will change it to be subjective.

I'm also fully aware it cannot be eliminated, there will always be those happy to hate. Which is why it needs legislated against and minorities protected.