Jump to content

Home

Simple overreacting or Liberal Targetting of Free Speech


GarfieldJL
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not sure how to elaborate on it without repeating what other members have said.

 

Like I said, my opinion is biased because I am a Liberal and have not been targeting free speech. Personally I think his project was just plain stupid. How in the hell would having students carrying concealed guns help anything in anyway? And like Avery said "There is **** you don't say"

 

I could kinda understand if the concealed weapons was for teachers, but still a bit iffy.

 

If it was me, even though I strongly disagree with the student's opinion, I would not call the police on him. I would probably call a higher authority in the room to deal with it though. I'd still try and let him have his say.

 

So, therefore, I believe this was just an overreaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how to elaborate on it without repeating what other members have said.

 

Try your best though.

 

Like I said, my opinion is biased because I am a Liberal and have not been targeting free speech. Personally I think his project was just plain stupid. How in the hell would having students carrying concealed guns help anything in anyway? And like Avery said "There is **** you don't say"

 

Problem with that argument is the nature of the class, it concerned topics in the media, he just chose the opposite stance that anti-gun activists would take. In many schools and even high schools in the mid west there wouldn't have been an issue.

 

I could kinda understand if the concealed weapons was for teachers, but still a bit iffy.

 

First they need to get a conceal and carry permit, second what about people in ROTC, they work with firearms. Just make the standards for obtaining a permit rather stringent.

 

If it was me, even though I strongly disagree with the student's opinion, I would not call the police on him. I would probably call a higher authority in the room to deal with it though. I'd still try and let him have his say.

 

However the student did not threaten anyone, he just presented his viewpoint on the issue which was relevant to the nature of the class. It was furthermore a legitimate topic. So while discussing it with a higher authority may have been advisable, if the higher authority had acted in the manner the teacher had, that authority would be the one in trouble for overreacting.

 

So, therefore, I believe this was just an overreaction.

 

It was an interesting analysis, one that I don't agree with you on, but respect your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't this just be an overreaction from a paranoid teacher?

 

Why do you have to turn this into a "liberal agenda" "everyone in the world is against me" deal? This entire thread seems less like an opportunity to point out a bad teacher, and more of another propaganda attempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't this just be an overreaction from a paranoid teacher?

 

Why do you have to turn this into a "liberal agenda" "everyone in the world is against me" deal? This entire thread seems less like an opportunity to point out a bad teacher, and more of another propaganda attempt.

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/02/26/wapo-southerners-are-slavery-loving-racists

 

 

Yeah calling people racists for voting for John McCain...

 

 

There is a pattern in acadamia, and the pattern looks to me like there is more than just a simple overreaction by a teacher.

 

The University of California is also a good example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah calling people racists for voting for John McCain...

You example is funny because Newsbusters loves to throw around "marxist" and "socialist"

 

McCain voters got called racists, and Obama voters got called communist/socialists.

 

People call each other names. Grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You example is funny because Newsbusters loves to throw around "marxist" and "socialist"

 

McCain voters got called racists, and Obama voters got called communist/socialists.

 

People call each other names. Grow up.

 

You do realize Obama was a member of the New Socialist Party... And if I recall it was generally Obama that was being called a communist/socialist and people can back up that statement rather easily with his "income redistribution" comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize Obama was a member of the New Socialist Party... And if I recall it was generally Obama that was being called a communist/socialist and people can back up that statement rather easily with his "income redistribution" comments.

 

Fallacy: that doesn't mean his voters are socialists/marxists ;)

 

_EW_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, what is so bad about Socialism? I'm an open supporter of it. I wouldn't support that the U.S. become a Socialist country, but many Americans hear Socialism and then close the door. Socialism isn't evil or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, what is so bad about Socialism? I'm an open supporter of it. I wouldn't support that the U.S. become a Socialist country, but many Americans hear Socialism and then close the door. Socialism isn't evil or anything.

 

It's one of those things. Americans in general are more concerned with profits than other humans.

 

_EW_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, what is so bad about Socialism? I'm an open supporter of it. I wouldn't support that the U.S. become a Socialist country, but many Americans hear Socialism and then close the door. Socialism isn't evil or anything.

 

Well here's the problem Socialism on paper looks really good but in practice it fails miserably and the level at which we're looking at socialism, odds are it will give way to a dictatorship.

 

Fallacy: that doesn't mean his voters are socialists/marxists

 

Actually you can say that most of the socialist and marxists that voted, voted for Obama. Though I don't recall people calling the people that voted for Obama that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well here's the problem Socialism on paper looks really good but in practice it fails miserably and the level at which we're looking at socialism, odds are it will give way to a dictatorship.

 

Sensationalism, for the most part.

 

Actually you can say that most of the socialist and marxists that voted, voted for Obama. Though I don't recall people calling the people that voted for Obama that.

Yes, but most of the people who voted for Obama were not socialists.

 

Apples are fruits, but not all fruits are apples.

Thus, fallacious. Relates to statistical generalization: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html

 

_EW_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well here's the problem Socialism on paper looks really good but in practice it fails miserably and the level at which we're looking at socialism, odds are it will give way to a dictatorship.
You are describing communism, particularly Stalinism. Socialism is not communism; Sadly, it is a myth that has survived for over a century in America. Sweden, for example, is socialistic in several ways (and what I mean by that, is, the American definition of socialism), and has an astronomical GDP and standard of living.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually they are, look at Lenin, he was a socialist.

 

And why should looking at Lenin, or Stalin for that matter, tell us anything about what Communism or Socialism actually are?

There's a reason we distinguish between "Real Socialism", "Socialism" and "Communism".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why should looking at Lenin, or Stalin for that matter, tell us anything about what Communism or Socialism actually are?

There's a reason we distinguish between "Real Socialism", "Socialism" and "Communism".

 

The utopia thing doesn't work in practice, only on paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The utopia thing doesn't work in practice, only on paper.

 

 

 

Eh.... it only works on paper under the assumption that no *******s are allowed in!

 

 

In all seriousness, we've never seen a truly socialist state according to Karl Marx's principles, we only know the modern day incarnations and the ultimate failure of the Soviet Union. A truly Marxist state would be the proletariat of an entire species overthrowing the bourgeoisie simultaneously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...