IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd December 2012, 03:39 AM   #1
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Warren Farrell - feminist protest at the University of Toronto

WARNING: Bad language.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Can anyone say... lunatics? There was a girl at one point literally looked like she was crazy or on drugs or something

Last edited by Edx; 2nd December 2012 at 03:41 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 05:18 AM   #2
squealpiggy
Graduate Poster
 
squealpiggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,468
It's a game for these kids. I'm surprised they didn't yell out "shame" or "the whole world is watching", two favourites in the land of Protest Bingo.
squealpiggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 05:31 AM   #3
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
There's another video where one of them is saying that Warren Farrell and mens rights groups "defend rape, incest and violence against children". Just throw out emotional words and accusations that sound horrible!
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 05:44 AM   #4
squealpiggy
Graduate Poster
 
squealpiggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,468
What Farrell does as far as I can tell is reject feminist orthodoxy on rape. For example the definition of "rape" as an "unwanted sexual activity" makes it sufficiently broad that a majority of people could lay claim to having been raped.

"The truth is that both sexes participate in unwanted sexual activity. A feminist who was brave enough to ask these broad-based questions of both sexes astonished herself to discover that 94 percent of the men (as well as 98 percent of the women) said they had an unwanted sexual activity by the time they were in college. Even more surprising was her finding, reported in the Journal of Sex Research, that 63 percent of the men and 46 percent of the women said they had experienced unwanted intercourse. By feminist definitions of rape as unwanted sex, virtually everybody has been raped. And that’s how rape begins to look like an epidemic. It’s also how rape gets trivialized."

- The Myth of Male Power.
squealpiggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 05:56 AM   #5
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Yes well I have a whole hobby horse about how feminists have further and further watered down of what rape means so that it allows you to define just about anything as rape, even something like foreplay as attempted rape, and actual rape if it ends with the women changing her mind. This man for example has been so convinced by feminists that he has raped his past girlfriends he's clearly developed severe depression, its quite sad. One of the main problem with feminists idea of rape, and there are a lot of problems, is that they assert they want rape to be taken seriously and will talk a lot about "rape culture". When they explain what they mean by this they say that that rape is trivialised in our society. As much as this is an exaggeration, its not entirely false, because I can think of no better way to trivialise rape than to water it down to such absurd degrees. Not only do they want to include so many things to be defined as "rape" but they also want them treated as just as serious as each other. I can also think of no better way to insult real victims of rape than to say that their violent experience was "just as serious" as something demonstrably minor by comparison. Its like defining GBH to include a push or shove, what GBH means looses all meaning.

But anyway... thats kind of besides the topic. You can watch the whole Toronto presentation of Warren Farrell on YT, you'll find it pretty hard to find any "hate speech" there. Dr Farrell has to be one of most soft spoken fair minded speakers on any subject that I've encountered. I also like very like how he conducts Q+A's where he usually tries to get other people involved in giving their perspectives before he gives his own. In regards hate speech, on the other side we have popular radical feminist websites like RadfemHub that literally talk about murdering men, eugenics and sex selective abortions and they arent considered hate groups and its not considered hate speech. Even from the most extreme misogynistic parts of the mens community I've never see anything like this kind of vitriol and hate. Hell, the homicidal lunatic Valerie Solanas promoted exterminating all men off the face of the planet, most feminists hand wave it as satire (based on no evidence at all) despite the fact that she literally tried to murder several people including Andy Warhol, yet her and her writings are often praised as a great feminist pioneer and thinker. But a mens group like A Voice For Men is considered so hateful its worthy of being highlighted by the SPLC because they have an article that talks about how a man should be able to hit back if a women is beating on him, or the Pick Up Artist community for advocating consensual sex with a women they dont intend to call again.

Last edited by Edx; 2nd December 2012 at 06:35 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 06:18 AM   #6
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,209
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
WARNING: Bad language.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Can anyone say... lunatics?
No. I can say good camera technique and editing. Particularly given the lighting conditions whoever shot it knew what they were doing in that respect.

As a propaganda piece I'd give it 5 out of 10. Goes on for too long, too obviously agenda drive, cuts are too noticeable. The guy suddenly talking about suicide needs a better leadin in fact the whole thing could do with a better narrative.

Obviously not aimed at a more sophisticated audience but if it was the framing is of the type that such an audience.

Quote:
There was a girl at one point literally looked like she was crazy or on drugs or something
Ah yeah ad homs really don't help your case.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 06:27 AM   #7
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by geni View Post
No. I can say good camera technique and editing. Particularly given the lighting conditions whoever shot it knew what they were doing in that respect.

As a propaganda piece I'd give it 5 out of 10. Goes on for too long, too obviously agenda drive, cuts are too noticeable.
lol, there are 2 other versions that much much shorter if you check the YT channel. Though I would like to know what you think they could have cut out that would somehow show the protesters in a more favourable light.


Quote:
The guy suddenly talking about suicide needs a better leadin in fact the whole thing could do with a better narrative.
Ahh yes because men couldnt possibly be interested in suicide and why such a huge percentage of men kill themselves compared to women and if there's anything we can do about it, it must be an actor and a fake!

Quote:
Ah yeah ad homs really don't help your case.
Skip to 3:35. The girl that starts saying.. "how do you sleep at night". Look at her face after she finishes her sentence, Im sorry but there is something wrong with her, its not an insult, anyone can tell there's something wrong with her.

There's also this women who claims that Warren Farrell and mens rights "defend rape, incest and violence against women". They couldnt justify the rape accusation, and certainly not the violence against children accusation, but the "incest" one if particular insane and totally out of nowhere.

Its an uphill battle if you want to defend them, I recommend you watch the actual presentation and explain exactly what parts can be reasonably called "hate speech" or fit any of their accusations.

Last edited by Edx; 2nd December 2012 at 06:29 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 06:36 AM   #8
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,209
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Yes well I have a whole hobby horse about how feminists have further and further watered down of what rape means so that it allows you to define just about anything as rape, even something like foreplay as attempted rape,
Would usually be classifed as sexual assault simply because attempted anything is a very high bar to pass in law. That said attempted rape has been on the books since at least the 50s which suggests it doesn't have much to do with feminism.

Quote:
and actual rape if it ends with the women changing her mind.
It is. Court ruling from the 90s. Consent can be withdrawn at any time.
Quote:
This man for example has been so convinced by feminists that he has raped his past girlfriends he's clearly developed severe depression, its quite sad.
Correlation is not causation. Particularly given the percentage of the population that suffers from depression.

Quote:
One of the main problem with feminists idea of rape, and there are a lot of problems, is that they assert they want rape to be taken seriously and will refer to "rape culture". When they explain what they mean by this is that rape is trivialised. I can think of no better way to trivialise rape than to water it down to such absurd degrees.
I'm failing to see why you think this forum sould be concerned by your lack of imagination.

Quote:
Not only do they want to include so many things as defined as "rape" but they also want them treated as just as serious as each other. I can also think of no better way than to insult real victims of rape than to say that their violent experience was just as serious as something demonstrably minor by comparison. Its like defining GBH to include a push or shove, what GBH means looses all meaning.
Given that a push or shove can end up classifed as murder you might want to pick a different example.

Quote:
But anyway... thats kind of besides the topic. You can watch the whole Toronto presentation of Warren Farrell on YT,
Why do you think anyone here is going to watch a random 2.5 hour long video?

Quote:
In regards hate speech, on the other side we have popular radical feminist websites like RadfemHub that literally talk about murdering men, eugenics and sex selective abortions and they arent considered hate groups and its not considered hate speech.
Hmm citations needed.

Quote:
Even from the most extreme misogynistic parts of the mens community I've never see anything like this kind of vitriol and hate.
Translation:You've never visited 4chan.


Quote:
Hell, the homicidal lunatic Valerie Solanas promoted exterminating all men off the face of the planet,
Thats an impressively random tangent from a student protest at the University of Toronto.

Last edited by geni; 2nd December 2012 at 06:55 AM.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 06:54 AM   #9
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,209
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
lol, there are 2 other versions that much much shorter if you check the YT channel. Though I would like to know what you think they could have cut out that would somehow show the protesters in a more favourable light.
That's really not important when it comes to considering the quality of propaganda. The only question there is would the viewer pick up on the cuts to the point where they get suspicious. In this case the answer is yes.

Quote:
Ahh yes because men couldnt possibly be interested in suicide and why such a huge percentage of men kill themselves compared to women and if there's anything we can do about it, it must be an actor and a fake!
I'm sorry is there are a particular reason you are getting so excited about strawman? The point is not if the person is genuine or not (I certainly assume they are) its that if you are suddenly going to drop in an appeal to people's emotions you need to put it into a narrative context. Basic PR. The video fails to do that which weakens its effectiveness as propaganda.


Quote:
Skip to 3:35. The girl that starts saying.. "how do you sleep at night". Look at her face after she finishes her sentence, Im sorry but there is something wrong with her, its not an insult, anyone can tell there's something wrong with her.
Impressive diagnosis from a 2 second clip but I really doubt if you are qualified to make it.

Quote:
There's also this women who claims that Warren Farrell and mens rights "defend rape, incest and violence against women". They couldnt justify the rape accusation, and certainly not the violence against children accusation, but the "incest" one if particular insane and totally out of nowhere.
I'm sorry but being wrong isn't listed in the DSM-IV-TR or considered a recreational drug.

Quote:
Its an uphill battle if you want to defend them, I recommend you watch the actual presentation and explain exactly what parts can be reasonably called "hate speech" or fit any of their accusations.
Given your record so far in this thread why should I take your recommendations on anything?

In the end its a fairly typical student protest. Pretty common at many universities. Covering a wide and interesting rage of topics they are an excepted method by which people can experiment with political activity in a fairly safe environment. Whining about it just makes you look pathetic.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 07:11 AM   #10
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by geni View Post
Would usually be classifed as sexual assault simple because attempted anything is a very high bar to pass in law. That said attempted rape has been on the books since at least the 50s which suggests it doesn't have much to do with feminism.
I didnt say the foreplay wasnt consensual, if its not consensual its clearly sexual assault and therefore IMO by definiton not foreplay.

Im saying that the definition of "coercion" used by feminists is so broad it can include things like foreplay, or acting in any way disappointed or upset if a girl doesnt want to have sex.


Quote:
It is. Court ruling from the 90s. Consent can be withdrawn at any time.
If you werent so interested in quoting me out of context you'd have known that in this instance I was still referring to foreplay . So, if you're with someone and they say they arent sure they want to have sex, if you continue foreplay and they change their mind, thats considered "coercion" and rape according to lots of feminists because you didnt immediately stop all contact as soon as she said no and were totally happy with it. What you're talking about here is another aspect.

Quote:
Correlation is not causation. Particularly given the percentage of the population that suffers from depression.
While its true he could have been depressed before, its clear if you actually read the article he wrote that his hatred for himself on this belief that he raped his past girlfriends because he used foreplay to get them to change their minds didnt help.

Quote:
I'm failing to see why you think this forum sould be concerned by your lack of imagination.
I have no idea what you are even trying to say here... I do recomened you try reading my whole post rather than trying to ADHD your way through a reply by quoting every single sentence.


Quote:
Given that a push or shove can end up classifed as murder you might want to pick a different example.
...No its a good example since Grievous Bodily Harm does not include a push or a shove for very good reason - it waters it down to the point of meaninglessness. And FYI a push or a shove cannot be classified as "attempted murder" and certainly not "murder" either for the same reason btw, maybe you should work on your own examples.


Quote:
Why do you think anyone here is going to watch a ramdom 2.5 hour long video?
Um its not in any way random, its the point of this topic. If you dont want to participate you know where the proverbial door is. This is the actual presentation that the protesters are screaming is hate speech that they claim defends rape, incest and violence against children. I linked to it, so people can see for themselves if the level of violence and accusation from the protesters is in anyway related to reality or reason.



Quote:
Hmm citations needed.
For example:
http://radicalhub.com/2011/10/04/rad...-21st-century/

And this is public, there's also whats know as the "Agent Orange Files", which was collected on the private section of the Radical Hub site by someone who took screenshots of their private forums and they're a lot, lot worse.


Quote:
Translation:You've never visited 4chan.
1. 4chan isnt a mens community, and random trolls dont count. 2 . We're talking about feminist groups and mens communities. Feminist groups with high profile members that talk about murder, eugenics and regularly write things that would be considered hate speech toward any other group.


Quote:
Thats an impressively random tangent from a student protest at the University of Toronto.
Again, not really. The protesters in Toronto are saying mens rights groups promote hate speech, yet women and feminists are given a free pass to say whatever they want, no matter how violent, and get away with it.

Last edited by Edx; 2nd December 2012 at 09:07 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 07:22 AM   #11
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by geni View Post
That's really not important when it comes to considering the quality of propaganda. The only question there is would the viewer pick up on the cuts to the point where they get suspicious. In this case the answer is yes.
Sorry but if you're going to claim the video is dishonest, then you're going to need to explain exactly how you think its dishonest. In what way have they misrepresented the situation or the protesters? Otherwise, you're just throwing out words you think sound smart. Just because the producer has a bias (ie. they might not agree with the protesters) doesnt make it propaganda.



Quote:
I'm sorry is there are a particular reason you are getting so excited about strawman? The point is not if the person is genuine or not (I certainly assume they are) its that if you are suddenly going to drop in an appeal to people's emotions you need to put it into a narrative context. Basic PR. The video fails to do that which weakens its effectiveness as propaganda.
Strawman? You implied the guy talking about suicide was not a person that was actually concerned with getting into the event to get information like he said he was. I guess you could also have been saying that he was real, but they made a point to feature him cuz propaganda... not sure how that is any better, if this is what you meant, why wouldnt they talk to and feature someone unable to get into the event? You really need to learn what propaganda is because its not what you apparently think it is.


Quote:
Impressive diagnosis from a 2 second clip but I really doubt if you are qualified to make it.
If you cant tell there's something wrong with her, maybe you are the one that needs help. I'm specifically pointing her out, not all of them.



Quote:
I'm sorry but being wrong isn't listed in the DSM-IV-TR or considered a recreational drug.
What on earth are you talking about? You said "ad homs dont help my case" but dont seem to care that the protesters are making up absurd hateful accusations literally out of nothing. These are the people you're defending.

Quote:
why should I take your recommendations on anything?.
If you're going to claim the video is propaganda then you are going to have to prove its dishonest, if you're going to defend the protesters accusations you're going to have to watch the event or something and find a way to justify their claims. I do wonder what your position is here, you've come into this thread all guns blazing not knowing anything about the topic or even caring what it is about (calling the video of the event "random")

Last edited by Edx; 2nd December 2012 at 08:36 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 09:04 AM   #12
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
More evidence that the liberal left is the greatest threat to free speech today.

"I disagree with what you have to say, and I will do my utmost to keep you from saying it". Good job kids, that always works out well when implemented as policy. Kim Jong Un gives 2 "thumbs up" to your efforts.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 09:36 AM   #13
porch
Muse
 
porch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 627
What is the topic of this thread? If it's "Hey, look at a bunch of morons! Care to insult them with me?" then I find it uninteresting. I'll take you at your word that they're morons. The world is full of idiots being idiotic, and the internet is already overflowing with such content.

If this is some kind of attempt to create a serious discussion or argument about the meaning of rape and sexual assault in our culture, I consider this well to be poisoned to the extent that the water will never be clean again. Countless generations could suffer and starve trying to bring forth fruit from this spoiled land.
porch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 09:39 AM   #14
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by porch View Post
What is the topic of this thread? If it's "Hey, look at a bunch of morons! Care to insult them with me?" then I find it uninteresting.
It's about free speech and those who are against it, like the morons in the video.

And I think those who are against free speech should be mocked and ridiculed.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 09:56 AM   #15
sgtbaker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,208
Admittedly, this is the first time I've ever heard of Farrell. Out of curiosity, I googled the name and looked at the wiki page. Unless it is a ridiculously unfair representation of him, I don't get the protest. He seems like he fairly addresses gender issues and how they affect both genders. If I am misunderstanding the wiki page, I am open to correction, but from what I've seen, his writing doesn't seem to be motivated by hate.

I also saw someone claim that MRA is a hate group. I've checked out the MRA website and again, it just seems to be calling attention to areas where men are lacking in rights or recognition. I didn't do any serious research on the matter, I just looked at their homepage and what they stand for and I don't disagree. Men are unfairly represented in family courts, there are not enough mental health resources for men, women are typically painted as victims and rarely considered the perpetrators of domestic violence. Maybe there are a few positions that are not so black and white but that's what discussions are for, not protests demanding silence. Why not hear what he has to say and if his numbers are wrong, challenge him on that?
sgtbaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 10:11 AM   #16
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by sgtbaker View Post
Why not hear what he has to say and if his numbers are wrong, challenge him on that?
That's hard, censorship is easy. Just let the mob decide what is and isn't appropriate speech and everything will be great.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 10:12 AM   #17
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,125
Originally Posted by sgtbaker View Post
Admittedly, this is the first time I've ever heard of Farrell. Out of curiosity, I googled the name and looked at the wiki page. Unless it is a ridiculously unfair representation of him, I don't get the protest. He seems like he fairly addresses gender issues and how they affect both genders. If I am misunderstanding the wiki page, I am open to correction, but from what I've seen, his writing doesn't seem to be motivated by hate.

I also saw someone claim that MRA is a hate group. I've checked out the MRA website and again, it just seems to be calling attention to areas where men are lacking in rights or recognition. I didn't do any serious research on the matter, I just looked at their homepage and what they stand for and I don't disagree. Men are unfairly represented in family courts, there are not enough mental health resources for men, women are typically painted as victims and rarely considered the perpetrators of domestic violence. Maybe there are a few positions that are not so black and white but that's what discussions are for, not protests demanding silence. Why not hear what he has to say and if his numbers are wrong, challenge him on that?
Seconded. I too had to look him up and don't understand what the problem with him is. Now I have seen some 'Men's rights' groups make some pretty terrible claims in the past but I've seen the same of Feminists groups so I'm not about to right them all off for it.

If the worst that this man has done is disagree with the definition of coercion used in some rape research then I don't think the language used against him is justifiable at all.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 10:48 AM   #18
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 31,275
Originally Posted by porch View Post
What is the topic of this thread? If it's "Hey, look at a bunch of morons! Care to insult them with me?" then I find it uninteresting.



__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

Last edited by Beerina; 2nd December 2012 at 10:49 AM.
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 10:55 AM   #19
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,603
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
[snip]Hell, the homicidal lunatic Valerie Solanas promoted exterminating all men off the face of the planet, most feminists hand wave it as satire (based on no evidence at all) despite the fact that she literally tried to murder several people including Andy Warhol, yet her and her writings are often praised as a great feminist pioneer and thinker. [....]
I'd never heard of Valerie Solanas, so I went looking. Wow. Just Wow! Her "SCUM Manifesto" has to be one of the wildest things I've read this year. A perfect example of hatred twisting one's thoughts into knots no sailor has ever seen.

http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm

~Dragon-who thinks men are sacred-Lady
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 04:15 PM   #20
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,209
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
More evidence that the liberal left is the greatest threat to free speech today.

"I disagree with what you have to say, and I will do my utmost to keep you from saying it". Good job kids, that always works out well when implemented as policy. Kim Jong Un gives 2 "thumbs up" to your efforts.

Err if they wanted to do their upmost they would have just firebombed the building no?

Being in the way is an accepted form of university protest. Traditionaly in the form of sit-ins but I guess standing around shouting-ins is an option. I've not run across even being used as a method of opression by the north korean goverment. They tend to prefer just to shoot you.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 04:46 PM   #21
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,114
Protesting someone's speech or ideas are "limiting freedom of speech" don't you know. Therefore, to protect free speech, we have to ban protests. Right, WildCat?
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 04:50 PM   #22
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,209
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
I didnt say the foreplay wasnt consensual, if its not consensual its clearly sexual assault and therefore IMO by definiton not foreplay.

Im saying that the definition of "coercion" used by feminists is so broad it can include things like foreplay, or acting in any way disappointed or upset if a girl doesnt want to have sex.
Well if you want to make those arguments you are free to do so but I'm not sure what they have to do with mechanism of student protest within north american universities.

Quote:
While its true he could have been depressed before, its clear if you actually read the article he wrote that his hatred for himself on this belief that he raped his past girlfriends because he used foreplay to get them to change their minds didnt help.
There's no evidence that depression works like that.


Quote:
I have no idea what you are even trying to say here... I do recomened you try reading my whole post rather than trying to ADHD your way through a reply by quoting every single sentence.
You are remarkably quick to diagnose mental disorders aren't you.



Quote:
...No its a good example since Grievous Bodily Harm does not include a push or a shove for very good reason - it waters it down to the point of meaninglessness. And FYI a push or a shove cannot be classified as "attempted murder" and certainly not "murder" either for the same reason btw, maybe you should work on your own examples.
I didn't say attempted murder. Is their something up with your reading comprehension? Under the you take your victim as you find him doctrine its entirely possible to end up with a shove being classified as murder.


Quote:
Um its not in any way random, its the point of this topic. If you dont want to participate you know where the proverbial door is. This is the actual presentation that the protesters are screaming is hate speech that they claim defends rape, incest and violence against children. I linked to it, so people can see for themselves if the level of violence and accusation from the protesters is in anyway related to reality or reason.
Level of violence? A bunch of rowdy people were in the way. Something that has been a feature of student protests for decades. At least this time sheep aren't involved.


Quote:
The article writer wants "that men will stay around, hunkered in their man-caves playing the ukelele". While this isn't my prefered fate it falls a bit short of murdering men, eugenics and sex selective abortions. Admittedly the latter might be more fun.

Quote:
Again, not really. The protesters in Toronto are saying mens rights groups promote hate speech, yet women and feminists are given a free pass to say whatever they want, no matter how violent, and get away with it.
I wasn't aware that student protesters in Toronto were the final arbiters of who does and doesn't get a free pass.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 05:07 PM   #23
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by geni View Post
Err if they wanted to do their upmost they would have just firebombed the building no?

Being in the way is an accepted form of university protest. Traditionaly in the form of sit-ins but I guess standing around shouting-ins is an option. I've not run across even being used as a method of opression by the north korean goverment. They tend to prefer just to shoot you.
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Protesting someone's speech or ideas are "limiting freedom of speech" don't you know. Therefore, to protect free speech, we have to ban protests. Right, WildCat?
They're not just protesting the speech, which would be fine. The problem is they're actually preventing others from speaking.

thaiboxerken, you sound like you work in the propaganda ministry of some tin pot dictatorship, where censorship is actually "freedom".
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 05:16 PM   #24
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,209
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Sorry but if you're going to claim the video is dishonest, then you're going to need to explain exactly how you think its dishonest. In what way have they misrepresented the situation or the protesters? Otherwise, you're just throwing out words you think sound smart. Just because the producer has a bias (ie. they might not agree with the protesters) doesnt make it propaganda.
Its a planned (note the quality of the kit used) hit piece. Propaganda. I can call it PR if you like but that's one euphemism I'm really not a fan of.


Quote:
Strawman? You implied the guy talking about suicide was not a person that was actually concerned with getting into the event to get information like he said he was. I guess you could also have been saying that he was real, but they made a point to feature him cuz propaganda... not sure how that is any better, if this is what you meant, why wouldnt they talk to and feature someone unable to get into the event? You really need to learn what propaganda is because its not what you apparently think it is.
I know a lot about propaganda. Mostly as a side effect of other interests but yeah I know how it goes.

We are meant to feel sorry for the guy. And in fairness they do a reasonable job of that. Two friends committing suicide. It would be a borderline psychopath who didn't feel sorry for him. The problem is that its being given no narrative or context. The video suddenly throws this guy at you chucks a bunch of appeals to emotion at you then takes him away again. It doesn't really link into anything else which rather dilutes its effectiveness which is one of the reasons I can only give it 5 out of 10.


Quote:
If you cant tell there's something wrong with her, maybe you are the one that needs help. I'm specifically pointing her out, not all of them.
Yes I know you are pointing her out. However the reality is that if you think you can make that kind of judgement on the basis of a couple of seconds of footage then you are being irrational.


Quote:
What on earth are you talking about? You said "ad homs dont help my case" but dont seem to care that the protesters are making up absurd hateful accusations literally out of nothing. These are the people you're defending.
You stated that "There's also this women" in the context of people being mentaly ill or being on drugs but then go on to make an argument that her opinions are wrong. I'm sorry but being wrong is not listed in DSM-IV-TR nor is it considered a recreational drug.


Quote:
If you're going to claim the video is propaganda then you are going to have to prove its dishonest,
No that's not required for propaganda. Indeed only the most simplistic of propaganda is actively dishonest. Tell me do you know who Edward Bernays was?

Quote:
if you're going to defend the protesters accusations you're going to have to watch the event or something and find a way to justify their claims. I do wonder what your position is here, you've come into this thread all guns blazing not knowing anything about the topic or even caring what it is about (calling the video of the event "random")
My position is largely that I'm providing a limited analysis of a propaganda video. As that was almost the entire contents of your opening post it seemed a reasonable course of action.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 05:17 PM   #25
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,209
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
They're not just protesting the speech, which would be fine. The problem is they're actually preventing others from speaking.
Given that the event they were protesting aparently took place it appears not.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 05:26 PM   #26
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,114
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
They're not just protesting the speech, which would be fine. The problem is they're actually preventing others from speaking.

thaiboxerken, you sound like you work in the propaganda ministry of some tin pot dictatorship, where censorship is actually "freedom".
You're right out of an Orwell novel.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 06:17 PM   #27
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
You're right out of an Orwell novel.


Because I support free speech?
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 06:22 PM   #28
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by geni View Post
Given that the event they were protesting aparently took place it appears not.
That the protesters failed does not mean they suppport free speech, they clearly don't. They are fighting for a world in which some authority determines which opinions are allowed to be heard. In fact, they have appointed themselves as that authority.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 06:37 PM   #29
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
That the protesters failed does not mean they suppport free speech, they clearly don't. They are fighting for a world in which some authority determines which opinions are allowed to be heard. In fact, they have appointed themselves as that authority.
Weren't you telling me in another thread that violent racist threats by soccer holligans should be protected as free speech as long as the holligans didn't actually become violent?

So if the protesters in this case never actually prevented Farrell's presentation, then wasn't their protest protected free speech?

Or do you have different standards for angry racists versus angry feminists?
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 07:05 PM   #30
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Weren't you telling me in another thread that violent racist threats by soccer holligans should be protected as free speech as long as the holligans didn't actually become violent?
The words of the hooligans didn't actually violate anyone else's rights. These protesters goal was to prevent other people from excercising their rights, and they actively tried to prevent that by blocking the doorways and screaming at anyone trying to get inside. At that point it's not speech, it's an action. An action designed to deprive others of their rights.

Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
So if the protesters in this case never actually prevented Farrell's presentation, then wasn't their protest protected free speech?
You seem to be confused. That they failed in the end to stifle the rights of others doesn't excuse them for the attempt.

You do agree that their goal was to prevent another person from making a speech, and also tried to prevent others from hearing the speech, yes?

Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Or do you have different standards for angry racists versus angry feminists?
It's the same exact standard. Your rights end where another person's rights begin. The feminist censor wannabes tried to stop other people from excercising their rights, something racist chants don't do.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 08:20 PM   #31
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
The words of the hooligans didn't actually violate anyone else's rights. These protesters goal was to prevent other people from excercising their rights, and they actively tried to prevent that by blocking the doorways and screaming at anyone trying to get inside. At that point it's not speech, it's an action. An action designed to deprive others of their rights.


You seem to be confused. That they failed in the end to stifle the rights of others doesn't excuse them for the attempt.

You do agree that their goal was to prevent another person from making a speech, and also tried to prevent others from hearing the speech, yes?


It's the same exact standard. Your rights end where another person's rights begin. The feminist censor wannabes tried to stop other people from excercising their rights, something racist chants don't do.
The goal of the soccer holligans was to prevent Jewish fans from participating, through fear, in a public soccer match.

The ultimate goal of the KKK is to prevent blacks, Catholics, and Jews from exercising their rights as citizens, right?
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 09:27 PM   #32
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 27,098
Can anyone cite a single example of hate speech by William Farrell? (I have no idea myself, but I think the person accusing him of hate speech has the burden of evidence here.)
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 10:38 PM   #33
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
The goal of the soccer holligans was to prevent Jewish fans from participating, through fear, in a public soccer match.
It is? Evidence?

Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
The ultimate goal of the KKK is to prevent blacks, Catholics, and Jews from exercising their rights as citizens, right?
Yes. But there's nothing wrong with them talking about it, or even marching and chanting about it, is there?

40 odd years after Brandenburg the KKK is a laughingstock, a shadow of their former selves. Somehow when allowed to put there ideas in the public arena the public has soundly rejected their views. Do you think the British public might be swayed by the arguments of the racists if they're allowed to speak? Embrace what Americans rejected?

I say let them speak, put their videos on YouTube so everyone can see it - thier friends, family, employers, and future employers. Don't make them hide in the shadows where they can gain sympathy as oppressed victims of the government.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 10:41 PM   #34
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Can anyone cite a single example of hate speech by William Farrell? (I have no idea myself, but I think the person accusing him of hate speech has the burden of evidence here.)
The person accusing him of hate speech has no interest in convincing you of anything. She's decided it's hate speech, and that no one should be allowed to hear it. It's non-negotiable.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 02:09 AM   #35
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Sine geni is clearly just out to troll me and not actually read anything I say (and incapable of reading links competently) I'm going to ignore her/(him?) rather than waste time replying to someone I imagine would fit right in with the protesters.

As Puppycow asked, if anyone wants to find some example of hate speech by Warren Farrell or by the mens rights groups involved in the event please do present it. You'll have a hard time when their accusations is that they "defend rape, incest and violence against children."

Last edited by Edx; 3rd December 2012 at 03:53 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 02:31 AM   #36
CaptBang
Scholar
 
CaptBang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 117
Ferrell's career as a media sensation began decades ago.

Ferrell on "positive" incest
"When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200," says Farrell, "the incest is part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve -- and in one or two cases to join in."

From an article published in 1977 in Penthouse, a men's pornagraphic magazine

I think you are making too much over the student protest. I thought Farrell was a white, male prick long before I heard those students in Toronto acting out their frustrations. If this video is the most powerful example of how the men's rights movement—if you can call a few hucksters and their followers a movement—is being repressed, thank you, citizen, for alerting us all to this grave danger. And, Good bye.
__________________
"Nothing is true, everything is permitted."
CaptBang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 03:42 AM   #37
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Interesting, but I just read the article in question in Penthouse and it is still not what you are painting it as. This was not an article written by him, he is being quoted in an article and at various times he isn't being quoted directly. Penthouse was not always "pornographic" and to characterise it as that is just to demonise and imply that the article as being far more overtly sexual that it was. This is from wiki, a Penthouse cover from 1969 and here's one from 1977. Apparently in 1998 there was a move to more hardcore porn content and to be less of a general mens magazine that happened to show some girls in it. More like the equivalent of Cosmo or maybe a magazine like FHM so its not exactly scholarly reporting but certainly not "pornographic" either.

We also have to assume the quotes are verbatim and characterised accurately. It seems to me that he was being academic in his reporting, as far as I can tell. He seemed to be saying that when talking to those who experienced incest in their childhood many of them didnt seem to be as negatively affected as we would think or assume they would be, and in a small minority of cases (6 out of 200) that it even seemed to be a positive experience. He is also skeptical of reports from fathers, the article writes, "However, Farrell has become increasingly skeptical of reports from fathers, for they are seldom confirmed by daughters". It also quotes him as saying that he is afraid of printing his findings as it might lead to more abuse from men towards women by misrepresenting what he found, ""In a society where men are powerful and exploitive and insensitive to women's feelings, which is reinforced by female adaptiveness and a daughter's lack of power, data like these can be used as an excuse for the continuation and magnification of that exploitation. When I consider that, I almost don't want to write the book." He says that therapists often tell those who experienced incest that they were definitely damaged by it no matter what, this may not always be the best approach and could even cause problems, " I'm finding that thousands of people in therapy for incest are being told, in essence, that their lives have been ruined by incest. In fact, their lives have not generally been affected as much by the incest as by the overall atmosphere...As soon as society gets into the picture, they have to tell themselves it was bad. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy."" In other words, his view is that the "overall atmosphere" toward incest can be more damaging to someone than the actual acts themselves and so this should be taken into account when dealing with those who have experienced it.

Its also worth pointing out that Farrell was still considered a well regarded feminist at the time so in that sense I guess we must also say that feminism was also promoting incest, if we're going to use this logic. Only when his views started to drift from their own did they realise they needed to find something on him they could use against him.

I also found this in response to peoples allegations of him promoting incest:

Quote:
Dear Lindsay,

Thank you for the forwarded material from Elizabeth Kates (aka Liz,
<l...@gate.net>), Trish Wilson (aka Asherah, <ash...@aol.com>) and
from Martin Dufresne (<mar...@laurentides.net>) that concerned false
claims about me and what I am falsely alleged to have said.

Please respond to them by placing the following on the net:

*******

Dear Elizabeth Kates (aka Liz), Trish Wilson (aka Asherah) and Martin
Dufresne,

Your inquiry on the net has been called to my attention. I am stunned
by your suggestion that I would approve of fathers genitally caressing
daughters, or anything to that effect. I do not approve of any form of
father-daughter sexual contact. And I have not approved of that in the
past. If anyone has quoted me to that effect, she or he has misquoted
me.


Now that you know that, I will consider any future statements to the
contrary as libelous.

Sincerely,
Warren Farrell, Ph.D.
**********

Thank you also, Lindsay, for your additional email notices about NOW.
You may post the following where it is relevant:

**********
I am responding to questions concerning my background with NOW in New
York City. I always represent myself as having been on the board of
directors of the National Organization for Women in New York City; I
have never represented myself as being on the national board, because
I wasn't.

The reasons I left the board of NOW are very different from the
reasons I began to part company politically. I left when my ex-wife
became a White House Fellow in 1973-'74 and we moved from New York
City to Washington, DC. I left my positions at NOW in New York City
and at Rutgers University (Newark, NJ), where I was teaching at the
time. I continued to do benefits for NOW until the late '70s or early
'80s, even after I was disagreeing with some of their positions.

My parting company with NOW politically is much more complex. I am
still a member of NOW and still support any portion of the feminist
movement that empowers women. I make that clear in both Why Men Are
The Way They Are and The Myth of Male Power.

I oppose NOW primarily when they express beliefs that suggest men's
propensity for earning more money is a result of male privilege rather
than men's greater obligation in this arena. And I oppose
male-bashing, distorting statistics, or developing one-sided policies
such as a battered woman syndrome without a battered man syndrome and
a Violence Against Women act without a Violence Against Men act, or
the option of joining the armed services without the obligation to
register for the draft. In brief, I oppose honing victimhood as a fine
art and feminism becoming the one-party system of gender politics.
Similarly, I would oppose my supporters being a one-party system of
gender politics.


My parting company with NOW was evolutionary, not sudden. It had many
prongs, most of which I express in Why Men Are The Way They Are and
The Myth of Male Power. However, the beginnings of my parting company
politically were rooted especially in my being appalled that many NOW
chapters around the country were opposing joint custody as the
starting presumption in child custody matters. To me, their opposition
was contradicting a core feminist position of encouraging women to be
involved more in the workplace and encouraging men to be involved more
in the home.
Rights and responsibilities always go hand-in-hand, so if
we want to encourage men to have equal responsibilities in the home,
we must give them equal rights to the children. (I would similarly
oppose expecting women to participate in the workplace without giving
them equal rights to workplace opportunities.)

Supporting these positions of equality should never be dependent upon
having children, whether it be for me or for Gloria Steinem, who also
has not had children. As any reader of Why Men Are The Way They Are
would know, I was a stepparent at the time I wrote that book, and for
a second time during the past four years. Children have been an
important part of my life, both as a camp counselor and camp director,
and as a boy whose baby brother grew up during my teen years. Each of
these experiences has offered insights and perspectives, but fighting
for children to have the right to both parents is something we should
all be fighting for, no matter what our background or ideology. To me,
this is not a father's issue, but a children's issue, and feminists
should be among the strongest supporters.

I am aware that personal attacks are a way of getting people to not
read what I have written, or to not believe what they read. Rather
than allow others to censor what we read by side-tracking us, I invite
anyone with an open mind to check out The Myth of Male Power in its
entirety, debate its arguments, and examine its hundreds of sources
personally. This book is meant to deepen our discussion of the issues,
not create a cult of personality.


Sincerely,
Warren Farrell, Ph.D.

Last edited by Edx; 3rd December 2012 at 05:42 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 04:15 AM   #38
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,209
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
That the protesters failed does not mean they suppport free speech, they clearly don't. They are fighting for a world in which some authority determines which opinions are allowed to be heard. In fact, they have appointed themselves as that authority.
No evidence of that. They were protesting against something happening in a certain location using accepted forms of student protest. If you want to speak at a university then part of the deal is that you accept that people may protest against you and those protests may include people getting in the way. If you are a politician you accept they they may also throw tomatoes and/or eggs (I think it may be seasonal).

Trying to limit these forms of student protest hasn't historicaly ended too well.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 04:18 AM   #39
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,209
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Sine geni is clearly just out to troll me and not actually read anything I say (and incapable of reading links competently) I'm going to ignore her/(him?) rather than waste time replying to someone I imagine would fit right in with the protesters.
Hey its cool if you don't want to understand how PR/propaganda works. Its certainly less depressing than the alturnative.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 04:18 AM   #40
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
They have a right to protest, sure. They dont have a right to stop people from entering the event. I think its funny that they want to stop free speech (the event) but want the right to protest. Irony.

Last edited by Edx; 3rd December 2012 at 04:21 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:46 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.