I don't get it. Free Speech Under Threat At University? (Added Extra)

[irish286]

If actually knew anything about the subject you would know that there is actually some fairly scientifically valid reasons to question the Theory of evolution. But like most people who believe in popular science, you don't know anything and instead of questioning you blindly follow and attack anything that puts your views into question.

I completed a 4 year degree on the subject. What did you do to gain your insight into the subject?

But I'll humor you, can you provide me with this evidence?

For one, the statistical impossibility. Multiple impossibly high odds had to be beaten for life to even happen let alone survive and randomly mutate.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

If actually knew anything about the subject you would know that there is actually some fairly scientifically valid reasons to question the Theory of evolution. But like most people who believe in popular science, you don't know anything and instead of questioning you blindly follow and attack anything that puts your views into question.

I completed a 4 year degree on the subject. What did you do to gain your insight into the subject?

But I'll humor you, can you provide me with this evidence?

For one, the statistical impossibility. Multiple impossibly high odds had to be beaten for life to even happen let alone survive and randomly mutate.

Ok, lets get something straight. The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. If you want to talk the origin of life that is a different subject. In specific, what you are most likely talking about is called Abiogenesis.

The theory of evolution describes the process by which populations change over time.

And now you have demonstrated the fundamental problem. You don't even know what evolution is and yet you insist that there is significant evidence against it. And you know what? I don't expect random people to understand the distinction there. It is fairly simple, but people have been bombarded over and over from all sides by people simply lying about what the theory actually is.

But if law makers are going to make actual laws specifically naming evolution then they should understand the very first thing about it, starting with what it actually is. And I do not believe for a second they did. They put laws on the books that require teachers to lie in classrooms. That is the problem.

But with that we are getting ridiculously off topic. I will give you the last word, after that if you want to continue this discussion feel free to create another topic or PM me.

 

[Something Amyss]

And now you have demonstrated the fundamental problem. You don't even know what evolution is and yet you insist that there is significant evidence against it.

Not to mention a very glaring issue in terms of the way mathematics work. This is up there with the superstitions my players have about dice in RPGs. Which is scary when you consider what one majored in.

 

[irish286]

If actually knew anything about the subject you would know that there is actually some fairly scientifically valid reasons to question the Theory of evolution. But like most people who believe in popular science, you don't know anything and instead of questioning you blindly follow and attack anything that puts your views into question.

I completed a 4 year degree on the subject. What did you do to gain your insight into the subject?

But I'll humor you, can you provide me with this evidence?

For one, the statistical impossibility. Multiple impossibly high odds had to be beaten for life to even happen let alone survive and randomly mutate.

Ok, lets get something straight. The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. If you want to talk the origin of life that is a different subject. In specific, what you are most likely talking about is called Abiogenesis.

The theory of evolution describes the process by which populations change over time.

And now you have demonstrated the fundamental problem. You don't even know what evolution is and yet you insist that there is significant evidence against it. And you know what? I don't expect random people to understand the distinction there. It is fairly simple, but people have been bombarded over and over from all sides by people simply lying about what the theory actually is.

But if law makers are going to make actual laws specifically naming evolution then they should understand the very first thing about it, starting with what it actually is. And I do not believe for a second they did. They put laws on the books that require teachers to lie in classrooms. That is the problem.

But with that we are getting ridiculously off topic. I will give you the last word, after that if you want to continue this discussion feel free to create another topic or PM me.

I know what evolution is. Evolution theorizes that life started from a single cell then "evolved" into everything else alive on the planet. The mathematical probability of that is so remote it's impossible. Luck and random mutation mathematically cannot account for all of the sheer differences and intricately complicated nature of some creatures abilities in the relatively short amount of time the earth has been able to support life.

What you just tried to do is a prime example of what this topic is about. You claim I don't know what I'm talking about and that my view wrong and has no right to be heard because of that. That is the same excuse those who are trying to silence opposing opinion on college campuses use. What they did was make laws the required teachers to question something, not lie.

 

[Therumancer]

No, I just don't play the game of trying to slap labels like facist onto this kind of an argument when one of the first things facists do is want to limit free speech, which is something we see happening through private platforms. Given the increasingly incestuous relationship between politics and private business it's becoming harder to separate them

So in other words you want to force to listen too you speak isn't your demanding the right to be heard I'm guessing your type of person that hates Randi Harpers block list. I got off track but thing short in protecting free speech you would also inadvertently limiting others freedom of expression.

As far as I am concerned people can always choose to not listen and go elsewhere, however nobody, public or private, should be able to control what other people say or limit their ability to be heard.

Those who disagree with something being said, are of course themselves protected in their response.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I know what evolution is. Evolution theorizes that life started from a single cell then "evolved" into everything else alive on the planet. The mathematical probability of that is so remote it's impossible. Luck and random mutation mathematically cannot account for all of the sheer differences and intricately complicated nature of some creatures abilities in the relatively short amount of time the earth has been able to support life.

Relatively short amount of time? Life has existed on our planet for almost one third of the duration of the universe.

What you just tried to do is a prime example of what this topic is about. You claim I don't know what I'm talking about and that my view wrong and has no right to be heard because of that. That is the same excuse those who are trying to silence opposing opinion on college campuses use.

I'm not seeing why this is a bad thing. Entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts, and all.

 

[Karadalis]

I love this non discussion going on here.. really i love it...

Person a) No plattforming is censorship because it denies people from being heard.

Person b) NO! Its not censorship! You dont have the right to being heard! Also only homophobes, sexists, mysoginists and generally "evil" people get no plattformed! The "good" people dont!

First: The people that are being no platformed here are not homophobes, sexists, mysoginists or "evil". They simply hold opinions that the regressive faschist radical left students cant deal with because it completly ruins their self constructed dream worlds. Because those speakers usually use facts and logic instead of talking about "feelings"

As for the "they have no right to be heard" non argument:

See while they might not have the "right" to be heard, they have the right to not be censored.

They dont have the right to force you to listen to them, but you also dont have the right to prevent them from speaking. WICH NO PLATTFORMING IS DESIGNED TO DO! Thats the whole point of no plattforming! To prevent people from speaking to people that WANT to listen to them! You assume because SOME students raise a ruccus that ergo ALL students are for no platforming these people. This however is nothing but the tyrany of a minority that demands the right to dictate who can and who cant speak to those that are interested in listening!

It is so hypocritical that i cant even get my head around how someone seriously can stand here and claim that its not censorship!

The way YOU the listener express your RIGHTS is to NOT LISTEN to those people you find so problematic. It is NOT your right to prevent them from speaking! And everyone who WANTS TO LISTEN has the right to do so without YOU having a say in it!

Jesus christ is this such a hard concept? But looking after all those hyperagressive crybullies on campuses who cry for a safe space BECAUSE SOMEONE HAD A PARTY WITH MINI SOMBREROS AND TEQUILLA... i seriously have to consider that this generation simply doesnt have the mental capacity to accept reality or not be offended 120% of the time!

Guess thats what you had to expect from the "participation award" generation. No child left behind eh? No fucking kidding....

 

[Thaluikhain]

Jesus christ is this such a hard concept?

Evidently it is. Not giving having someone speak at a university is not the same as preventing them from speaking, no matter how you capitalise it.

You're allowed to say what you want. You aren't entitled for a university to invite you to speak. Unless you own the university, I guess.

 

[Something Amyss]

If actually knew anything about the subject you would know that there is actually some fairly scientifically valid reasons to question the Theory of evolution. But like most people who believe in popular science, you don't know anything and instead of questioning you blindly follow and attack anything that puts your views into question.

Okay, now you're arguing with one person with the scientific credentials and another with the mathematical credentials to know our shit here and telling us that if we only knew something about our related fields, that we'd see your point.

I can't take you seriously. More to the point, I have no reason to.
Moving on.

It is NOT your right to prevent them from speaking!

Good thing nobody was prevented from speaking, eh?

There, crisis averted.

 

[johnnyboy2537]

Jesus christ is this such a hard concept?

Evidently it is. Not giving having someone speak at a university is not the same as preventing them from speaking, no matter how you capitalise it.

You're allowed to say what you want. You aren't entitled for a university to invite you to speak. Unless you own the university, I guess.

So let me get this straight, preventing people from speaking isn't preventing people from speaking. If someone from the mafia comes into your store and threatens to break your kneecaps if you don't stop doing whatever activism you're doing, would consider that censorship? In all of these cases of no-platforming, I have yet to someone who wasn't being no-platformed who said things that could actually be considered hate speech. They just said things that thin-skinned students didn't like. People keep saying "Well, if the students don't want to hear it, then the people shouldn't be given a platform." I think if Milo Yiannopoulos' tour proves anything it's that there are plenty of people who want to hear what people like him have to say but are afraid of actually saying anything. I'm in college right now and people are terrified to give their opinions because there are people who have been marked down for not having far left opinions. People, professors and students, don't want to speak out because this small group of far left fanatics have so much control over what happens, mainly because the administration is so terrified of them because they don't want them to ruin their reputation by calling racist or sexist, that they don't talk about things because they know these people could ruin their lives, reputations , or careers if they spoke out against them. The reason Milo gets away with so much is because he's gay. If straight guys said half of what he was saying it would ruin their lives and careers but because these people are so into identity politics they're not completely sure how to deal a gay conservative who brags about how many black men he has sex with. It isn't that people don't want to hear what he has to say, it's that certain people don't and they go to ridiculous to keep people from doing so.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think if Milo Yiannopoulos' tour proves anything it's that there are plenty of people who want to hear what people like him have to say but are afraid of actually saying anything.

Sweet, then he should have no trouble finding a platform. However, he's not guaranteed this one. Or any one.

 

[johnnyboy2537]

I think if Milo Yiannopoulos' tour proves anything it's that there are plenty of people who want to hear what people like him have to say but are afraid of actually saying anything.

Sweet, then he should have no trouble finding a platform. However, he's not guaranteed this one. Or any one.

Are you always this passive aggressive?

The issue with no-platforming is that these people are actually going to speak at these places but then sensitive idiots freak out and protest it, often saying that these people are "a threat to their safety" like they've done multiple times with Milo. After Milo was at Rutgers these people had a "support" session for the "traumatized" student activists who crashed his event. These people are so traumatized by differing opinions that they can't let other people speak against them. If you are so fragile that you can't handle a different opinion without feeling assaulted then you shouldn't be in academia or even bother putting your opinion out there because you're too weak to deal people who will call you out when you're wrong.

 

[Something Amyss]

The issue with no-platforming is that these people are actually going to speak at these places but then sensitive idiots freak out and protest it, often saying that these people are "a threat to their safety" like they've done multiple times with Milo.

Except for that not actually being true.

It's ironic that the crowd who has resorted so heavily to theatrics is calling other people "sensitive." I know literal drama queens who are less theatric.

However, that's not what I addressed. You were attempting to indicate that they were being denied the right to speak. Their free speech is still intact. Rather than address that, you shifted the argument. Unfortunately, you can't really dodge what free speech is in a free speech argument. Especially since free speech actually does allow people to say they don't want him to speak there. Weird how that part get left out when the absolutists come in talking about free speech and censorship.

 

[johnnyboy2537]

Jesus christ is this such a hard concept?

Evidently it is. Not giving having someone speak at a university is not the same as preventing them from speaking, no matter how you capitalise it.

You're allowed to say what you want. You aren't entitled for a university to invite you to speak. Unless you own the university, I guess.

So let me get this straight, preventing people from speaking isn't preventing people from speaking.

Preventing someone from speaking at spacetime coordinates X,Y don't prevent them from speaking at any other spactime coordinates. Simple enough?[/quote]So preventing someone from speaking at a time and event they've been invited to speak at because you don't like their opinion isn't a bad thing and you're not preventing them from speaking? Do you people even realize how much like the mafia you sound like? "It would be a shame if someone showed up and kept you from talking. You can keep talking about this stuff, just not here. Or ever again if you had any sense." The only time people didn't protest Milo was because at the beginning, the speaker said that for every interruption he would donate $100 to Donald Trump's campaign.

 

[irish286]

I know what evolution is. Evolution theorizes that life started from a single cell then "evolved" into everything else alive on the planet. The mathematical probability of that is so remote it's impossible. Luck and random mutation mathematically cannot account for all of the sheer differences and intricately complicated nature of some creatures abilities in the relatively short amount of time the earth has been able to support life.

Relatively short amount of time? Life has existed on our planet for almost one third of the duration of the universe.

What you just tried to do is a prime example of what this topic is about. You claim I don't know what I'm talking about and that my view wrong and has no right to be heard because of that. That is the same excuse those who are trying to silence opposing opinion on college campuses use.

I'm not seeing why this is a bad thing. Entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts, and all.

First, I was comparing how many hundreds of billions of years it would take for life to occur randomly according to mathematical probability. Second, Of course you don't see a problem in someone who you don't agree with having their opinion based on facts you refuse to acknowledge disregarded.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

So let me get this straight, preventing people from speaking isn't preventing people from speaking.

More specifically, not paying them thousands of dollars and providing them with an auditorium is not preventing them from speaking. We have a right to free speech, not a right to be paid thousands of dollars for sharing our opinion.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

I know what evolution is. Evolution theorizes that life started from a single cell then "evolved" into everything else alive on the planet. The mathematical probability of that is so remote it's impossible. Luck and random mutation mathematically cannot account for all of the sheer differences and intricately complicated nature of some creatures abilities in the relatively short amount of time the earth has been able to support life.

Relatively short amount of time? Life has existed on our planet for almost one third of the duration of the universe.

What you just tried to do is a prime example of what this topic is about. You claim I don't know what I'm talking about and that my view wrong and has no right to be heard because of that. That is the same excuse those who are trying to silence opposing opinion on college campuses use.

I'm not seeing why this is a bad thing. Entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts, and all.

Never debate a creationist. The first thing to remember is that they are taking a prima facie dishonest position, and then walk away. There is no debate to be had, it's just a set of semantic games, Gish Galloping, and all of the other dirty tricks. The only winning move is not to play.

I'm not sure about that. I have had several very reasonable debates with creationists, or at least people who believe in divine creation. There is a bit of a fuzzy distinction there. But I have found that if a debate with a creationist is going to be reasonable it has to be well structured and rigorous. It has to be done point by point so you can first establish common ground. You have to be precise, which is why I made such a point about what the theory of evolution actually is, and why it is such nonsense that the laws that are on the books are there.

I have never seen anyone who is willing to argue in good faith who refuses to use the actual meaning of the words at hand. It is easy to say "evolution is false" if you just make up whatever you want as a meaning of evolution. I have never seen anyone be able to deny the theory of evolution once they acknowledge what it really is. Though I am pretty sure I know at least one person who would on religious grounds. Which is strange, because I know this woman's religion, and they actually support the theory of evolution as true.

 

[wulf3n]

Sweet, then he should have no trouble finding a platform.

He doesn't have a problem with finding a platform, just with interuptions [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86uGGkkycg&ab_channel=WiserInTime]