First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Post Reply Why does the left want to kill free speech?
22284 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 2/5/17

karatecowboy wrote:


eviscery wrote:


I don't think it's fair to speak as if the topic of abortion is a matter of facts. What constitutes alive is entirely arbitrary and whether or not a foetus counts as living is impossible to state factually. It's based entirely on individuals perception of what is and isn't alive.


Well, no, what constitutes alive is not entirely arbitrary. It's factual and scientific. So factual and scientific, in fact, that there is a whole field of science dedicated to it, the name of which literally means "life study". It's called "biology". It's literally the study of life. It is entirely possible to state that a fetus is living. In fact, it's literally a stage of life that animals go through.


I think the debate is when something "becomes" alive, although there is no end all be all cut off date that most biologists would consider, nor do they really partake in a controversial debate that is less supported by facts and more about ethical dilemmas.
22284 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 2/5/17

karatecowboy wrote:


eviscery wrote:


I don't think it's fair to speak as if the topic of abortion is a matter of facts. What constitutes alive is entirely arbitrary and whether or not a foetus counts as living is impossible to state factually. It's based entirely on individuals perception of what is and isn't alive.


Well, no, what constitutes alive is not entirely arbitrary. It's factual and scientific. So factual and scientific, in fact, that there is a whole field of science dedicated to it, the name of which literally means "life study". It's called "biology". It's literally the study of life. It is entirely possible to state that a fetus is living. In fact, it's literally a stage of life that animals go through.


I think the debate is when something "becomes" alive, although there is no end all be all cut off date that most biologists would consider, nor do they really partake in a controversial debate that is less supported by facts and more about ethical dilemmas.
1240 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 2/5/17

karatecowboy wrote:


Mishio1 wrote:


lolwhut? Which group favors rights of the individual vs authoritarianism typically depends on the issue. The left, for example, would like to see law enforcement be put under more scrutiny, and give women more control in regards to abortion, and support LGBT rights, all of which of these would be considering supporting individual freedoms. Wheras they also want more regulation when it comes to environmental issues, want more restrictions placed on big businesses, and are at times willing to support "big government" in order to secure those freedoms, all of which could be considered authoritarian.


While there may be some variety, in general the spectrum runs from authoritarian/collectivist on the left to libertarian/individualist on the right. Also, pre-natal murder, euphemised as "abortion" is not a civil liberty or right. It is a violation of the human right to live. Your example actually works in support of what I am saying. It's an inarguable biological fact that a human zygote is an individual of the species homo sapiens sapiens. If you believe in human rights then you believe in the right of the individual to live and not be murdered. The bigoted support by the left of the power to murder others actually is supporting the infringement of the right to live.

As far as so called "GBLT rights", they don't exist. Every so called "GBLT right" is actually a generic right afforded to all people; eg the right to be secure in your person. Hence, it's a non-sequiter


The authoritarian-libertarian labels is misleading since authoritarian imply authority over the law which characterize Capitalism with its emphasis on anarchy; a better distinction is order-chaos on left-right distinction respectively. The left differ from the right in its rule of law and check of power.
Although the Capitalists use the invisible hand to explain the social structure in anarchism, they negate the social structure in non-anarchist societies with its check of power and rule of law. The Capitalists believe that democracy cannot be maintained by order due to its division of power; they believe that order can only be maintained by the invisible hand, dictatorship, or a collective hivemind.
10458 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 2/5/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


I would argue that while you do not have a "right" to murder, that such laws restricting it would be inherently authoritarian. I do not find such a measure to be bad. Let's not use such a word as if it is something to be avoided.

In any case, you're just using a basic left-right line that I think is pretty outdated compared to the right-left-authority-freedom axis.

You have the right wingers restricting LGBT rights, especially those of the Mike Pence variety, you have the regulations against abortion, for the drug war and marijuana restrictions.

While the leftists support LGBT rights and Marijuana deregulation.

In any case, I believe the left right line is outdated because you're associating authority with left, and it become a circular black hole in logic. It is left because it is restrictive. If it is restrictive, it is left. Especially considering people Kropotkin and groups like the ACLU existing, I wouldn't consider them right wing in any way, despite Krop's near anarchist view on communism enterprise and the ACLU's defense of nazis to have their damn march.



Laws restricting the murder of prenatal people are no more authoritarian than laws restricting the murder of infants, adolescents, Jews, Catholics, or any other type of person. The right to life is, as the Fathers wrote in the Declaration, chief among the inalienable rights given to us by our Creator.

There is no circular logic in associating one end of a spectrum with a certain trait, such as authoritarianism. That is the whole point of a spectrum. When we speak of left and right, we are talking about sides of a spectrum. Associating authoritarianism with the left on a left/right spectrum of authority/liberty is not a circular black hole in logic any more than associating negative numbers with the left on a spectrum of negative to positive numbers. It's the reality of the spectrum.

As I pointed out, the so-called "GBLT rights" do not exist. What right are they allegedly supporting that is not a right in general? The right to live? The alleged right to marry? Those are rights everyone has. What people to refer as "GBLT rights" is an amorphous gobblygook that purports to have something to do with rights, but really is just taking the redefinition of marriage and pretending it's somehow a God-given right. Mike Pence and other people who understand biology are not opposed to any right --they believe people should have the 'right' to marry. They just disagree about what marriage actually is. So, as I said, it's a non-sequiter. It's like if I said I believe in the right to freedom of expression, but you don't have the right to punch people in the face. Some people might say I'm against the right to express yourself, because I don't believe you have the right to punch people in the face. But, in reality, I just don't think hurting others is a reasonable definition of self-expression.
10458 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 2/5/17 , edited 2/7/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I think the debate is when something "becomes" alive, although there is no end all be all cut off date that most biologists would consider, nor do they really partake in a controversial debate that is less supported by facts and more about ethical dilemmas.


There is no debate. Biologists have this cornered. A new, living individual exists upon conception here in the world of sexually reproducing life. This is textbook biology; very well established.
qwueri 
20032 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 2/5/17
Simplifying a political spectrum as a single-minded group is neither realistic nor productive. It's similar to asking 'why is the right racist?' when some group of neo-nazis starts spouting hate speech.

At least according to Berkley, the rioters were not students from the campus.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/

The university blamed "150 masked agitators" for the unrest, saying they had come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest.
Two Berkeley College Republicans "were attacked while conducting an interview" on the campus on Thursday, UC Berkeley also said in a prepared statement. The attackers, who were not affiliated with the university, were taken into custody by UC Berkeley police.
...
At least six people were injured. Some were attacked by the agitators -- who are a part of an anarchist group known as the "Black Bloc" that has been causing problems in Oakland for years, said Dan Mogulof, UC Berkeley spokesman.


At least on first glance, it appears to be an anarchist group looking for an excuse to cause anarchy.


Incidentally, it also appears Milo may be doing his tour specifically to evoke those kinds of reactions.
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/02/513105012/berkeley-students-debate-cancellation-of-milo-yiannopoulos-speech

But undergraduate student Rigel Robinson says UC Berkeley hosts conservative speakers regularly — without protests.

"Milo is a very unique situation," Robinson says. "Milo is an entertainer who has engineered a national tour around provoking college campuses, in order to feed into a narrative that supports this idea that liberal campuses are shutting down free speech."

I won't claim to know anything about Milo's intentions, but it does play a little too well into rhetoric against 'liberal' campuses.
22284 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 2/5/17

karatecowboy wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


I would argue that while you do not have a "right" to murder, that such laws restricting it would be inherently authoritarian. I do not find such a measure to be bad. Let's not use such a word as if it is something to be avoided.

In any case, you're just using a basic left-right line that I think is pretty outdated compared to the right-left-authority-freedom axis.

You have the right wingers restricting LGBT rights, especially those of the Mike Pence variety, you have the regulations against abortion, for the drug war and marijuana restrictions.

While the leftists support LGBT rights and Marijuana deregulation.

In any case, I believe the left right line is outdated because you're associating authority with left, and it become a circular black hole in logic. It is left because it is restrictive. If it is restrictive, it is left. Especially considering people Kropotkin and groups like the ACLU existing, I wouldn't consider them right wing in any way, despite Krop's near anarchist view on communism enterprise and the ACLU's defense of nazis to have their damn march.



Laws restricting the murder of prenatal people are no more authoritarian than laws restricting the murder of infants, adolescents, Jews, Catholics, or any other type of person. The right to life is, as the Fathers wrote in the Declaration, chief among the inalienable rights given to us by our Creator.

There is no circular logic in associating one end of a spectrum with a certain trait, such as authoritarianism. That is the whole point of a spectrum. When we speak of left and right, we are talking about sides of a spectrum. Associating authoritarianism with the left on a left/right spectrum of authority/liberty is not a circular black hole in logic any more than associating negative numbers with the left on a spectrum of negative to positive numbers. It's the reality of the spectrum.

As I pointed out, the so-called "GBLT rights" do not exist. What right are they allegedly supporting that is not a right in general? The right to live? The alleged right to marry? Those are rights everyone has. What people to refer as "GBLT rights" is an amorphous gobblygook that purports to have something to do with rights, but really is just taking the redefinition of marriage and pretending it's somehow a God-given right. Mike Pence and other people who understand biology are not opposed to any right --they believe people should have the 'right' to marry. They just disagree about what marriage actually is. So, as I said, it's a non-sequiter. It's like if I said I believe in the right to freedom of expression, but you don't have the right to punch people in the face. Some people might say I'm against the right to express yourself, because I don't believe you have the right to punch people in the face. But, in reality, I just don't think hurting others is a reasonable definition of self-expression.


That was what I was going for, an inhibition of action is an act of authority in the lawlessness of nature. There are a few people who believe in anarchy and the fear of reprisal as an effective governing system.

Also, I believe the 1 line spectrum is faulty, because what happens when you come across an action like marijuana regulation that restricts freedom but is done for right wing reasons, or people like Thatcherite and Bush who cut down civil liberties in pursuit of many things conservative party they belonged to hold dear? Where would you place these leaders?

I am not sure how to comprehend your second part.
10458 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 2/5/17

qwueri wrote:

Simplifying a political spectrum as a single-minded group is neither realistic nor productive. It's similar to asking 'why is the right racist?' when some group of neo-nazis starts spouting hate speech.

.....

I won't claim to know anything about Milo's intentions, but it does play a little too well into rhetoric against 'liberal' campuses.


It's very useful and nuanced to gauge authority/liberty leanings upon a spectrum. It's useful because it allows us many points along a scale to estimate support for liberty or authority.

The American university is overwhelmingly leftist and overwhelmingly suppressive of basic human rights. The Foundation for Individual Rights has spent more than a decade fighting back against oppressive, rights-violating rules on public universities. They have stated that they do, from time to time, represent left groups against universities. However, they state that the oppression of civil rights by public universities in endemic and largely a left-wing poison. This is corroborated by the fact that Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans among public university staff. Suppression of human rights like freedom of expression is a mainstream principle among the left.
22284 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 2/5/17

karatecowboy wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I think the debate is when something "becomes" alive, although there is no end all be all cut off date that most biologists would consider, nor do they really partake in a controversial debate that is less supported by facts and more about ethical dilemmas.


There is no debate. Biologists have this cornered. A new, living individual exists upon conception here in the world of sexually reproducing life. This is textbook biology; very well established.


Source? It is hard to believe. I haven't seen a stance from many biologist as much as you got psychologist defending transgender treatment.
10458 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 2/5/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


That was what I was going for, an inhibition of action is an act of authority in the lawlessness of nature. There are a few people who believe in anarchy and the fear of reprisal as an effective governing system.

Also, I believe the 1 line spectrum is faulty, because what happens when you come across an action like marijuana regulation that restricts freedom but is done for right wing reasons, or people like Thatcherite and Bush who cut down civil liberties in pursuit of many things conservative party they belonged to hold dear? Where would you place these leaders?

I am not sure how to comprehend your second part.


It can be useful to measure the authoritarian tendencies of a movement. As individuals, though,It's awkward and clumsy to treat everything as a right/left matter. This discussion is one of the most "left/right" discussions I've had in ages. Generally, I prefer to describe people as "rioters", or "Christian activists", or "inactive citizens", all depending on what they do. It's much more useful for describing people and their actions, and much less prone to tribalism.
1258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Online
Posted 2/5/17 , edited 2/5/17
Gonna try to get back on topic here, as I can't even make sense of what Karate is trying to say, nor does he seem inclined to listen to what anyone is trying to tell him. Instead, I'm going to backpedal a bit and try to answer some of the questions Eviscery was asking earlier.

Basically, the general "liberal" viewpoint, as far as I can tell is that the riots are probably the work of a relatively small group of extremists and shouldn't really change anything politically. Comparable, to that sense, to that Trump supporter in Qubec who recently went into a mosque and killed a couple people.

As for me, personally, I'm kind of annoyed with everybody involved. I'm inclined to believe that most of the people there were only trying to peacefully protest, and that a few inciters caused the whole situation to explode. I can also understand why the people there reeeeeally don't like this Milo guy; it looks like he writes and says some really toxic stuff, but rioting in response undercuts the point the protestors were probably trying to make, and is only going to benefit him in the long run. In that sense, I suppose I am fairly mad about it.

I mean, I'd never even heard of this Milo guy before this. Not only did it get his name out there, but it's given him an opportunity to play the victim card in future arguments, and gave Trump a reason to cut the college's funding.

tl;dr: I think the rioters shot themselves in the foot, and it was idiotic of them, if for no other reason then it ultimately benefits the guy they were protesting against.
qwueri 
20032 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 2/5/17

karatecowboy wrote:


It's very useful and nuanced to gauge authority/liberty leanings upon a spectrum. It's useful because it allows us many points along a scale to estimate support for liberty or authority.

The American university is overwhelmingly leftist and overwhelmingly suppressive of basic human rights. The Foundation for Individual Rights has spent more than a decade fighting back against oppressive, rights-violating rules on public universities. They have stated that they do, from time to time, represent left groups against universities. However, they state that the oppression of civil rights by public universities in endemic and largely a left-wing poison. This is corroborated by the fact that Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans among public university staff. Suppression of human rights like freedom of expression is a mainstream principle among the left.


Assuming a stance as broad, vague, and undefined as 'against free speech' belongs to one side of a spectrum or another because of a single incident is neither nuance nor useful. It's a blatant attempt to paint an entire political spectrum poorly based on the actions of a small group assumed to be tangentially aligned with that spectrum.

Trying to claim that American universities are 'overwhelmingly suppressive of basic human rights' is going to need more proof than a handful of free speech suites from FIRE, nevermind that 'suppressing free speech is endemically leftist.'
10458 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 2/5/17 , edited 2/7/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Source? It is hard to believe. I haven't seen a stance from many biologist as much as you got psychologist defending transgender treatment.


You can find the lifecycle of an animal in any sixth, seventh, or eighth grade biology book. If you graduated high school then you've studied this.

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”
Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”
Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“The oviduct or Fallopian tube is the anatomical region where every new life begins in mammalian species. After a long journey, the spermatozoa meet the oocyte in the specific site of the oviduct named ampulla, and fertilization takes place.”
Coy et al., Roles of the oviduct in mammalian fertilization, REPRODUCTION 144(6):649 (Oct. 1, 2012)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.”
Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)


: an act or process of making fertile: as a: an act or process of fecundation, insemination, or impregnation b: the process of union of two gametes whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated
http://c.merriam-webster.com/medlineplus/fertilization

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual"
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”
Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”
Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

“Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.”
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1

“Your baby starts out as a fertilized egg… For the first six weeks, the baby is called an embryo.”
Prenatal Care, US Department Of Health And Human Services, Maternal and Child Health Division, 1990

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”
Landrum B. Shettles, the first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization.

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.”
Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

“Thus a new cell is formed from the union of a male and a female gamete. [sperm and egg cells] The cell, referred to as the zygote, contains a new combination of genetic material, resulting in an individual different from either parent and from anyone else in the world.”
Sally B Olds, et al., Obstetric Nursing (Menlo Park, California: Addison – Wesley publishing, 1980) P 136

“The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization … The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.”
J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. 1974 Pages 17 and 23.

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization)"
James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)
51616 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 2/5/17 , edited 2/5/17

eviscery wrote:


geauxtigers1989 wrote:

I don't see how anyone's free speech rights were violated.


Freedom of Speech means the government can't make any laws preventing protected speech. A group of protestors are not the government and can do whatever they want within the law. Considering that protestors are NOT the government, please show an example of "the left" trying to pass laws that inhibit protected speech? Oh what's that, you can't? So I guess that means you are WRONG.
80 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 2/5/17 , edited 2/5/17
Firstly I am on Milo side that his freedom of speech was denied in that case and some rioters need to be arrested to make example later.

But secondly, why would Berkeley be responsible for it? They allow Milo to speak there in the first place, and then hundreds of rioters turn up to destroy the campus properties. Blame the police if you want, but what can a college do in that case? This is "guilty by associating of ideas" and it's ridiculous

If Berkeley is defunded, then every organisation that has rioters storm into their site and force to cancel a speech should be defunded also. Do you think it's just then?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.