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?
qwueri 
21109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 2/5/17
At the risk of further derailing this thread on the authoritarian/non-authoritarian spectrum of abortion stances, please keep in mind that Roe v. Wade is largely defined by the viability of a fetus outside the mother's womb, which is a medical grey area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Later, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court rejected Roe's trimester framework while affirming its central holding that a woman has a right to abortion until fetal viability. The Roe decision defined "viable" as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."Justices in Casey acknowledged that viability may occur at 23 or 24 weeks, or sometimes even earlier, in light of medical advance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

It's the weight between the potential for life of an embryo versus the mother's right to decide if she wants to go through pregnancy, which could potentially harm her health and impact her ability to work. There's arguments to made on either side as to which is authoritarian depending on if it's state-mandated availability or state-mandated restriction.
8983 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 2/5/17 , edited 2/5/17
One thing's for sure, Milo made the lefties angry, which in turn makes me happy.
141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Wales
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.


The question of what is and is not alive is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one. An example would be whether or not Viruses are alive. Which is not something that can be 'proven'. It's incredibly authoritarian to try and impose your opinion on what constitutes life despite the fact that not everyone agrees with you.

This video is good for understanding this subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOCaacO8wus
24118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 2/5/17

qwueri wrote:


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.'


If you were a girl, you'd be five months pregnant in 5 minutes. I love you.
24118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 2/5/17

MadBovine wrote:


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.


Don't be an asshole.
11806 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 2/5/17

Mishio1 wrote:

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.


Quoting this because people aren't fucking getting it.
qwueri 
21109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 2/5/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

If you were a girl, you'd be five months pregnant in 5 minutes. I love you.


I'll take that as a compliment, but five minutes sounds a little underwhelming
11000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 2/5/17

eviscery wrote:

The question of what is and is not alive is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one. An example would be whether or not Viruses are alive. Which is not something that can be 'proven'. It's incredibly authoritarian to try and impose your opinion on what constitutes life despite the fact that not everyone agrees with you.

This video is good for understanding this subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOCaacO8wus


Philosophy is often referred to as "the purest science", next to mathematics, so it's a moot point. If there were no objective, scientific way of classifying living matter vs non-living then we could not have the field of biology -- the study of life. You can point to a youtube video, I can point you in the direction of the overwhelming biological and scientific consensus that you can, in fact, objectively say what is and is not alive.

The overwhelming biological consensus is that human and all mammalian life begins at conception. You say it's authoritarian, but the reality is that it's not a matter of opinion. "Not everyone agrees"? Well, when you disagree with facts then that just makes you wrong. You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. You're taking on an overtly anti-scientific bent here.
24118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 2/5/17

MonoDreams wrote:

One thing's for sure, Milo made the lefties angry, which in turn makes me happy.


Honestly, I understand the need for protest. I fucking hate Milo.
11000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 2/5/17

qwueri wrote:

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.'


Please don't assume I'm assuming anything, rather than making thoroughly thought-out, reasoned conclusions based on thousands of observations.

Anyway, it's not "handfuls of free speech suits". It's "dozens upon dozens of suits" combined with thousands of suppressive codes on hundreds of public and private American universities.



Posted 2/5/17
very interesting so many different view points
24118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 2/5/17 , edited 2/5/17

karatecowboy wrote:


qwueri wrote:

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.'


Please don't assume I'm assuming anything, rather than making thoroughly thought-out, reasoned conclusions based on thousands of observations.

Anyway, it's not "handfuls of free speech suits". It's "dozens upon dozens of suits" combined with thousands of suppressive codes on hundreds of public and private American universities.





Generalization aside, which may be truthful, where does anyone benefit from saying authoritarian measures are inherently leftist? That is like saying violent crime makes you black.

I think I came up with an argument about why such a it is circular.

Rather than attributing trends and truth to sides, it cannot be used 100%, cause you know...not everyone is like that, hence the truth behind generalizations. To suggest they are somehow less left for supporting more freedom is circular.

They are left, therefore they support big government.

They support big government, there they must be left.

Again, where do we start in considering Margaret Thatcher's Left Right stance? She's very far right, but she also proves to be vastly more controlling than the people who can before and after her. Are we really suggesting she is more moderate because of how she enacts certain policies?

There is little point to attaching a definition to be applied 100% of the time when it only applies 50%. You have a point, we can admit generalizations are usually true because they are, but to attach leftist and authoritarianism as one and the same 100% takes a generalities and makes it a certainty that ruins the definition.
30 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/5/17
Wow, a lot of superficial bullshit in this thread.
15235 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/5/17
Threads always devolve into this left vs. right bullshit. It's always about winning and having your ideas self validated with you people. Disgusting.
24118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 2/5/17 , edited 2/5/17

GrandMasterTime wrote:

Threads always devolve into this left vs. right bullshit. It's always about winning and having your ideas self validated with you people. Disgusting.


I am sorry.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.