3 ms·

> Should the protestors have been selectively told to shut up? Leading questions are not a good argument. > Are you in favor of arbitrarily saying whoever is

• jamescostian 9y ago
  > Leading questions are not a good argument. Good point. How about this: why are you in favor of Mac Donald saying everything she wanted to, but against protestors saying all they want to? You are selectively arguing in favor of some people's speech, and arguing that others (the protestors) shouldn't have expressed themselves, and then accusing me of selectively allowing the protestors and not Mac Donald. I'm cool with Mac Donald having said all she said, even though I (at least mostly) disagree with her. I'm also fine with protestors booing her. How am I being more selective than you? > Your best argument is a ridiculous straw man? That in and of itself is a strawman argument. My comment clearly pointed out that it's unfair to shut up everyone in the audience and only allow one person to speak, but you're looking at it in its weakest form. Meanwhile, I took what I felt like was the strongest part of your argument, and showed why I thought it was flawed. How "embarrassing"
  • adekok 9y ago
    > why are you in favor of Mac Donald saying everything she wanted to, but against protestors saying all they want to? Why do you insist on asking leading questions which assume nefarious intent? If you could quote my comments to show that's my position, you would. But you can't, because it's not my position. > That in and of itself is a strawman argument. That's just an embarrassing response. > I took what I felt like was the strongest part of your argument i.e. you didn't read or understand my argument. Instead, you straw-manned me with a ludicrous misinterpretation of it. Again, go read the rest of my comments to see what I'm against. > My comment clearly pointed out that it's unfair to shut up everyone in the audience and only allow one person to speak, Then you're entirely missing the point of an invited speaker. When the invitee gives the talk, everyone in the audience does need to sit down, and shut the f%ck up. That's what polite social discourse is. When there's time for questions, the audience can ask questions. My argument (to re-iterate in hopefully simple enough language) is that violent suppression of free speech in the name of openness... is wrong. If the protestors act peaceably, follow the law, and allow the audience and speaker to have their free speech, then I don't really give a shit what the protestors say or do. The line is violent suppression of other peoples speech. Now, is that clear? Or will you continue to ask leading questions which assume I have some kind of nefarious intent?
  • ankushnarula 9y ago
    The right to protest is not equivalent to the right to shutdown other people's speaking or listening rights. The protestors cross the line when they resort to using intimidation, physical obstruction, threats of violence, and/or actual violence. In most municipalities, such violations would be addressed quickly by the police. However, universities (and increasingly large left-leaning cities) have tolerated protestors use of intimidation and obstruction. One could argue why but I suspect it's a variety of practical as well as ideological reasons.