4 ms·
No one is claiming people shouldn't be allowed to talk about it. But that means allowing people to have opposing thoughts no matter how wrong-headed A lot of p
by bko 5y ago
No one is claiming people shouldn't be allowed to talk about it. But that means allowing people to have opposing thoughts no matter how wrong-headed
A lot of people are just uninterested in foreign affairs and want to go about living their lives. In that case you're not getting them to "take a stance", you're getting them to be obedient. And for what purpose? You want to argue there should be a draft and we should fight this injustice? I may disagree but fine. But if you want to argue that we need to force Chinese students to sign some paper that states a belief, then that sounds awful regardless of what that piece of paper says.
- simonh 5y ago>But if you want to argue that we need to force Chinese students to sign some paper that states a belief... Where on earth did you pull that from? Nobody asked them to do or say anything, they chose to do and say things though. Surely that's on them? The stance referred to was that of Cornell University, given that one of their students exercised their right of free speech and was abused for it. They can't dodge their responsibilities on that.
- zardo 5y ago> The stance referred to was that of Cornell University, given that one of their students exercised their right of free speech and was abused for it. They can't dodge their responsibilities on that. Does the 1st amendment come with responsibilities? Maybe that would have been a good idea, but I thought it was just rights.