However, they are from respected and peer reviewed sources with a reputation for accuracy. Therefore it would be safe to say, based on the reputation of the sources, that they are accurate in their analysis.
Still have to be careful with this sort of thing. Newspapers are lousy at reporting these kinds of findings. Their mandate is to provide us interesting entertainment - not to cover the plethora of caveats and such that such a finding might include.
The first article in particular struck me almost immediately as not being exactly germane to the topic. It pretty much argued for a correlation between levels of religious commitment and health. The problem here is that the data from atheists probably represents only a tiny percentage of the pool and most of the group thats dragging down the numbers are your sundry I-believe-in-God-but-would-rather-watch-football-then-have-to-listen-to-som e-guy-preach-on-Sunday crowd. In other words ones not really comparing atheists to theists here but instead comparing those very committed to their churches to those that are pretty lukewarm about their religion.
In fact looking closer at them I think both articles are essentially doing this. The Happiness article basically says that believing in something tends to make one happier. Eastern religions presumably also includes eastern philosophies such as Confucianism - if so Atheism would fit right in, its a philosophy after all. I'd have to see the source material to be sure but I suspect that crowd thats really loosing out here are the 'I don't know' and 'I'm not sure' crowd. These are not Atheists since, by definition, Atheists do know - or at least they are reasonably certain.
In any case I find the whole line of inquiry rather disturbing. If we keep trundling down this road we end up finding out that fanatics are the healthiest and happiest people around. Can't say I'm happy about the implications of that.
|
I believe that what Sam is saying is that there is an element that claims to believe in free and open discussion, yet at the same time tries to shut down any discenting voices. For example, individuals shut down a speech at Columbia University being given by the founder of the Minutemen while the same university sat by the next year and allowed the president of Iran speak with no interuptions.
Exactly.
And a prime example.|
|
Is the idea of believing in free and open discussion tainted by such people? It just seems scary to me that someone can say "I believe in free and rational discussion of the issues" and someone else says "those people use terror to scare away opposing viewpoints." I'm sure some people use terror to scare away opposing viewpoints in any ideology, but the fundamental concept of free and open discussion seems like something worth respecting and striving for, even if not all people who make such a claim actually respect and strive for that goal.
Apply that same standard to religion.
Then compare that standard to some of the statements made by people denouncing religion and religious belief in this thread.Then compare that to the claims of those same people to believing in free and open discussion.
I don't understand what one has to do with the other. The former is an example of people not supporting free and open discussion, irrespective of any claims to the contrary, and supports your point that some people are hypocrites; the later is an example of people supporting free and open discussion.
To quote that Jesus guy (who I do not believe is divine or the messiah, but is still rather usefully quotable), and in combination with my comment above:
"You have said it."
However, she doesn't seem to think the same of the extreme homophobic, anti-semetic, holocaust denial veiws of the Iranian president.
Eh...I think a lot of the time the audience was not so thrilled with what he was saying...not exactly the kind of person that fits right in with the view points of a liberal college like that. I suspect that letting him air his views meant that a lot of those kids walked away re-evaluating their love affair with the guy much more so then if it had just been left up to them to project their northeastern liberal world view onto him. He managed to draw boos from the crowd at least twice - sometimes letting such an individual have their say really is the best remedy to counter what they are saying.
Freedom of speech is a wonderful idea, and in the pre internet world, where access to large public forums and media was limited by the merit off ones argument, such freedom helped to protect our other rights and liberties and was certainly a positive thing. However, in the world of global communication can it be said to still be a positive thing.
While I agree that the internet helps propagate some of the world's most dangerous ideas, I think it's important to recognize that it also does the same for some of the world's greatest. Take, for example, the SETI and the Human Genome Projects. Both of these programs are assisted by people from around the world downloading screensaver programs onto their computers which then process the data these research programs collect. Meanwhile, programs like Google Books and Project Gutenberg are providing people with access to scholarly and literary resources hitherto unknown by any previous society.
History has shown, time and again, that when information is easily accessible to all members of society, creativity and ingenuity blossom. Likewise, when information is censored, creativity and ingenuity are hindered. Why? Because nobody knows where the next big idea is going to come from. The early belief that we can understand God by examining his creations is what led to the development of the sciences. The ridiculous notion that disease is caused by hot air led to the development of modern refrigeration. The free flow of ideas, no matter how ridiculous, is essential to human development. We need more of it, not less. So while we may be apalled (or at least amused) when we discover that people still believe the NAZIs paired up with aliens from Aldebara to build UFOs and bases on the moon, we have to recognize that these ideas are the natural byproduct of the free exchange of ideas. If we restrict what they have to say, we inadvertantly place a restriction on any number of ideas that may be less objectionable (and hopefully less ridiculous).
Freedom of speech is a wonderful idea, and in the pre internet world, where access to large public forums and media was limited by the merit off ones argument, such freedom helped to protect our other rights and liberties and was certainly a positive thing. However, in the world of global communication can it be said to still be a positive thing.While I agree that the internet helps propagate some of the world's most dangerous ideas, I think it's important to recognize that it also does the same for some of the world's greatest. Take, for example, the SETI and the Human Genome Projects. Both of these programs are assisted by people from around the world downloading screensaver programs onto their computers which then process the data these research programs collect. Meanwhile, programs like Google Books and Project Gutenberg are providing people with access to scholarly and literary resources hitherto unknown by any previous society.
History has shown, time and again, that when information is easily accessible to all members of society, creativity and ingenuity blossom. Likewise, when information is censored, creativity and ingenuity are hindered. Why? Because nobody knows where the next big idea is going to come from. The early belief that we can understand God by examining his creations is what led to the development of the sciences. The ridiculous notion that disease is caused by hot air led to the development of modern refrigeration. The free flow of ideas, no matter how ridiculous, is essential to human development. We need more of it, not less. So while we may be apalled when we discover that people still believe the NAZIs paired up with aliens from Aldebara to build UFOs and bases on the moon, we have to recognize that these ideas are the natural byproduct of the free exchange of ideas. Anyway, that's my two cents.
QFT. Information, especially Internet information is a transformational force. We are all having a discussion with other people all around the globe on this very subject! I would have never met ANYONE on these boards in real life, and I would be the poorer for it.
Does the free flow of ideas have its dangers? Sure. So does driving a car. Should we go back to walking or riding horses? What we need now is to work on how to prepare our children to access this flood of information, winnow the noise from the signal and be able to find the gems in the dross.
Clamping down on freedom of speech is a bad idea, even if someone wants to post hateful things. Its part of the responsibility of the individual to examine the information and judge its relative worth.
|
Eh...I think a lot of the time the audience was not so thrilled with what he was saying...not exactly the kind of person that fits right in with the view points of a liberal college like that. I suspect that letting him air his views meant that a lot of those kids walked away re-evaluating their love affair with the guy much more so then if it had just been left up to them to project their northeastern liberal world view onto him. He managed to draw boos from the crowd at least twice - sometimes letting such an individual have their say really is the best remedy to counter what they are saying.
However, she doesn't seem to think the same of the extreme homophobic, anti-semetic, holocaust denial veiws of the Iranian president.
But again, they did not rush the stage, shout him down, or in any other way attempt to interfere with what he was saying. And my point was that if saying that inviting the Minutemen was a mistake because it legitimized and gave validity to their veiws, why is it not the same with Ahmedenijad? You really should have included the student's quote as well.
|
|
I might mention as an aside to this topic, Archbishop Hunthausen (Seattle Archdiocese) once said, "Sadly, I have personally met more 'unaffiliated' people (whether atheists, non-Christians, or simply not religious) who better model the Christian ethos than I have actual, self-professed Christians. In my experience, Christians are as judgmental and hubristic as anyone. It's ironic that an unbeliever is the better Christian! God is the final arbiter." This was in response to one of the proclamations of Vatican II regarding who is and is not admitted to Heaven (in circumstances of nonbelievers who by actions mirror the teachings of Christ).Really?
I was pretty sure that rule #1 for getting into the Christian Heaven was that you had to believe that Christ was your savior. I suppose there were exceptions for extenuating circumstances (died as an infant, was born prior to Christ etc.) but was under the impression that this was the basic rule.
Vatican II acknowledged that there may be circumstances where an individual is never exposed to the teachings of Christ (aboriginals), is exposed to a corruption of Christianity (Jim Jones' followers), or is exposed to a culture (of any size, from family to nation) antagonistic to Christianity, but will nonetheless espouse the basic principals of Christ. It can then be assumed that, if the individual had been exposed to a pure form of the Gospels, they likely would have chosen Christ. Since we cannot know this, but it seems reasonable (to the Catholic Hierarchy, at least), we may further assume that God has included these people in His plan for redemption; God will decide.
There's a lot about the Catholic Church people don't really know: the Church acknowledges scientific theory, evolution, and even has its own cabal of (hard) scientists, from nuclear chemistry to astrobiology. In many ways, it's rather progressive. Just don't tell Mel Gibson.
But again, they did not rush the stage, shout him down, or in any other way attempt to interfere with what he was saying. And my point was that if saying that inviting the Minutemen was a mistake because it legitimized and gave validity to their veiws, why is it not the same with Ahmedenijad? You really should have included the student's quote as well.Eh...I think a lot of the time the audience was not so thrilled with what he was saying...not exactly the kind of person that fits right in with the view points of a liberal college like that. I suspect that letting him air his views meant that a lot of those kids walked away re-evaluating their love affair with the guy much more so then if it had just been left up to them to project their northeastern liberal world view onto him. He managed to draw boos from the crowd at least twice - sometimes letting such an individual have their say really is the best remedy to counter what they are saying.
However, she doesn't seem to think the same of the extreme homophobic, anti-semetic, holocaust denial veiws of the Iranian president.
I'm not agreeing with the idea that what they did was right and proper - I'm just pointing out that it was actually probably a good thing that they got to indulge their bias by hearing him speak.
|
|
I'm not agreeing with the idea that what they did was right and proper - I'm just pointing out that it was actually probably a good thing that they got to indulge their bias by hearing him speak.
Given the continued attitudes expressed by students and faculty at Columbia Univeristy, it more likely just confirmed and encouraged them in their biases and anti-free expression of ideas mindsets.
When free expression is limited to only one viewpoint, it does not stimulate insight, it only hardens existing bigotry.
For example, individuals shut down a speech at Columbia University being given by the founder of the Minutemen while the same university sat by the next year and allowed the president of Iran speak with no interuptions.
Well first, it looks like the speech was shut down because there was a riot, not because the school disagreed with what the founder of the Minutemen had to say. If a similar riot broke out during the president of Iran's speech, then I think you might have a point. However, in this case, I think it was in the best interest of everyone's safety that they cancelled the event.
|
|
Actually my point was that there was no riot when Ahmadinejad spoke. The question is why? Ahmadinejad hold several radical views that include:
the Iranian president’s denial of the Holocaust;
his public call for the destruction of the State of Israel;
his reported support for international terrorism that targets innocent civilians and American troops;
Iran's pursuit of nuclear ambitions in opposition to international sanction;
his government's widely documented suppression of civil society and particularly of women's rights; and
his government's imprisoning of journalists and scholars, including one of Columbia’s own alumni, Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh
Yet there was no riots, no major protests, and certainly no attempts to silence him during his speech. In fact, the president of Columbia issued a statement that read, in part:
Students and faculty have rights to invite speakers to the campus. Others have rights to hear them. Those who wish to protest have rights to do so. No one, however, shall have the right or the power to use the cover of protest to silence speakers. This is a sacrosanct and inviolable principle.
He also added:
One Columbia student was interviewed by Chris Matthews and this is what he had to say on the subject:Columbia, as a community dedicated to learning and scholarship, is committed to confronting ideas—to understand the world as it is and as it might be. To fulfill this mission we must respect and defend the rights of our schools, our deans and our faculty to create programming for academic purposes. Necessarily, on occasion this will bring us into contact with beliefs many, most or even all of us will find offensive and even odious. We trust our community, including our students, to be fully capable of dealing with these occasions, through the powers of dialogue and reason. Let me reaffirm: In a society committed to free speech, there will inevitably be times when speakers use words that anger, provoke, and even cause pain. Then, more than ever, we are called on to maintain our courage to confront bad words with better words. That is the hallmark of a university and of our democratic society. It is also one of our central safeguards against the impulses of intolerance that always threaten to engulf our commitment to proper respect for every person.
Our University has selective free speech. If you're an American citizen and you have a controversial point of view, they won't allow you to speak, but if you're a foreign citizen and a world terrorist they will allow you on campus.In an article written by the student paper of Northwestern University we find this little tid bit.
Yet this... is not the only way Columbia's administration has stifled free speech on its campus. It is also important to examine the University's policy towards the military. Columbia bans ROTC from its campus, and students have not been able to participate in ROTC there since 1969.
University officials considered reversing this policy in 2005 when a poll revealed that most Columbia students supported restoring the military program. However Bollinger and others ignored student opinion and joined to defeat this initiative, supposedly in protest of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
If Columbia University is willing to ban ROTC in the interest of gay rights, then why invite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak? The Iranian government participates in state-sanctioned murder of homosexuals, and at Columbia Ahmadinejad laughably proclaimed, "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country."
Columbia officials have an inconsistent policy on this issue that defies belief—they are willing to provide a podium to a foreign dictator who endorses deplorable bigotry and murder, but they won't allow ROTC on campus because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
The point of my statement was not to say that they should not have stopped the speech due to public safety concerns, but that once order was restored and those who had created the situation detained an removed, an act that President Bollinger admits only took a few minutes, Mr. Gilcrest should have been allowed to finish his remarks. More importantly, since Columbia University claims that it expects it's students "to be fully capable of dealing with these occasions, through the powers of dialogue and reason," such a riot should never have happened in the first place. Plain and simple it was a suppression of free speech through mob violence. I don't mean to pick on Columbia, they are just the most public example of something that goes on in various places and in various settings throughout this country every single day. It seems like alot of people, on all portions of the political and sociological spectrum are all for free speech and the free exchange of ideas, until someone shows up with a different opinion then theirs.
Well, it sounds to me like the speech by Ahmadinejad came after the one by the Minutemen, so it's quite possible that the school was trying to preempt a similar incident from occurring.
Meanwhile, I still think it was in the best interest of everyone's safety that they shut things down completely after the riot broke out. After all, I'm sure everyone's adrenaline was up, and when people's adrenaline is up, there's a greater risk of someone doing something stupid.
If it matters, I saw the same thing happen at an NBA basketball game once (someone help me with which game, please). A guy threw a cup of beer at one of the players on the court, and the player rushed into the stands to assault the guy. Both the player and the guy were separated and detained pretty quickly. However, they cancelled the game for the evening anyway. Do you think it was because security had a bias for the home team? Or do you think it was because they wanted to ensure the safety of everyone at the game? Think about it.
|
|
Well, it sounds to me like the speech by Ahmadinejad came after the one by the Minutemen, so it's quite possible that the school was trying to preempt a similar incident from occurring.
It is possible, but not the case.
The school could have made it safe for Gilchrist to speak, they simply chose not to.The students could have rioted over Ahmedinejad, none felt the need to, or they felt too intimidated by those who threatened a riot over Gilchrist.
It should be noted that the same double standard exists even with some governments. Mind you, this came after a member of that government threatened to organize and lead the riot, and another member yielded to the threat. (Maybe he should try again though, as the riot leader is currently in prison and will not be able to organize his mob.)
So the action of Columbia University permitting students and faculty to stage a riot to silence a speaker should not be taken casually, as it will in fact provide a precedent for the same to infect any government, including in the U.S.
Impossible?
Apperently not.
Well, I think it's a little over the top to deny the film maker admission into the country because of the film he created. However, I think it's important to clarify something. Protesting against a film is not a violation of freedom of speech. In fact, it's just as much an example of free speech as showing the film in the first place. One may not agree with the protestors' positions, but it doesn't mean that they should be dissuaded from expressing their opinions anyway.
By the way, I don't think it's fair to call protestors of the film, Fitna, 'stealth jihad groups' as the one blog you linked to did. There are a lot of people in this world with a lot of different opinions. For the author to compare these protestors to terrorists, simply because their opinions don't match his own, is pretty darn offensive.
|
|
Well, I think it's a little over the top to deny the film maker admission into the country because of the film he created. However, I think it's important to clarify something. Protesting against a film is not a violation of freedom of speech. In fact, it's just as much an example of free speech as showing the film in the first place. One may not agree with the protestors' positions, but it doesn't mean that they should be dissuaded from expressing their opinions anyway.
It is very important to clarify something.
The "protestors" did not threaten a simple a rally.They threatened a violent and disruptive rally.
The Minister did not bar his entry because there would be protests.
He barred his entry because he feared violent protests causing severe disorders and threatening public safety.
By the way, I don't think it's fair to call protestors of the film, Fitna, 'stealth jihad groups' as the one blog you linked to did. There are a lot of people in this world with a lot of different opinions. For the author to compare these protestors to terrorists, simply because their opinions don't match his own, is pretty darn offensive.
Uh oh, you just committed a crime!
"Jihad" is not inherently violent. In fact it is always non-violent, and only those who "misinterpret" Islam think it is violent. By suggesting that "stealth jihad" is the same as terrorist groups, you are defaming Islam in the same way those threatening a violent riot say Geert Wilders defamed Islam in his movie.Perhaps you should read around that site a bit more and see exactly what he means by the term "stealth jihad".
BTB, did you take 15 minutes to watch "Fitna"?
|
|
If it matters, I saw the same thing happen at an NBA basketball game once (someone help me with which game, please). A guy threw a cup of beer at one of the players on the court, and the player rushed into the stands to assault the guy. Both the player and the guy were separated and detained pretty quickly. However, they cancelled the game for the evening anyway. Do you think it was because security had a bias for the home team? Or do you think it was because they wanted to ensure the safety of everyone at the game? Think about it.
Sounds like you mean the "Malice at the Palace": Pistons-Pacers on Nov 19, 2004, here in beautiful Detroit. There were actually several players that went into the stands, most noticeably Ron Artest of the Pacers. However, it happened with less than a minute left in regulation, so while they canceled the rest of the game, that amounted to a total of 45 seconds. And the home team was way behind, and the Pacers awarded the win, so there was no way bias for the Pistons could even enter the equation.
Especially as almost every religion makes the same claim: I am the one true path and everyone else is a lying git. Most of them have to be wrong, so the chances of picking the right one seem astronomical. Welcome to one reason to be an agnostic. [humour]Another is we can't have terrorism in our name. There's no way you can throw a bomb into a cafe shouting "I believe in a free and rational debate about the issues."[/humour]And yet somehow people manage to drive speakers away from universities in terror, or force the administrations to bar them from appearing in the first place while making that very claim.
Yes, because a cold and calculated kick is an example of being terrorfied isn't it.
The minite men are a bunch of racist thugs, who care little for free speech save when it serves their goals. In fact video of the event demonstrates how they believe they should deal with protests against their actions. Violence.
While the style of the protest was short sighted, their is no evidence i am aware of that the minitement were ever threatened or injured during that protest.
I believe that what Sam is saying is that there is an element that claims to believe in free and open discussion, yet at the same time tries to shut down any discenting voices. For example, individuals shut down a speech at Columbia University being given by the founder of the Minutemen while the same university sat by the next year and allowed the president of Iran speak with no interuptions. My favorite example of this is a quote from Columbia's own campus paper.
I don't follow. So, is the problem the belief in a free and rational debate about the issues or is the problem that there are people willing to use fear to force others to bend to their will (which is by definition not part of a free and rational debate)? It seems like the implication from the statement above is that even those who want free and rational debate use terror and therefore are part of a corrupt/evil ideology. Is there a particular ideology that is completely unwilling to use terror, or is it just a matter of defining any particular ideology to exclude the extremist members willing to use terror (which, I would think "I believe in free and rational debate about issues" would accomplish, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what those words mean).One student protestor told the Spectator that “I don't feel like we need to apologize or anything. It was fundamentally a part of free speech. The Minutemen are not a legitimate part of the debate on immigration.”Notice that the student involved argued that not allowing a discenting opinion to be heard was part of free speech.
Columbia Spectator article on Minutemen protest
Another article on the Minutemen speech
Editorial on the Minutemen Protest...
Hate speech, incitement to violence and slander are all 'discenting views' which are not protected by freedom of speech. Given that the protesters consider the minitemen to engage in both Hate speech and incitement to violence or threat of violance, they do not believe that it is protected by freedom of speech.
Personally i would rather see the minitemen laughted out of public life but hey.
Well, it sounds to me like the speech by Ahmadinejad came after the one by the Minutemen, so it's quite possible that the school was trying to preempt a similar incident from occurring.It is possible, but not the case.
The school could have made it safe for Gilchrist to speak, they simply chose not to.
The students could have rioted over Ahmedinejad, none felt the need to, or they felt too intimidated by those who threatened a riot over Gilchrist.It should be noted that the same double standard exists even with some governments. Mind you, this came after a member of that government threatened to organize and lead the riot, and another member yielded to the threat. (Maybe he should try again though, as the riot leader is currently in prison and will not be able to organize his mob.)
So the action of Columbia University permitting students and faculty to stage a riot to silence a speaker should not be taken casually, as it will in fact provide a precedent for the same to infect any government, including in the U.S.
Impossible?
Apperently not.
Their was no riot over Gilchrist, just protest. The only violence was at the event was undertaken by one of Gilchrist's pet NA thugs.
BTB, did you take 15 minutes to watch "Fitna"?
I haven't, for a couple of reasons: 1) I read a synopsis of the movie, and figured watching a film showing images of someone getting executed wasn't work appropriate, and 2) I was at church* until 10 o'clock last night, so didn't have an opportunity to do so.
*Shin Buddhist church, in case there was any confusion.
|
|
The minite men are a bunch of racist thugs, who care little for free speech save when it serves their goals. In fact video of the event demonstrates how they believe they should deal with protests against their actions. Violence.
You're right, the Minutemen do represent some of the worst of humanity, but they never claimed to be open minded or supportive of free speech for all. Columbia University and, by virtue of their attendence, it's students do. Again I quote the statement of their university president, "students and faculty have rights to invite speakers to the campus. Others have rights to hear them. Those who wish to protest have rights to do so. No one, however, shall have the right or the power to use the cover of protest to silence speakers. This is a sacrosanct and inviolable principle."
To go back to your original point, this is an example of how education and professing to believe in a meme is not an indicator of how a person will react and behave. Columbia University students profess, by their presence at the school, to hold to the meme that states, "in a society committed to free speech, there will inevitably be times when speakers use words that anger, provoke, and even cause pain. Then, more than ever, we are called on to maintain our courage to confront bad words with better words." Yet, when the time came, that meme did not stop some students from engaging violence to enforce their view and silence disenting viewpoints.
By the way here is the video of the event. Perhaps you could enlighten us on just how you are able to tell who belongs to which group, because I must be missing something. The two actual members of the Minutemen themselves are off camera for most of the time, as they are over by the speaker's rosturm. The only thing that is clear is that one of the students present objected to the banner, and tried to take it down. That prompted a violent tugging match with the group who had unveiled the banner and a short confrontation. As you can see from the video, there was nothing approaching a riot. Nor, from the video, does it appear that the representatives from the Minutemen themselves were actually involved.
Sounds like you mean the "Malice at the Palace": Pistons-Pacers on Nov 19, 2004, here in beautiful Detroit.
Yup, that's the one. Thanks.
|
|
Hate speech, incitement to violence and slander are all 'discenting views' which are not protected by freedom of speech. Given that the protesters consider the minitemen to engage in both Hate speech and incitement to violence or threat of violance, they do not believe that it is protected by freedom of speech.
However, consider what the students have defined as hate speech. The central message of the Minutemen is that the government should do more to enforce existing immigration laws and prevent people from entering the country illegally. Do people take this idea to extremes and use it as an excuse to engage in racist behavior? Of course they do. In my own family, my nutcase Neo-Libritarian brother joined the Miniutemen so he could "go to the border and shoot Mexicans." I don't speak to him much any more. However, to catagorize the idea that border enforcement needs to be beefed up as hate speech because some people who support it are racist would be to then catagorize the Civil Rights Movement as hate speech because groups like Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers, as well as individuals like Malcom X, used that as an excuse to promote Black Nationalism and engage in terrorist acts. To bring this back around to the OP, just because the actions of some people who believe in a meme are bad, does not make the meme itself bad.
|
|
Sounds like you mean the "Malice at the Palace": Pistons-Pacers on Nov 19, 2004, here in beautiful Detroit.Yup, that's the one. Thanks.
Makes you wonder why teams would continue to sign Ron Artest to contracts.
As you can see from the video, there was nothing approaching a riot.
A riot doesn't necessarily involve people coming to blows. A riot is when a group of people make a disruptive demonstration in the name of a particular cause. From the looks of the video, that demonstration pretty well fits the definition of a riot.
|
|
Yes, because a cold and calculated kick is an example of being terrorfied isn't it.
If it causes a lecture to be cancelled out of fear of more violence, yes it is.
The minite men are a bunch of racist thugs, who care little for free speech save when it serves their goals. In fact video of the event demonstrates how they believe they should deal with protests against their actions. Violence.
Present an example of:
1. The Minuteman Project silencing another speaker through threats of violence.2. A convinction for a racially motivated crime by the Minuteman Project.
Also explain how defending yourself again violent attacks qualifies as morally wrong.
Further explain the racial slurs used against Marvin Stewart, a black man, who was to speak with Jim Gilchrist at the event.
You do however clearly demonstrate the danger of internet memes, and how they can be used to defame a group without any evidence at all.
While the style of the protest was short sighted, their is no evidence i am aware of that the minitement were ever threatened or injured during that protest.
If they stormed the stage and prevented the presentation there was violence. Just because they never managed to injure anyone does not mean the incident did not occur, or the threat was not present.
|
|
You're right, the Minutemen do represent some of the worst of humanity, but they never claimed to be open minded or supportive of free speech for all.
What evidence do you have of this?
How is it being the "worst of humanity" to want to defend your country's borders?Are you aware that Mexico's immigration laws and enforcement are overwhelmingly stricter than that of the U.S.?
Does that mean Mexico is a racist state, representing something even worse than the worst compared to the members of the Minuteman Project?
Do you have any evidence that the Minuteman Project does not advocate or practive open minded debate or opposes free speech?
However, consider what the students have defined as hate speech. The central message of the Minutemen is that the government should do more to enforce existing immigration laws and prevent people from entering the country illegally. Do people take this idea to extremes and use it as an excuse to engage in racist behavior? Of course they do. In my own family, my nutcase Neo-Libritarian brother joined the Miniutemen so he could "go to the border and shoot Mexicans." I don't speak to him much any more.
Has he shot anyone?
Has any member of the Minuteman Project been convicted or even indicted of shooting anyone while on a border watch?Not that I have use for Libertarians of any stripe. Jim Gilchrist was considering running on the Constitution Party line for President. Saying they should be sued for false advertising for using that name barely touches how whacked out and incipiently dangerous to contitutional freedoms and powers their party platform is. That in no way indicts the core principles, or actions, of the Minuteman Project in any way.
However, to catagorize the idea that border enforcement needs to be beefed up as hate speech because some people who support it are racist would be to then catagorize the Civil Rights Movement as hate speech because groups like Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers, as well as individuals like Malcom X, used that as an excuse to promote Black Nationalism and engage in terrorist acts. To bring this back around to the OP, just because the actions of some people who believe in a meme are bad, does not make the meme itself bad.
Indeed.
Then on what basis do you describe the members of the Minuteman Project as the "worst of humanity"?Perhaps you should consider your own standard when making such statements.
I might also note that if you insist on making this an overtly racial issue, where is the equivalent declaration that the entire movement in support of illegal immigration is purely racially motivated?
So indeed, we have yet more examples of just how far destructive memes can go, even in the face of simple truths, and even in the face of beliefs of fairness.
And to support this, some people would advocate total censorship of any dissenting views.
Hey, I thought I would take a moment to answer properly.
Firstly, let me make it quiet clear that I do not agree with the course of action the students took. Silencing another speaker is wrong. I do believe in free speech, though I will admit to the actions of some groups and individuals occasionally being ambivalent about it.
That said I do not believe that the students intention was to stifle free speech. I suspect it was an example of mob tendencies getting the better of otherwise bright individuals. Naivety and enthusiasm certainly did result in damaging their cause in this incident. The university president was right to issue the statement he did.
I was when posting my last three posts somewhat angry, so i made a slight mistake in my statement. This was due to working from memory rather than checking the exact facts before posting (always a mistake). This democracy now democracy now episode contains footage from Univisions, which shows a young man named Chris Kulawik kicking one of the protesters. Kulawik was the head of the College republicans and individual who specifically invited the Minutemen. I can't comment on his membership of the Minute Men, but it does seem likely from his statements and behaviour that he is a supporter.
With regards to the Memetic ecology of the students involved in the protest. Being a member of Columbia does not mean that one is automatically subject to the influence of the 'Free speech is
good' meme, regardless of the wishes of the university authorities. I suspect most of them are, yet there are many permutations of this meme, from the 'all ideas should be expressed freely, regardless of content', through to 'it is right to self censor to prevent offence.'
What I think you miss understand is that rather than 'acting against the memes' they are infected with they are acting in accordance with various differing memes which are specific to each individual. I have also yet to see evidence of 'violence' used by the protester. There is pushing and shoving, but I think terming that violence in this context would be inappropriate.
I certainly do not think there was a riot; in fact, I think that I specifically said there was not one. That said, the univision footage does clearly show Kelawik kicking one of the protesters.
I am somewhat down currently, so if you do not mind I will get back to the discussion focused more specifically regarding the minutemen later after I have eaten and shot some virtual people to get my head straight :P The argument boils down to the fact that while 'boarder control' is not necessarily a bad thing. It is an issue that the far right colonise with alarming regularity.
|
|
You're right, the Minutemen do represent some of the worst of humanity, but they never claimed to be open minded or supportive of free speech for all.What evidence do you have of this?
Taken directly from the Minutemen Project website.
"I am outraged at our country's weakness in the face of new threats on American traditions from Muslims. Just this week, Tyson's Food negotiated with its union to permit Muslims to have Eid-al-Fitr as a holiday instead of Labor Day. What am I missing?
Yes, there is a large Somali Muslim population working at the Tyson's plant in Tennessee. Tennessee, last I checked, is still part of the United States. If Muslims want to live and work here they should be required to live and work by our American Laws and not impose their will on our long history."
Note that a company allowing it's employees to take a day other than Labor Day off is considered to be a threat to American tradition. Another threat to American tradition, according to the Minutemen Project's own website, is being Muslim. To me that is representative of the worst of humanity.
Those damn Muslims trying to get religious holidays inserted into the corporate world.
|
|
Note that a company allowing it's employees to take a day other than Labor Day off is considered to be a threat to American tradition. Another threat to American tradition, according to the Minutemen Project's own website, is being Muslim. To me that is representative of the worst of humanity.
I think you had better check that incident.
The problem was the union demanding that all employees be given Eid-al-Fitr off instead of Labor Day, regardless of their religion, and with absolutely no choice in the matter. This was going to be a forced change to acommodate a minority of the employees at the plant.And according to what you quoted, as well as to all dissenting voices raised regarding this incident, the problem is not being Muslim, but the demand to impose Islamic religious requirements on everyone. Just as people oppose Blue Laws, and have worked to eliminate virtually all of them, people refuse to submit to new Blue Laws.
If refusing to become a dhimmi represents the worst of humanity to you, particularly compared to jihadis beheading people on a regular
basis, not to mention those doing so on a more ad hoc basis, then I suggest you need to make a serious effort to review your standards for judging such things.
Oh come on! Those people were asking for it. Look how they were dressed.
|
|
Hey, I thought I would take a moment to answer properly.
Firstly, let me make it quiet clear that I do not agree with the course of action the students took. Silencing another speaker is wrong. I do believe in free speech, though I will admit to the actions of some groups and individuals occasionally being ambivalent about it.
Indeed.
When people riot I am always ambivalent about considering their future claims to believing in free speech.That said I do not believe that the students intention was to stifle free speech. I suspect it was an example of mob tendencies getting the better of otherwise bright individuals. Naivety and enthusiasm certainly did result in damaging their cause in this incident. The university president was right to issue the statement he did.
And then of course something like this happens, and it becomes very hard to accept that.
I was when posting my last three posts somewhat angry, so i made a slight mistake in my statement. This was due to working from memory rather than checking the exact facts before posting (always a mistake). This democracy now episode contains footage from Univisions, which shows a young man named Chris Kulawik kicking one of the protesters. Kulawik was the head of the College republicans and individual who specifically invited the Minutemen. I can't comment on his membership of the Minute Men, but it does seem likely from his statements and behaviour that he is a supporter.
It shows what they claim is someone kicking a protester. What does it actually show?
And I note it also shows the leader of the protesters calling Jim Gilchrist a murderer. Free speech indeed.With regards to the Memetic ecology of the students involved in the protest. Being a member of Columbia does not mean that one is automatically subject to the influence of the 'Free speech is good' meme, regardless of the wishes of the university authorities. I suspect most of them are, yet there are many permutations of this meme, from the 'all ideas should be expressed freely, regardless of content', through to 'it is right to self censor to prevent offence.'
Obviously not.
And the "right to self censor" applies to controlling one's own speech. When silencing someone else it is "acting as self-appointed censor", something that is far from a right by any stretch of imgaination.What I think you miss understand is that rather than 'acting against the memes' they are infected with they are acting in accordance with various differing memes which are specific to each individual. I have also yet to see evidence of 'violence' used by the protester. There is pushing and shoving, but I think terming that violence in this context would be inappropriate.
Why? Because it makes it clear that the protesters were in fact acting like terrorists and silencing free speech?
Nice Newspeak, but it fails to convince me.I certainly do not think there was a riot; in fact, I think that I specifically said there was not one. That said, the univision footage does clearly show Kelawik kicking one of the protesters.
Again, only by denying there was a riot can you justify presumed violence against a protester as unusual.
I am somewhat down currently, so if you do not mind I will get back to the discussion focused more specifically regarding the minutemen later after I have eaten and shot some virtual people to get my head straight :P The argument boils down to the fact that while 'boarder control' is not necessarily a bad thing. It is an issue that the far right colonise with alarming regularity.
As opposed to the Soviet Union building the Berlin Wall?
As opposed to the limits on internet information access in China?As opposed to the immigration laws of Mexico?
It is more an issue that only the U.S. is not allowed to assert, whether it be from the right, left, center, or otherwise.
Note that a company allowing it's employees to take a day other than Labor Day off is considered to be a threat to American tradition. Another threat to American tradition, according to the Minutemen Project's own website, is being Muslim. To me that is representative of the worst of humanity.I think you had better check that incident.
The problem was the union demanding that all employees be given Eid-al-Fitr off instead of Labor Day, regardless of their religion, and with absolutely no choice in the matter. This was going to be a forced change to acommodate a minority of the employees at the plant.And according to what you quoted, as well as to all dissenting voices raised regarding this incident, the problem is not being Muslim, but the demand to impose Islamic religious requirements on everyone. Just as people oppose Blue Laws, and have worked to eliminate virtually all of them, people refuse to submit to new Blue Laws.
If refusing to become a dhimmi represents the worst of humanity to you, particularly compared to jihadis beheading people on a regular
basis, not to mention those doing so on a more ad hoc basis, then I suggest you need to make a serious effort to review your standards for judging such things.
While David Fryer choose a bad example, and I have to disagree with him on the exact example, I have to point out that even this, technically reasonable action is coloured by the minutemen's association with the National Alliance. This is a racist and xenophobic organisation, which is trying to gain respectablity by presenting itself as the only group dealing with a specific issue. Rightly or wrongly, these issues do concern many people.
This is now a time honoured tradition of the far right and if they are turning their attention to blue laws and are successful at associating themselves with the fight against blue laws, it will dramatically and negatively effect the ability to fight them. Those who wish to uphold the separation of church and state via the first amendment, both by secularists and moderate religious people, will be put in a position where they have to drop the issue or be tarred with brush of the far right. .
One need only look at the utter disaster that immigration policy has becomes here. For many years, rants about immogration were the preserve of the British National Party. Really very unpleasant people. This has made it utterly unfashionable to talk about the issue in politics. All the while, the grain of dissatisfaction irritated the populous, creating a pearl of support for the BMP, because they can say, 'no one is dealing with this issue.' Slowly but steadily they have gained a little shred of respectability, though still only the tiniest shred. Also the 'perceived problem' has grown, meaning that solutions have had to move further and further to the totalitarian right. For god sake, do not let the minutemen do the same to the issue of blue laws and boarder control.
Despite that, I do agree with David, it is an example of the worst of humanity. In this case it is an example of the tribalistic tendencies which we are all capable of exhibiting. Samuel, you claim that beheading people is worse, but what you fail to understand is that they are in fact both triggered by the same neurology. Take any group of strangers selected at random, split them into groups. Give them a visual identifying feature, such as red or yellow armbands and then have them compete. Within hours, their brain neurology has changed, to favour people with their coloured armbands over people with the others. This change in neurology is almost identical to the kind of neurology associated with prey animals. It is exactly this kind of xenophobia that allows Islamists to chop of heads of the infidels and Minutemen supporters to talk about shouting Mexicans.
|
|
While David Fryer choose a bad example, and I have to disagree with him on the exact example, I have to point out that even this, technically reasonable action is coloured by the minutemen's association with the National Alliance. This is a racist and xenophobic organisation, which is trying to gain respectablity by presenting itself as the only group dealing with a specific issue. Rightly or wrongly, these issues do concern many people.
It is also an association denied by the Minuteman Project.
And it is easily countered by the association of the supporters of illegal immigration with the racist and xenophobic organization La Raza.This is now a time honoured tradition of the far right and if they are turning their attention to blue laws and are successful at associating themselves with the fight against blue laws, it will dramatically and negatively effect the ability to fight them. Those who wish to uphold the separation of church and state via the first amendment, both by secularists and moderate religious people, will be put in a position where they have to drop the issue or be tarred with brush of the far right.
Unfortunately for that theory, there are more than a few who oppose such efforts at forcing conformity to Islamic law on people.
Worse, there are too many on the left who actively embrace incorporating Islamic law despite the abuses it encourages and against the wishes of the people they would impose it on.Despite that, I do agree with David, it is an example of the worst of humanity. In this case it is an example of the tribalistic tendencies which we are all capable of exhibiting.
In which case you must acknowledge that Mexico is a horrific country, guilty of great atrocities by this standard.
That makes it rather difficult to take claims of offense, and indeed assertions of transnational sovereignty by their elected officials, and any of their supporters, in any way seriously.Samuel, you claim that beheading people is worse, but what you fail to understand is that they are in fact both triggered by the same neurology.
Say
What?
Not wishing to accept second-class status because of the religious laws of others, or wishing to control your nation's borders, is the same as beheading people?
Are you serious?
Really, do you seriously, rationally, logically, with any sense of humanity, truly equate those two?
Take any group of strangers selected at random, split them into groups. Give them a visual identifying feature, such as red or yellow armbands and then have them compete. Within hours, their brain neurology has changed, to favour people with their coloured armbands over people with the others. This change in neurology is almost identical to the kind of neurology associated with prey animals. It is exactly this kind of xenophobia that allows Islamists to chop of heads of the infidels and Minutemen supporters to talk about shouting Mexicans.
Except that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of securing borders and controlling illegal immigration. There is no overriding visual identifying feature, and only limited other features readily identifiable from casual contact.
What you are doing is defaulting to gratuitous fear-mongering, with no actual basis as nothing in the mission statement of the Minuteman Project, or from other average groups or individuals supporting border control and active reduction of illegal immigration, in any way advocates, promotes, or suggests the use of violence as the best, or as a general option, in achieving those goals. That the same cannot, by simple, casual investigation, be said about the basis for the actions of Islamists, you fail doubly with such a comparison.However, as for your suggestion of xenophobia, the same standard can be applied to defending any concept of private property. How can you exclude anyone from casually squatting in your home, using your property, and otherwise indulging themselves at the expense of your privacy and property rights, without being guilty of that same type of xenophobia that you condemn?
Indeed.
When people riot I am always ambivalent about considering their future claims to believing in free speech.
Firstly, not a riot by any stretch of the imagination, you see worse outside a nightclub most nights.
But fundimentally yes, it does damage the message which is why I said I disagree with the action. It certainly didn't prevent Mr Gilchrist speaking, but it did interfere with his ability to do so, which is wrong. As I said in the section, you are quoting.
And then of course something like this happens, and it becomes very hard to accept that.
So form an article about a student protect in which a group barricade themselves into an area they where entitled to enter, and then are forcefully removed by polices, with allegations of police brutality, and only two people being charged for anything, you think that us hippy liberal types are out of control? Oh my, how terrible, what is the world coming too? Seriously, you do realise it is 2009 right, that the sixties and the seventies happened, that protests like this are small potatoes and that all to often police action at protest worsens the situation and is utterly disproportionate.
It shows what they claim is someone kicking a protester. What does it actually show?
And I note it also shows the leader of the protesters calling Jim Gilchrist a murderer. Free speech indeed.
Firstly, the Kick is clearly visible. The individual doing it is Chris kulawik.
Miss Garcia is allowed to say that by free speech, and Mr Gilchrist can take her to court for slander if he feels it is unjustified. To my knowledge, no charge of slander was ever made against her. Her statement does not impede his free speech, he choose to remove his participation from the interview, censoring himself in essences. If you wish to defend free speech without acception, you should defend it equally on all counts.
Obviously not.
And the "right to self censor" applies to controlling one's own speech. When silencing someone else it is "acting as self-appointed censor", something that is far from a right by any stretch of imgaination.
Where did i claim that the right to self censor game the right to censor others? Your Straw man appears to be made of straw.
Why? Because it makes it clear that the protesters were in fact acting like terrorists and silencing free speech?
Nice Newspeak, but it fails to convince me.
No, because having seen real violence and having acted to stop it at my own expense i do not consider scuffling of pushing and shuving in which you cannot identify the instigator to be violence capable of intimidating anyone or preventing free speech. It is certainly not a riot. In addition, having grown up in barracks town during a major terrorist campaign, i wish terrorists behaved like these students, but I can assure you they do not.
If reserving some severity of the term violence is Newspeak, well I guess double plus is good.
Again, only by denying there was a riot can you justify presumed violence against a protester as unusual.
Firstly, it really isn't a riot. But even if the activities of the protesters were a riot, I would consider that attack as unjustified and unusual. Firstly, the man on the stage is out of harms way, he has high ground and dangerous target area. The target is also separated from the other protesters and moving towards the exit when he is attacked. Oh and his arms are full of banner. Hardly able to fight back, is he. Good luck with your attempts to justify genuine violence by saying 'its the banner waving noicy people who are being violent, not those lovely conservatives.' despite the huge disparity between behaviours.
As opposed to the Soviet Union building the Berlin Wall?
As opposed to the limits on internet information access in China?
As opposed to the immigration laws of Mexico?
It is more an issue that only the U.S. is not allowed to assert, whether it be from the right, left, center, or otherwise.
Ah, your old friend straw man, how we have missed him.
I have not defended any of these issues. In fact, i have explicitly said that I disagree with censorship. It is an issue when these countries do such things, It is however even more of an issue when it happens in the united states or the U.K. because we as nations are meant to be at a stage where these issues should not be occurring.|
|
Firstly, not a riot by any stretch of the imagination, you see worse outside a nightclub most nights.
But fundimentally yes, it does damage the message which is why I said I disagree with the action. It certainly didn't prevent Mr Gilchrist speaking, but it did interfere with his ability to do so, which is wrong. As I said in the section, you are quoting.
Firstly, yes a riot, despite the attempted comparison.
Secondly, yes, the students were completely and solely at fault.So form an article about a student protect in which a group barricade themselves into an area they where entitled to enter, and then are forcefully removed by polices, with allegations of police brutality, and only two people being charged for anything, you think that us hippy liberal types are out of control? Oh my, how terrible, what is the world coming too? Seriously, you do realise it is 2009 right, that the sixties and the seventies happened, that protests like this are small potatoes and that all to often police action at protest worsens the situation and is utterly disproportionate.
You should check the follow-up where the students involved are being expelled.
As for the charges of police brutality, they always show up. Whether they exist or not is far from being proven.Also, being entitled to enter an area does not grant the right to barricade that area against others and deny them access until various demands are met.
You really will have to do better than that to justify such illegal activities.
Firstly, the Kick is clearly visible. The individual doing it is Chris kulawik.
Has he been charged?
That is the standard you want to use above and below.If not, then I guess it was not really a relevant kick.
Miss Garcia is allowed to say that by free speech, and Mr Gilchrist can take her to court for slander if he feels it is unjustified. To my knowledge, no charge of slander was ever made against her. Her statement does not impede his free speech, he choose to remove his participation from the interview, censoring himself in essences. If you wish to defend free speech without acception, you should defend it equally on all counts.
Free speech does not extend to slander as you well know. That is a truly feeble strawman. And a truly hypocritical one given your appeal to self-censorship of offensive speech.
Where did i claim that the right to self censor game the right to censor others? Your Straw man appears to be made of straw.
In the context you presented it.
See above for your hypocrisy.No, because having seen real violence and having acted to stop it at my own expense i do not consider scuffling of pushing and shuving in which you cannot identify the instigator to be violence capable of intimidating anyone or preventing free speech. It is certainly not a riot. In addition, having grown up in barracks town during a major terrorist campaign, i wish terrorists behaved like these students, but I can assure you they do not.
If reserving some severity of the term violence is Newspeak, well I guess double plus is good.
Menacing is a crime just as must as carrying out threats of violence, no Newspeak involved. So a doubleplusungood rating for you on that one as well.
Firstly, it really isn't a riot. But even if the activities of the protesters were a riot, I would consider that attack as unjustified and unusual. Firstly, the man on the stage is out of harms way, he has high ground and dangerous target area. The target is also separated from the other protesters and moving towards the exit when he is attacked. Oh and his arms are full of banner. Hardly able to fight back, is he. Good luck with your attempts to justify genuine violence by saying 'its the banner waving noicy people who are being violent, not those lovely conservatives.' despite the huge disparity between behaviours.
How do you know these things?
Were you there?Did you experience them directly?
No, you want to make such assumptions from an alleged tape.
Now you turn to guilt by accusation, a natural extension.
Ah, your old friend straw man, how we have missed him.
I have not defended any of these issues. In fact, i have explicitly said that I disagree with censorship. It is an issue when these countries do such things, It is however even more of an issue when it happens in the united states or the U.K. because we as nations are meant to be at a stage where these issues should not be occurring.
No straw man at all.
Those are your standards, applied to other instances.And you have yet to actively condemn any of them except when challenged.
And of course avoiding addressing your moral equivalences you demonstrate just how indefensible they are.
The central message of the Minutemen is that the government should do more to enforce existing immigration laws and prevent people from entering the country illegally. Do people take this idea to extremes and use it as an excuse to engage in racist behavior? Of course they do. In my own family, my nutcase Neo-Libritarian brother joined the Miniutemen so he could "go to the border and shoot Mexicans." I don't speak to him much any more. However, to catagorize the idea that border enforcement needs to be beefed up as hate speech because some people who support it are racist would be to then catagorize the Civil Rights Movement as hate speech because groups like Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers, as well as individuals like Malcom X, used that as an excuse to promote Black Nationalism and engage in terrorist acts. To bring this back around to the OP, just because the actions of some people who believe in a meme are bad, does not make the meme itself bad.
I think there's a difference between saying that the government should do more to enforce existing immigration laws, and saying that people should engage in vigilantism because the government isn't doing enough. If you want to encourage the government to beef up border patrols, then write a letter to your governmental representatives. Put a proposition on the ballot to provide more money for police along the border in your state. There are plenty of perfectly legitimate ways to try and promote this agenda without engaging in what many people believe amounts to vigilante justice.
By the way, not for nothing, but many campuses across the country have rules against the use of hate speech and the promotion of illegal activities on campus. You may disagree with the following interpretations, but there are plenty of people who view the promotion of vigilante justice against undocumented immigrants by the Minutemen as an example of hate speech. There are also plenty of people who believe that the activities of the Minutemen are illegal for any number of reasons, the least of which being that there's no government body overseeing the group's activities. Given that, it's not necessarily unreasonable for members of a college campus to limit what a member of the Minutemen has to say, any more than it's unreasonable for them to limit what a member of the Klan has to say.
Anyway, that's just something to think about.
|
|
By the way, not for nothing, but many campuses across the country have rules against the use of hate speech and the promotion of illegal activities on campus. You may disagree with the following interpretations, but there are plenty of people who view the promotion of vigilante justice against undocumented immigrants by the Minutemen as an example of hate speech.
The thing is though, that in this particular case, The Minutemen had recieved a formal invitation from the university to come an speak. It was not the university that prevented them from speaking, it was a group of students who then turned around an pushed for an invitation for a holocaust denier, homophobe, and recognized sponsor of terrorism according to the State Department, on the grounds that everyone should have a chance to be heard. The point I was trying to make is that if you believe that everyone has a right to be heard, then everyone should mean everyone. I would also contend that anyone who has read or heard the speech that Ahmadenijahd gave and came away with an impression that it was not just as much hate speech as anything the Minutemen have said needs to reevaluate their own moral code.
|
|
I think there's a difference between saying that the government should do more to enforce existing immigration laws, and saying that people should engage in vigilantism because the government isn't doing enough. If you want to encourage the government to beef up border patrols, then write a letter to your governmental representatives. Put a proposition on the ballot to provide more money for police along the border in your state. There are plenty of perfectly legitimate ways to try and promote this agenda without engaging in what many people believe amounts to vigilante justice.
So neighborhood watch programs are all packs of crazed vigilantes who should be shut down?
People who report crimes when they see them are vigilantes?Are volunteer ambulance groups people practicing medicine without a license?
Are volunteer firefighters thrill-seeking firebugs?
By the way, not for nothing, but many campuses across the country have rules against the use of hate speech and the promotion of illegal activities on campus. You may disagree with the following interpretations, but there are plenty of people who view the promotion of vigilante justice against undocumented immigrants by the Minutemen as an example of hate speech. There are also plenty of people who believe that the activities of the Minutemen are illegal for any number of reasons, the least of which being that there's no government body overseeing the group's activities. Given that, it's not necessarily unreasonable for members of a college campus to limit what a member of the Minutemen has to say, any more than it's unreasonable for them to limit what a member of the Klan has to say.
The Minuteman Project patrols are not illegal. While it has been called many things, nobody has been charged for just patrolling and reporting illegal immigrants.
Calling illegal immigrants "illegal" and advocating for the enforcement of immigration laws is no more hate speech than calling Enron executives and other types "criminals" and advocating for the enforcement of business and ethics laws.To try and equate the two is a mockery of law and justice, and a disservice to actual incitement of hatred and criminal activity.
Just because someone believes something is hate speech in no way makes it so, particularly in the college environment where anything and everything is proclaimed offensive at the drop of a hat as a way to shut down actual discussion.
Anyway, that's just something to think about.
Yes, the threat of censorship by any group is something to think about, particularly when it is taken further to the point of racist incitement and general rioting.
Oh come on! Those people were asking for it. Look how they were dressed.Indeed.
Appearing in public with a head is known to be disproportionately provocative.
Stop trying to cloud the topic with your politicized doublespeak! Those boys weren't doing no wrong.
The thing is though, that in this particular case, The Minutemen had recieved a formal invitation from the university to come an speak. It was not the university that prevented them from speaking, it was a group of students who then turned around an pushed for an invitation for a holocaust denier, homophobe, and recognized sponsor of terrorism according to the State Department, on the grounds that everyone should have a chance to be heard. The point I was trying to make is that if you believe that everyone has a right to be heard, then everyone should mean everyone. I would also contend that anyone who has read or heard the speech that Ahmadenijahd gave and came away with an impression that it was not just as much hate speech as anything the Minutemen have said needs to reevaluate their own moral code.
I think I've been pretty clear regarding my opinion that the Minutemen event was cancelled for security reasons. I also believe I've been pretty clear regarding my opinion that it was a very reasonable decision to do cancel the event on those grounds. Given that I don't really feel the need to further expound on this issue
As far as the university's decision to invite the Minutemen to speak is concerned, I don't personally have any objection to it. In fact, if they were to invite the Minutemen back, I wouldn't object to that either. I would ask that the university be more aware of the security risks involved. I would also ask that they provide a forum for people to safely express their objections to the hosting of such an event, so that such an altercation doesn't happen again.
As far as Ahmadenijahd's speech is concerned, other than a comment about there being no homosexuals in his country (an assertion that I find as laughable as the audience did), I thought it was a fairly well reasoned speech. I'm not really sure what he was getting at about the Holocaust. However, he does state twice that he does not question the Holocaust's historical reality, but only what it has to do with the Palestinian people. I think that's a reasonable question, and I think it's an area of history that is sadly neglected. After all, nobody is really quite sure what happened between the Israelis and the Palestinians after World War II that resulted in the conflicts that we still see in that region today. Given that, is it not reasonable to ask for more research into this time in our world's history?
|
|
However, he does state twice that he does not question the Holocaust's historical reality, but only what it has to do with the Palestinian people. I think that's a reasonable question, and I think it's an area of history that is sadly neglected. After all, nobody is really quite sure what happened between the Israelis and the Palestinians after World War II that resulted in the conflicts that we still see in that region today. Given that, is it not reasonable to ask for more research into this time in our world's history?
Anybody who bothers to read the simplest of histories is well aware of what happened.
The Palestine Mandate was partitioned by the UN.The Jewish organizations declared the state of Israel on the half assigned to them.
The Palestinians, along with the other Arab states, declared war.
Israel won.
Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip.
Jordan occupied the West Bank.
There is no question as to those events, or of the existence of Palestinian riots before the partition by the UN, or of dozens of other fully documented events.
It is only a need to force a revision of the historical record in order to delegitimize the existence of Israel as part of an overall plan to effect the ethnic cleansing of non-Arab, non-Muslims from the region.
Ahmedinjad has been quite clear that such is his goal, as have the Iranian proxy terrorist groups in the region, as well as Al Qaeda, and other "moderate" Arab groups and governments. All you need to do is pay attention to their rhetoric.
Of course not.
Beheading is a time honored technique of rebuttal that ensures getting the last word.
Aha! So you admit it has merit!
I go away to Africa for a couple of weeks and this wraps around to beheading...gotta catch up on things! ;^)
|
|
However, he does state twice that he does not question the Holocaust's historical reality, but only what it has to do with the Palestinian people. I think that's a reasonable question, and I think it's an area of history that is sadly neglected. After all, nobody is really quite sure what happened between the Israelis and the Palestinians after World War II that resulted in the conflicts that we still see in that region today. Given that, is it not reasonable to ask for more research into this time in our world's history?Anybody who bothers to read the simplest of histories is well aware of what happened.
The Palestine Mandate was partitioned by the UN.
The Jewish organizations declared the state of Israel on the half assigned to them.
The Palestinians, along with the other Arab states, declared war.
Israel won.
Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip.
Jordan occupied the West Bank.There is no question as to those events, or of the existence of Palestinian riots before the partition by the UN, or of dozens of other fully documented events.
It is only a need to force a revision of the historical record in order to delegitimize the existence of Israel as part of an overall plan to effect the ethnic cleansing of non-Arab, non-Muslims from the region.
Ahmedinjad has been quite clear that such is his goal, as have the Iranian proxy terrorist groups in the region, as well as Al Qaeda, and other "moderate" Arab groups and governments. All you need to do is pay attention to their rhetoric.
And the third largest party in Israel after the elections wants to ethnically purge Arabs from Israel. Does this mean that a significant proportion of Israel is equally abhorrent and subject to condemnation to you?
So neighborhood watch programs are all packs of crazed vigilantes who should be shut down?
People who report crimes when they see them are vigilantes?
Are volunteer ambulance groups people practicing medicine without a license?
Are volunteer firefighters thrill-seeking firebugs?
I think I need to make a distinction. I don't necessarily agree with the people who refer to the Minutemen as a vigilante organization. My post was made simply to demonstrate why someone might object to an event that hosts the leader of the Minuteman Project.
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with reporting people for illegally crossing the border, just like I don't think there's anything wrong with people reporting illegal activities that happen in their neighborhood. That said, I do strongly object to people who harass those they suspect of engaging in illegal activities, regardless of what the activity might be.* I don't know how frequent such events are amongst members of the Minuteman Project. However, doing a quick Google search, I did find that the Southern Poverty Law Center is opening an investigation into the production of two videos purportedly showing Minutemen vigilantes shooting at immigrants illegally crossing the border. If it turns out that these allegations are true, then I object strongly to the actions of the men involved.
*By the way, I don't want to get into a debate about what I consider harassment. I think that's a fairly nebulous subject and one that often depends on the circumstances of the situation and the perceptions of the people involved. What I will say is that if you can dream up an activity that you consider an example of harassment, then that's probably something I would consider harassment too. On the other hand, if you can dream up an activity that borders on harassment, but isn't necessarily, given the circumstance, then don't be surprised if your definition of harassment disagrees with mine. :)