Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do people always use that argument when I disagree with something they say? For example, I didn't agree with the women's march and I was told that I was trying to stifle their freedom of speech when voicing my opinion ....I explained to them I wasn't arguing their right to say it....I was voicing what I don't agree with....they didn't get it. They don't realized it goes both ways....they have a right to voice what they believe in but if we speak out our beliefs we are arguing their freedom of speech? It's so hypocritical. I think "freedom of speech" should be left out of the argument completely....because it isn't what we are arguing.
Funny how they can have violent riots to protest a speaker they don't agree with but if I don't agree with women taking the day off today to protest they say I'm arguing their freedom of speech....no I'm just stating I don't agree with the reasons behind it.
....I was voicing what I don't agree with....they didn't get it. .
Yeah they did. Deliberately being obtuse and obfuscating, and/or immediately going on the attack, are just tools used to put you on the defensive and derail conversation. Once you realize that, the best course of action is to say your piece and then just...........walk away.
Yeah they did. Deliberately being obtuse and obfuscating, and/or immediately going on the attack, are just tools used to put you on the defensive and derail conversation. Once you realize that, the best course of action is to say your piece and then just...........walk away.
In some cases yes but...
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
Why do people always use that argument when I disagree with something they say? For example, I didn't agree with the women's march and I was told that I was trying to stifle their freedom of speech when voicing my opinion ....I explained to them I wasn't arguing their right to say it....I was voicing what I don't agree with....they didn't get it. They don't realized it goes both ways....they have a right to voice what they believe in but if we speak out our beliefs we are arguing their freedom of speech? It's so hypocritical. I think "freedom of speech" should be left out of the argument completely....because it isn't what we are arguing.
Funny how they can have violent riots to protest a speaker they don't agree with but if I don't agree with women taking the day off today to protest they say I'm arguing their freedom of speech....no I'm just stating I don't agree with the reasons behind it.
Right-wingers are the masters at using this kind of argument.
Yes, people need to understand that I have the freedom of speech to shoot down your stupid ideas. Not agreeing with you does not mean I am not allowing you to speak.
.
No, but not allowing someone to speak does mean you are not allowing them to speak (as in the case of the Middlebury protesters you defend).
Nice spin, but the protesters were NOT the one who decided to cancel the event, it was the organizers.
You could say the protest influenced the organizers to make that decision but you cannot draw a direct link from the protesters to the cancellation when the protesters do not have that power. The responsibility is on the organizers to organize a safe and peaceful event, there are things they could have done to make the protest less invasive but they didn't do it.
Nice spin, but the protesters were NOT the one who decided to cancel the event, it was the organizers.
You could say the protest influenced the organizers to make that decision but you cannot draw a direct link from the protesters to the cancellation when the protesters do not have that power. The responsibility is on the organizers to organize a safe and peaceful event, there are things they could have done to make the protest less invasive but they didn't do it.
.
So basically when protesters try to shut down free speech with riots it's time to fight fire with fire? Should the right make every attempt to shut down the left's speech? After all if it gets cancelled it's the organizers who did it right?
As I understand the First Amendment, it says the government cannot shut me up. Nothing is said about a private college president, my spouse, parent or boss.
So basically when protesters try to shut down free speech with riots it's time to fight fire with fire? Should the right make every attempt to shut down the left's speech??
No and No.
When one side resorts to violence and attempts to silence the other side, you know their position is untenable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
