Good God do I hate Elizabeth Warren

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

So What.....one or two a-holes doesn't mean racism is running rampant.totally agree. But isn't the whole discussion of this based on what a tiny % of the students are doing?

There are 320,000,000 people in this country, some of them are a-holes, and some of those a-holes go to college....and some of those a-holes own sharpies.

That doesn't provide justification to stop somebody from speaking at an open forum. If you don't want to hear them speak...you don't go. its really THAT simple.

Well, my feeling is when someone calls someone a freak of nature (in reference to gays for example) and if I was gay, I would be insulted.

Murray says Blacks are genetically inferior in cognition to whites - so when an advocate of eugenics oriented bigotry appears on campus, is it a wonder that Blacks don't want to hear him.

Would Hitler had been ok?

[nightfighter]

Phuk no, Hitler would not be ok.....

And whoever this Murray guy is, he clearly is not in an elected office is he?

As for the Liberal think tank that pervades in American higher institutions (colleges and universities) I give you this as a most recent example of just what these pansy administrations running these schools will tolerate. (and he has a history with over the edge commentaries)
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/us/dre...r-tweets-trnd/

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Well, my feeling is when someone calls someone a freak of nature (in reference to gays for example) and if I was gay, I would be insulted.

Are you prejudiced against freaks of nature?

Murray says Blacks are genetically inferior in cognition to whites - so when an advocate of eugenics oriented bigotry appears on campus, is it a wonder that Blacks don't want to hear him.

Blacks are not forced to hear him. Why should anybody deny others, including blacks, the ability to hear him. If they actually listened to what he says, rather than merely believe what some others say about him, they might actually learn something. And they might learn that valid studies, for instance as (https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfreds...sen30years.pdf) show that heredity does play a significant part in levels of intelligence--as they do in just about everything else.

Murray doesn't claim that the difference should be feared or that it makes some racial or ethnic groups generally "inferior" to others. And he doesn't put whites at the top of the IQ ladder. He puts East Asians and Jews significantly higher in IQ than whites. And he says that any racial or ethnic group has a spectrum of high as well as low IQ. He says that the focus in society should not be so much on group differences, but on individual differences. And that all characteristics of a person, not just IQ, should be how we evaluate our associations with others. And that all groups (clans) think that they are superior (more worthwhile being a member of), and perfectly content on being who they are.

Would Hitler had been ok?

I doubt that he would accept a speaking engagement on a present day American university. But if he did, you don't think it would be interesting to hear him speak?

It sounds, from your few words here, that you support shouting down or denying speakers if you don't agree with them.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Would Hitler had been ok?

How many people did Murray send to the gas chamber?

Or have we hit that point where words are as bad as genocide...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How many people did Murray send to the gas chamber?

Or have we hit that point where words are as bad as genocide...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Didn't Hitler start out calling the Jews genetically inferior?

Do they need to hold off on protesting until someone is sent to the gas chamber?

Colleges have the kids for a few years, their parents had them for 17 bf they went to school.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Didn't Hitler start out calling the Jews genetically inferior?

Do they need to hold off on protesting until someone is sent to the gas chamber?

Colleges have the kids for a few years, their parents had them for 17 bf they went to school.

Right, because Trump is in office the natural next step is that we are going to follow in the footsteps of Nazi Germany...

Only thing that might get in the way of that is the Constitution, The 3 branches of Government, 50 separate state governments, and 99% of the 320,000,000 people that aren't stupid enough to let that happen.

How about instead of shouting him down and getting his appearance canceled, they show up to it, engage him in constructive debate, and show everybody, civilly, that is ideas are incorrect.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Right, because Trump is in office the natural next step is that we are going to follow in the footsteps of Nazi Germany...

Only thing that might get in the way of that is the Constitution, The 3 branches of Government, 50 separate state governments, and 99% of the 320,000,000 people that aren't stupid enough to let that happen.

How about instead of shouting him down and getting his appearance canceled, they show up to it, engage him in constructive debate, and show everybody, civilly, that is ideas are incorrect.

"Right, because Trump is in office the natural next step is that we are going to follow in the footsteps of Nazi Germany..."

Anything to avoid admitting that the Republicans might have a better stance on any issue.

"How about instead of shouting him down and getting his appearance canceled, they show up to it, engage him in constructive debate, and show everybody, civilly, that is ideas are incorrect"

Very, very well said. The reason why they don't do that, is because they can't. College kids aren't ever exposed to points of view other than liberalism, they never see liberalism challenged, so they have no idea how to defend it. Much easier to throw a brick through a window. and then still claim that you are more tolerant than the other guy. That's the part that gets me. I am a parent, I understand the impulse of babies to throw temper tantrums. What I don't understand, is that in the very next nanosecond, these rioters claim to be on the side of diversity and tolerance.

Liberalism: diversity in everything, except ideas!

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Right, because Trump is in office the natural next step is that we are going to follow in the footsteps of Nazi Germany...If that is what you got out my using Hitler and an example I think you misunderstood.

Only thing that might get in the way of that is the Constitution, The 3 branches of Government, 50 separate state governments, and 99% of the 320,000,000 people that aren't stupid enough to let that happen.

How about instead of shouting him down and getting his appearance canceled, they show up to it, engage him in constructive debate, and show everybody, civilly, that is ideas are incorrect.

BC according to the students the last time Murray spoke on campus there was an increase of hate crimes including the writing of the N word on Black's dorm room doors. It would be nice if people could engage civilly with someone who for many years has had the view that blacks are genetically inferior and cannot compete with white men, who are intellectually, psychologically and morally superior but I think that is a pretty high bar. If you know he is going to piss off some many people why invite him to speak unless you believe those discredited views. Invite someone whose views are based in fact.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

If you know he is going to piss off some many people why invite him to speak unless you believe those discredited views.

Because you can, period. There is nothing illegal about it. It is that whole "Freedom of Speech" argument that they keep using to defend their actions when they shout down people.

Originally Posted by PaulS

Invite someone whose views are based in fact.

You mean someone whose views align with their own.

They invite Comedians to speak on campuses all the time. Is everything they say based on fact? Is everything that comes out of their mouth considered not offensive to anyone?

again, if you don't like him, don't come....or show up and try to engage in a civil discourse with him.

but instead we get this....real grown up of them

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...bhJ/story.html

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

You mean someone whose views align with your own.

THERE YOU HAVE IT.

I don't think that's what Paul means (he's more fair than that), but sure as hell it's what many liberals mean.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Because you can, period. There is nothing illegal about it. It is that whole "Freedom of Speech" argument that they keep using to defend their actions when they shout down people.Well, I guess then being shouted down is going to be the expected outcome.



You mean someone whose views align with their own. Not at all. Murray's theories have been widely debunked. Invite some of the conservative economists. So do you think the people invited him agreed w/his view?

They invite Comedians to speak on campuses all the time. Is everything they say based on fact? Is everything that comes out of their mouth considered not offensive to anyone?

again, if you don't like him, don't come....or show up and try to engage in a civil discourse with him.

but instead we get this....real grown up of themI agree it is crazy. (didn't look at the link) Entitled kids. It is a shame they are coddled all their lives, being always told "good job", getting their way, getting trophys for participating. They where entitled bf they got to school.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...bhJ/story.html

nm

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

BC according to the students the last time Murray spoke on campus there was an increase of hate crimes including the writing of the N word on Black's dorm room doors.

Your demonstrating that an effective way to bar someone from speaking on campus is to create civil disorder if they do. An increase of crimes is the fault of the criminals, not by someone who is not advocating the increase in crimes. If we must be afraid to speak because some criminals will use the speech to commit crimes, freedom of speech is effectively shut down, eliminated.


It would be nice if people could engage civilly with someone who for many years has had the view that blacks are genetically inferior and cannot compete with white men, who are intellectually, psychologically and morally superior but I think that is a pretty high bar.

Perhaps, your false understanding of Murray is due to not getting a chance to know fully what Murray thinks and says. Shutting his speech down is one way of depriving you of the truth.

Murray does not say that blacks are genetically inferior to whites in the way you describe. Nor that all blacks are genetically inferior to all whites even in the way he is discussing. He is speaking solely on the intelligence level measured by IQ. And, he says, even within that parameter, MANY blacks are superior to MANY whites. His use of IQ in this case is measuring basic groups, races and ethnicities. OVERALL, blacks and Latinos score lower than whites, but, OVERALL, East Asians and Jews score higher than whites. So there is no "white racist" motivation for what he is saying.

And he is certainly not saying that whites are "psychologically and morally superior" to blacks. Nor is he saying that blacks cannot compete with white men. Not only can the many black men who score higher IQ compete intellectually with the many white men who score lower, the majority of black men can outperform the majority of white men in areas which blacks are genetically "superior."

If you know he is going to piss off some many people why invite him to speak unless you believe those discredited views. Invite someone whose views are based in fact.

Whether you invite someone to speak who's views are supposedly discredited or not, you are obligated to let him speak if he accepts your invitation.

Murray's views have been "discredited" (falsely in my opinion) by some, but supported by others (see the link I posted above as an "expert" example). The purpose of having him speak is to put his views on display so that the audience has some direct evidence, from his mouth to their ears, on which to help make a judgement. And, usually, if the discourse is civil and not threatened with disruptive noise or violence, there are Q & A sessions after the speech in which points and counterpoints can be clarified and discussed--civilly--if civility is allowed.

Not inviting someone to speak, especially if he is "controversial," because there will be those who are "pissed #^&#^&#^&#^& is being a partner to the elimination of free speech, to the promotion of only allowing certain speech, to allowing mobs and criminals to dictate what is allowed, and to promoting ignorance and to the capture of social norms and behaviors by radical authoritarians.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

If you know he is going to piss off some many people why invite him to speak unless you believe those discredited views. Invite someone whose views are based in fact.

Funny that many of the same liberals who ask that question regarding King, have no quarrel with inviting Bill Ayers or Abu Mumia Jamal to speak.

It's OK for people to throw offensive bombs, as long as those bombs are aimed at conservatives.

Paul, Ben Shapiro is another hated conservative whose appearance on campus often triggers riots. He's a staunch conservative, but he' snot a racist or a hatemonger., He's a slightly watered down version of Ann Coulter. But he's smart, and he's conservative, therefore he must be silenced.

You make it sound like the only conservatives who trigger riots are Klansmen. Not so.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Well, my feeling is when someone calls someone a freak of nature (in reference to gays for example) and if I was gay, I would be insulted.

Murray says Blacks are genetically inferior in cognition to whites - so when an advocate of eugenics oriented bigotry appears on campus, is it a wonder that Blacks don't want to hear him.

Would Hitler had been ok?

Paul, if you ever listen to conservatives, they universally decry any and all racism.

Donliberals similarly decry the riots that liberal college students engage in? Do the schools track these kids down and expel them? Hell, no.

That is the difference. Mainstream conservative pundits despise racists. Mainstream liberal pundits do not despise liberal anarchists. Liberal anarchists who silence the opposition, are accepted, if not celebrated.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That is the difference. Mainstream conservative pundits despise racists. Mainstream liberal pundits do not despise liberal anarchists. Liberal anarchists who silence the opposition, are accepted, if not celebrated.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, Plenty of liberals despise anarchists or anyone who damage property. You just ignore it bc you hate liberals.

When Steve King makes what many people view as a racist comment like "other people's babies" some denounce it but others don't. He did get elected overhelmingly.

It is the same thing. You just see what you want to see.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Jim, Plenty of liberals despise anarchists or anyone who damage property. You just ignore it bc you hate liberals.

When Steve King makes what many people view as a racist comment like "other people's babies" some denounce it but others don't. He did get elected overhelmingly.

It is the same thing. You just see what you want to see.

"Plenty of liberals despise anarchists or anyone who damage property"

Please show me some facts, to convince me that liberals (influential liberals), by and large, oppose these revolutionary, anarchist tactics.

Because what I see, is college kids always getting a free pass when conservative speakers are whisked away by security.

I see Black Lives Matter not getting challenged anywhere other than Foxnews.

I see Abu Mumia Jamal treated like a hero.

I see Obama invited Al Shapton to the Oval Office more than 50 times.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the liberal establishment advocates for the destruction of property. But they sure as hell encourage their base to throw tantrums when they don't get exactly what they want, exactly when they want it.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I agree that most universities, if they were true to their mission, would be liberal. The problem that Jim has is that he uses the term "liberal" rather than "progressive" or, even more pertinent in the case of universities, the terms "Marxist" or "leftist."

Universities, Western educational institutions in general, have increasingly shifted their identity from classical liberal toward leftist, "progressive" (which is actually regressive), or actually Marxist positions.

Classical liberal universities, such as Hillsdale, are a distinct minority. And they do not deny science. They teach it, even in its most modern form. Actually, science is not as "liberal" in its methodology as it is "conservative." It is dependent on fundamental laws and principles. But it is also open to new realities dependent on discovery of previously unknown material facts.

Marxism, leftism, is hyper-"conservative". They are unbending in their adherence to a "class struggle" model for the foundation of society. And they believe in an ultimate utopian material "heaven" on earth achieved through the political victory of some poorly identified "worker" class.

Progressivism is hyper-"liberal". It denies any foundational principles. For it, social existence is purely "relative" (even though relativism paradoxically relies on actual fundamental realities in order to be relative to each other). Progressivism is entirely situational. And situations (which constantly change in the view of Progressives) are temporarily defined by whoever has some appointed power to define. And the remedy for situations is decided by select "experts" with whom there can be no disagreement.

Neither Marxism/leftism nor Progressivism are really scientific in their methods of governing. Classical Liberalism is. The founding of our nation, and its Constitution are based on Classical Liberalism.

Discussing the divide between various forms of leftism and actual liberalism is not about hate. It is about thinking rationally.

And the "Great Schools" also were bastions of public stewardship and top developers of military officers up until the progressives took over in the 50s/60s. A measurable percentage of your officer corps was from Harvard, Princeton, other Ivy League schools. Now you can't get an ROTC office on campus.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Isn't that a "government" school?"

It's a military school, one branch of the federal government that knows what it's doing. You said that conservative schools are based on the denial of science, and are therefore crappy. I was just showing how false that was,

Those schools also based things on tradition (mostly good) though less so these days. Other schools also had things based on tradition but that is oppressive privileged racism

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

So What.....one or two a-holes doesn't mean racism is running rampant.

There are 320,000,000 people in this country, some of them are a-holes, and some of those a-holes go to college....and some of those a-holes own sharpies.

That doesn't provide justification to stop somebody from speaking at an open forum. If you don't want to hear them speak...you don't go. its really THAT simple.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It is the same thing. You just see what you want to see.

If it's remotely the same thing, please provide a direct answer to this question.

When there is a riot that is triggered by political unrest, what percentage of the time is it liberals who are rioting, and what percentage of the time is it conservatives rioting?

Because if it's "the same thing" as you say, then 50% of politically motivated riots should be carried out by conservatives. Do you want to say with a straight face, that it's anywhere near 50%? In fact, it's a lot closer to zero. Why is that, Paul?

I await your answer. Just so you know, telling me that I'm full of hate, isn't answering the question I asked. So try another approach.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If it's remotely the same thing, please provide a direct answer to this question.

When there is a riot that is triggered by political unrest, what percentage of the time is it liberals who are rioting, and what percentage of the time is it conservatives rioting?some are liberal, some don't have any political ideology and some are just troublemakers. You're just assuming all are liberal and asking me to prove that they aren't.

Because if it's "the same thing" as you say, then 50% of politically motivated riots should be carried out by conservatives. Do you want to say with a straight face, that it's anywhere near 50%? In fact, it's a lot closer to zero. Why is that, Paul?

I await your answer. Just so you know, telling me that I'm full of hate, isn't answering the question I asked. So try another approach.

But you are full of hate and anger. Look at how you classify people. I don't see others calling people a POS or refering to woman using the "C" word.

Why did you duck the question about Steve King. If he makes racist comments why isn't that reflective of all conservatives? I don't think it does but using your logic it would.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

But you are full of hate and anger. Look at how you classify people. I don't see others calling people a POS or refering to woman using the "C" word.

Why did you duck the question about Steve King. If he makes racist comments why isn't that reflective of all conservatives? I don't think it does but using your logic it would.

Couldn't even try to answer my question, huh?

"Why did you duck the question about Steve King"

You didn't ask a question, you made a statement. Here is what you said, an exact quote...

When Steve King makes what many people view as a racist comment like "other people's babies" some denounce it but others don't. He did get elected overwhelmingly


If there's a question in there, I apologize, I don't see it.

Now, can you answer mine?

Paul, when I ask a question, and you respond by calling me a hatemonger, that is me winning.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

But you are full of hate and anger. Look at how you classify people. I don't see others calling people a POS or refering to woman using the "C" word.

Why did you duck the question about Steve King. If he makes racist comments why isn't that reflective of all conservatives? I don't think it does but using your logic it would.

"or refering to woman using the "C" word"

I'll ask AGAIN, since you didn't answer it yesterday (shocker)...you don't think there has ever been a woman, in the history of the world, who deserved that description?

As to Steve King's comments, they were very offensive. But if what he was trying to say, is that we cannot let people into the country who don't embrace our culture, he is 100% correct.

We have room for many different ethnicities. We only have room for one culture.