I'm going to continue to point it out when you make it this obvious that you haven't done any kind of research or actual thinking about the things you reference.

Then, since you still obviously don't get that it made zero difference if the quote was real, because it was beside the point, and you are obviously boneheadedly ignoring the actual point made, even after it was clarified specifically for you, I'll continue to point out when you live up to the title of this thread. You're better than this dude, I've seen it.

Screwing up quotes is guaranteed make whatever point you are trying to make superfluous. Instead of talking about your point everyone talks about how stupid the quote was.

You seem to think I'm objecting to whatever half-baked point you were making in that post rather than just laughing at how you haven't done the most cursory research.

You seem to think pouncing on and continually mocking trivialities doesn't make you petty.

I don't think it's trivial when someone pulls up horrendously uninformed MRA talking points, even if it's tangential to whatever other point they were making.

But, getting drawn further in than I'd like, the point you were making was comparing Milo to feminist speakers, and your example of a terrible thing a feminist speaker might say was entirely fictional. That's pretty poor stuff and arguing in bad faith.

Wonder how the feminist speaker would do at conservative colleges. Some of which only allowed interracial dating in my lifetime.

No it's not, FFS. And the argument stands even though it was a quote from fiction. When you pointed it out, I immediately acknowledged it and thanked you. How is that arguing in bad faith?

I then explained why the quote was simply to illustrate speakers should be allowed to make offensive, devisive points, and found another one that is non-fictional, just for you. Further, people will have widely different points of view on what is offensive, hateful, and as you've shown, can even take things out of context now and then, so again, we should allow speakers of different political stripes to express their opinions to those who want to hear them.

Though you seem to begrudgingly acknowledge there was a whole big argument there that did not rely on the quote being non-fictional, you insist on ignoring the point and focusing on that triviality. Who's arguing in bad faith here?

It would be just as bad if they were banned from speaking, which is precisely my point.

Mine is no one bothers with conservative Colleges.

Well, that's not true. As long as they're public, the ACLU and watchdog groups like https://www.thefire.org are all over them. And sometimes even if they're private, FIRE will sue for breach of contract if the college has guaranteed free speech rights and other student rights in their bylaws.

Whether we can discuss moral positions without shaming isn't the point, when you ridicule someones moral beliefs you are saying those moral beliefs are wrong and the moral component as set out by psychology today is satisfied.

I am often happy to have the conversation without shaming, I'm not saying that shaming is always correct but it works both ways ridiculing moral beliefs is a form of shaming whether it is Person B or B*.

You should read about some conservative colleges like liberty university and there restrictions on opposition thought and speech. Or not.

You don't see the difference between:

A: "Dancing is a sin? Ahaha that's silly, why would you think that? What about the Carlton? I mean, ok we can agree that's a sin, lol. Bit prudish, eh? But seriously, why do you believe that's wrong?"

A* "Dancing is a sin? Ahaha, come get a load of this churchboy ****head! Wtf is wrong with you? Nobody wants to dance with your ugly ass anyway, you prudish slutshaming prick."

I'll take your word for it. That sounds terribly illiberal. That's not a school I'd send my kids to, and they are very likely churning out a bunch of non-thinking zombies. Anyone here disagree?

Yes.

Tell me about this school. Do they restrict opposition thought and speech? What's your defense.

I dont have a problem with them running their school how they want. Its a conservative Christian school so id expect them to tailor it that way.

Me neither. As long as they're not advertising that they teach Enlightenment values, liberalism, free speech, academic freedom, etc. If their students know they're getting a conservative religious education, nothing wrong with that.

And if part of the bylaws of a college is inclusion and milo wanted harm that inclusion?

If it's a school that teaches liberal thought and values the pursuit of truth through free inquiry, they will tolerate arguments against any of their bylaws, even inclusion, even free inquiry.

Many religious colleges require faculty members to assent to a statement of faith regarding specific theological doctrines.

Freedom of religion is a core principle of liberalism. If a private religious college wants to only invite speakers that are consistent with their values, how is that illiberal? Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have to listen to your opponents or invite them to your college to speak.

You know that liberalism is an ideology that is compatible with quite intolerant personal attitudes, right? Liberal laws can be justified as an anti-utopian modus vivendi between competing social groups.

How far does this go, do you have a line? Would you be ok with a holocaust denier like David Duke speaking on holocaust remembrance day at your local state school. Do you think they should allow it if one of the clubs wanted him? Or how about someone calling for the genocide of African Americans?

Yes. And if the school has a student group who wants to listen to David Duke speak anti-jew rhetoric on Holocaust remembrance day, they've probably got much bigger problems than David Duke, and they and their students should know who the members of that group are.

I edited.

But no line, ok i guess.