I already gave you an example

Mr. Bandit, how many Sam Harris podcasts have you listened to? How many of his books do you own?

Who was it that caused over 100k of damage at a college protest over a speaker?

Why is it that Jerry Seinfeld and a list of famous comedians won't do college gigs anymore because they say it's far too politically correct?

Why was it Dawkins got removed from his speech?

I've already addressed the other two paragraphs in previous posts. If you cba to read then w/e



QUOTE=Shame Trolly !!!1!;55011545]Eh, you & me & everyone shuts down conversations all day every day. If we didn't, we'd have to chat with telemarketeers, religious nuts, and just general crazy folk until they got tired of yapping.

Anyways, that didn't happen in either of these cases.

Peeps criticized the old comedian for whacking off at work. They weren't "shut down". The old comedian continued the conversation by way of an apology. He wasn't "shut down". The congresscritter said whatever she said. She wasn't "shut down". The other congresscritters continued the conversation by way of criticizing her remarks. They weren't "shut down". She then further continued the conversation by way of an apology. Again, she wasn't "shut down".

So, not only was everyone's free speech rights respected... nobody was sanctioned by the government... in addition (and outside of any actual free speech issues)... there was none of this vague "shut down" stuff either. Period.

So, again...

WTF is this alleged point you are trying to make?

WTF is different in the two cases (as there was no actual free speech violations involved -and- there was none of this vague "shut down" stuff either)?[/QUOTE]


One last time for the cheap seats. My view on free speech is that the left is making a (not insignificant) political mistake with how it deals in these areas. If every attempt at a conversation about immigration/demographic change get's silenced by claims of Islamophobia then you provide oxygen to the very real racists and bigots.

I don't own any of his books. I've listened to his religion stuff with hitchens/dawkins and would listen to a podcast if the guest is tech orientated/involved in AI.

What example is that? You think the Iraq/Afghanistan invasion was done on behalf of christianity?

What are the reasonable conversations about immigration and demo change that we should be having?

Bush said so.

Where was that, here?

This is not a response to what I said at all. Conservatives railing against Omar's bigotry and urging people to withhold support from Democrats are doing the same thing that liberal boycotters are doing against people they disagree with!



btw, Current Affairs has a timely article on Dawkins: “Smart” People Are Often Dumber Than You Think

hahahahahaha A+

With all due respect master some of your posts ITT have been amongst the worst I've seen and I really have zero expectation for any type of good faith conversation so I'll not be responding to you from now on.

Maybe it's because they're 25 years past their heyday and refuse to adapt to changing times. Seinfeld's specific joke that he talked about when referencing how PC colleges are was a real knee slapper:
Should we demand audiences burst into laughter at a joke that's at best a quick throwaway line for a cheap laugh?

An article that claims science is full of dip****s and insults dawkins for his intellect/vocabulary. Something I'd expect to see on a flat earther forum.

That you would use this as an example is some of the most incredible lack of self awareness I've seen. **** me.

If i think trump, who wanted to ban all Muslims, is Islamophobic i should stifle my speech and things will get better. Why did i not think of that strat its so easy i just need to not express what i think and allow others i disagree with to express themslefs fully. Free speech for everyone as long as i dont express mine!

Like I give a ****, I was just trying to get you to spout your obviously racist beliefs, but youll get to it eventually. None of you keep the mask on for long.

Also, your reluctance to answer that particular question pretty much proves the point.

There's plenty of prominent comedians who don't do gigs. It's not just seinfeld.

Are you a scientist? I am, and I know that the scientific community is full of dip****s.

I didn't say you should stifle your speech when Trump tries to ban Muslims. I was talking about dawkins giving a speech on evolution.

You obviously do care or you wouldn't be bashing the keyboard.

Using total violence as opposed to violence per something, like per capita is sooooo dumb that it makes it obvious you aren't participating in good faith.

Also, you suck at understanding religious vs political violence and the impact of war. Well, you allow the "It's war" argument for Jews and Christians, but not Muslims.

What dip**** scientific claim has dawkins made? Enlighten me?

Is Dawkins the only scientist who can talk about evolution? I'm pretty sure he isn't, so the program could probably find a scientist who isn't on the record with a bunch of prejudiced statements about Muslims (or Christians!).

That you can respond only with wild generalizations and no substance is, to anyone following this thread, completely unsurprising. Are you ready to explain to the class yet why boycotting liberal politicians is cool but other boycotts aren't? I'm eagerly waiting for your expertise, t3hbandit!

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/s...102466562?s=19

If you're going to claim that Judaism is the most violent religion due to "proportionality" then It's a very legitimate counter point to make that there are 100 times less jews on the planet and half of them live in Israel.

You allow political violence for muslims but not for jews.

I don't support any boycotting of liberal politicians. Nor have I ever implied that I did. Ilhan Omar is free to say whatever she wants and good for her.

Pakistan murdering people for blasphemy and you use this an in thread where people are trying to seriously argue this religion isn't violent?

Which christian or jewish countries kill for blasphemy again?

Right people who dont want dawkins there should stifle their views and speech on him being a bigot and not wanting him there well giving him the full freedom to express himslef.

Because dawkins isn't a bigot and the fact that legitimate criticisms he makes would make him one in the eyes of some people is the problem here.