If the Professor is so ****ing immature that she loses her cool after seeing a sign that she didn't like in a free speech zone where people frequently go to express their views on issues then the problem is with her. She's a grow woman. If she cannot control herself then she has issues which she should get help for because under no circumstance is it okay for her to go up to another person take something that belongs to that person, destroy that item all while injuring her in the process. You keep excusing this woman for her poor and completely immature behavior and what's even worse is you are making up excuses, so what if she was pregnant? You don't automatically get a pass on being violent or breaking laws if you are pregnant. The protester should have informed the campus of the content of the sign, the professor actually broke laws and injured someone in result of her behavior. It's a no brainer over which behavior was more deplorable and it wasn't the kid in the free speech zone who was simply holding up a sign. I mean it's a place of higher learning and if you are too immature to be around other ideas besides your own then you do not belong there.
It's not wrong to say that all you have are assumptions when you yourself already admitted that you believe there is only one side here. You automatically cut off the other side by not even acknowledging them so yes all you have are your own assumptions when it comes to them and their viewpoints.
I did not say that my view that there is only one side on the abortion issue has any particular relationship to the behavior of the people in this campus event. However, if you honestly believe that the opposing side of this issue has any relationship to truth except that of opposing it, you believe that the side you support is partial and, to the extent that you believe that, you're willing to back down.
I don't believe that the anti-choice side of the abortion issue has any relationship to truth except that of opposing it. Hence, I don't believe that the side I support is partial, and I'm not willing to back down. There are millions of pro-choice people like me. We aren't willing to negotiate or compromise beyond the Supreme Court decisions of Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey, etc. Of course we automatically cut off the other side - that's what it means to oppose the other side. When the Allies opposed the German Nazis and Italian fascists and Japanese ultramilitarists, they cut off that side and were not willing to negotiate. That is how one wins a war against bullies.
But that said, I do think the behavior of the professor was wrong, bad, and counterproductive. I do not have any sympathy for her for behaving this way because it was a mistake on her part. However, I do not have any sympathy for the anti-choice people involved because they were promulgating untruth as if it were truth and because their behavior belied their professed concern for the well-being of actual fetuses. I'm not apologizing for that. The anti-choice side of the abortion issue is itself a threatening bully, notwithstanding that in this particular encounter, the behavior of the pro-choice person was wrong.
I did not say that my view that there is only one side on the abortion issue has any particular relationship to the behavior of the people in this campus event. However, if you honestly believe that the opposing side of this issue has any relationship to truth except that of opposing it, you believe that the side you support is partial and, to the extent that you believe that, you're willing to back down.
I don't believe that the anti-choice side of the abortion issue has any relationship to truth except that of opposing it. Hence, I don't believe that the side I support is partial, and I'm not willing to back down. There are millions of pro-choice people like me. We aren't willing to negotiate or compromise beyond the Supreme Court decisions of Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey, etc. Of course we automatically cut off the other side - that's what it means to oppose the other side. When the Allies opposed the German Nazis and Italian fascists and Japanese ultramilitarists, they cut off that side and were not willing to negotiate. That is how one wins a war against bullies.
But that said, I do think the behavior of the professor was wrong, bad, and counterproductive. I do not have any sympathy for her for behaving this way because it was a mistake on her part. However, I do not have any sympathy for the anti-choice people involved because they were promulgating untruth as if it were truth and because their behavior belied their professed concern for the well-being of actual fetuses. I'm not apologizing for that. The anti-choice side of the abortion issue is itself a threatening bully, notwithstanding that in this particular encounter, the behavior of the pro-choice person was wrong.
Update:
A not guilty plea was entered for the professor by her attorney during the April 4 the hearing.
Another hearing will be held on May 1st.
Update:
A not guilty plea was entered for the professor by her attorney during the April 4 the hearing.
Another hearing will be held on May 1st.
Good luck to her and especially to her attorney since they have her on camera stealing the sign and admitting that she is a thief.
Do you have a link? ....
Check the Santa Barbara County courts site. I'm not going to post the link because of the homepage statement, but the referring page states that an 8:30 "R & S/Settlement Hearing" is scheduled for June 12th.
1. You did say that there was only one side on the abortion issue.
2. They're called pro-life. I realize that some who are pro-choice want to spin the perception of those who are pro-life by using weighted language against them but all it does is solidify your own personal bias towards their view point so even if you didn't make the statement that there was only one side in this issue you clearly display your strong biases in it through your choice of descriptive language.
3. If you understand anything about them then you would realize that the vast majority of them are not trying to take away from a womans right to control her own reproductive health, their view point typically has absolutely nothing to do with it one way or another. They actually take the intellectual high ground in this way because they acknowledge that the fetus is a human being, it is, there's just no way of getting around that you can't magically turn it into something not alive or a different species. It's a growing, developing human being and their stance is typically just about saving that human.
3. If anyone is the bully, it's the ones using the weighted language to try to distort the image of the opposition in order to try to make them into monsters instead of actually stepping back and taking an honest look at them and at their views, remember for them it's not about taking rights away from anyone, it's about saving human lives. We are not talking about the Nazis or any other example of an extreme group that does atrocious things. Comparing pro-life advocates to Nazis shows that not only are you extremely biased but you are willing to try to dishonestly distort the truth of who they are and what they stand for.
4. What untruth was the pro-life protester "promulgating"? The only bully that I've seen in this example is the pro-choice side, you specifically with your extreme labels meant to distort the truth and the professor who injured a minor holding a sign that she didn't like.
I like how you define one side as wrong due to them having a different opinion and supporting then aggressive and oppressive acts against them.
There was a reason the professor was charged with crimes, and hopefully the University will dismiss her as assaulting visitors on campus is not something to be expected nor tolerated from educators.
There is only one side to the issue because the pro-choice side allows people with different opinions to control the insides of their own individual bodies in accord with their own individual opinions.
Unless they try to publicly express their opinion apparently.
Not at all. That professor was wrong by pro-choice standards, because she used force to deprive the protester of her sign and even touched that protester's body. I wouldn't do that, wouldn't advocate doing that, and wouldn't support that.
It's true I'm somewhat dismissive of it. After all, the professor did not use or advocate using force to deprive the protester of her capacity to control her internal sexual organs, a capacity far more important than the capacity to present a distasteful visual sign in a public place, in my opinion.
And the person doing the protesting was at least suggesting that she herself was likely to be an advocate of using the force of law to ban abortion and thus deprive women of that capacity I consider so much more important. So I don't sympathize with the protester even though I think the professor was wrong.
I'm not against pro-life people advertising their opinion, and I would not make a law preventing them from showing their distasteful, vulgar signs. Among other things, I think their inappropriate behavior will eventually backfire. But don't expect me to be sympathetic. That would be like asking a Jew in 1936 Germany to sympathize with the Nazis there.
You're not "somewhat" dismissive, you're completely dismissive and trying to turn in around on the pro-life crowd based solely on your political opinion. That is the definition of a political hack. Godwin-ing over here like it actually adds to your argument. It doesn't.
A political hack is a negative term ascribed to a person who is part of the political party apparatus, but whose intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction.
UPDATE: Miller-Young pleaded guilty yesterday to three misdemeanor crimes.
"Miller-Young will be sentenced on August 14 and will likely be ordered by Judge Brian Hill to pay a fine and restitution, perform community service, and attend anger management counseling. While her charges do carry the possibility of jail time, prosecutor Ron Zonen said he “would be surprised if [Hill] sentenced her to jail.” Miller-Young remains employed by UCSB." UCSB Professor Pleads No Contest in Theft, Battery Case
Jail time would be silly, in my opinion. But I don't think she's fit for the Academy. She can't control herself around students (and her excuse that she was pregnant was pitiable). Her battery was of a 16-year old. I think she should strike out on her own with her sex worker research and such.
No, I can't agree. I remember ten+ years ago the California controversy about graphic billboards. There really are folks with delicate sensibilities, and you don't want someone to be sickened or so upset that he/she has a heart attack.
And you surely don't little kids to be exposed to graphic images. And that's the thing--some college students are married and walk all over campuses with their kids.
Practically speaking, it's not a sound rhetorical strategy either. You may so mightily offend those who are ambivalent that you will dissuade them from seeing your POV.
While I agree that you shouldn't offend people with who are very sensitive, and even the kids, it's something that is important to show in some form, in such a way to avoid offending anybody.
I think that the offensive nature of the photos says a lot about the abortion procedure. If you think the photos are offensive, the real thing is more so.
While I agree that you shouldn't offend people with who are very sensitive, and even the kids, it's something that is important to show in some form, in such a way to avoid offending anybody.
I think that the offensive nature of the photos says a lot about the abortion procedure. If you think the photos are offensive, the real thing is more so.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?