- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,719
- Reaction score
- 35,498
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Disgusting lifestyle behavior shouldn't be tolerated, its necessary for it to be quashed every time it shows itself.
No it's restricting someone who's proven a reason to be restricted, therefore they no longer deserve the "default setting".Even in the former, it'd be creating a law limiting someone from the "default setting" despite the action in question harming no one.
No it's restricting someone who's proven a reason to be restricted, therefore they no longer deserve the "default setting".
Well, there's a lot of holes in this gross generalization.
Are you suggesting liberals don't believe felons should be barred from owning firearms? Because simply owning a firearm harms no one, yet and the "default setting" based on your suggestion is that a felon should legally be able to own a gun.
This is why gross generalizations about either side are generally poor ideas.
The poster in question suggested the default setting is "legal"
The poster in question suggested that the liberal position is that you then make laws against things that harm others.
A felon, even a violent felon, owning a gun does not harm others.
If I'm wrong, I'd welcome you to explain to me exactly how the simple act of owning a firearm would harm someone.
Now I agree with you. The reason for the law with regards to gun ownership and felons is that they've proven to be a danger to others in the past, and thus their rights are limited in the future.
But that's not what he said the liberal position was. He claimed the liberal position was that the "Default setting" was only changed when the action in question harms others.
If it doesn't harm others, he claims the "liberal position", is that it must be legal.
A felon owning a firearm does not harm a single person.
Thus why the gross generalization was incorrect.
Even in the former, it'd be creating a law limiting someone from the "default setting" despite the action in question harming no one.
You're just all about making ignorant, incorrect, broad statements aren't you?Failing? Have you been paying attention?
Why are conservatives always against personal rights? They always come out for more government control in private lives.
Being a convicted felon is not the "default setting" (admittedly, a poor choice of words) and one doesn't become one by conforming to legalities
I haven't suggested you were trying anything contrary to that.
And that's exactly what I'm doing as well by mocking the attitude you're exhibiting in regards retelling what you did.
You and everyone else is well within your right to have done the protest.
In the exact same fashion, I'm well within my right to laugh at the attitude and implication that you made any actual impact or did anything of note other than basically a bunch of college kids having a circle jerk. You go on about causing an "exodus" where as in reality it seems like you got a bunch of people to show up for something that they wouldn't have shown up for anyways, and then got a bunch of people to leave something they wouldn't have shown up to anyways. And then want to act like it was some big deal.
You didn't cause an "exodus". You got a bunch of people to walk one direction and then walk another, which basically resulted in a little bit of a kurfuffle before the event went on in the exact same fashion it would've likely gone on had you not done it.
It'd be one thing if the little walk out actually was a few people and inspired a bunch of people who otherwise would've stayed to get up and walk out as well. But that doens't seem to be what happened. A bunch of douchy college kids went to something thinking they could cause a scene, caused a scene, and then clapped themselves on the back for making a scene.
Wooo! Social justice...or something :roll:
I'm sure the minds of those people who stayed were changed. I'm sure there were people who previously thought "Yo, hatin gays be cool" but suddenly realized that "Hey, a bunch of people walked out of something they never would've attended anyways. I now understand...hating gays is bad!"
You pulled off a college stunt and got some attention for it. Congratulations, you're campus is the whiny and less entertaining version of the Oregon Duck singing Gangnam Style. I have no issue with college kids acting like college kids and pulling a college stunt. But forgive me if I'm not going to fawn over it or buy into this laughable notion that it was some "powerful" social protest or some brave action or some significant political message.
You fail to realize that a default setting implies no other forces working up the issue
It wasn't a waste of time, it let the Traditional Values Club and anyone who reads about the incident know that most students at that school do not support their anti-gay views. Now the TVC can move on to another group to pick on (like immigrants).
....I think faculty doing it shows immaturity and poor judgment, and if I was president of the institution I would not allow it.
Standing up to bigotry in a civil manner shows maturity and good judgement.
Why do you think it will never happen?
He claimed the "Default setting" for EVERYTHING is legal. The post in question was talking about the "Right to Marriage", indicating he wasn't talking specifically about the default status of PEOPLE but rather the default status of actions.
He suggested that the "liberal" view of things suggests that an action can only be made ILLEGAL if it harms another person.
A felon owning a gun does not harm another person, no matter how violent he was in the past.....unless the claim is past action GUARANTEES future results, and even then, I'd still ask you or summerwind to explain how the act of OWNING a firearm can possibly harm anyone.
Because I'm sure prior to this they had no clue that a large portion of the student body disagreed with them :roll: (Also, this in no way indicates that "most" students feel one way or another. This indicates that THOSE specific students did)
The University would be castigated as being anti-gay and they know that.
Making a scene of yourself and being political on the job shows immaturity and poor judgment.
Want to show support? Do it on your own time, your own terms, and your own property (or on public property).
You're just all about making ignorant, incorrect, broad statements aren't you?
Conservatives are hardly ALWAYS against personal rights. You have conservatives on this very thread who support gay marriage (as just one example).
Broad absolute claims are rarely accurate when you're dealing with a group as large as something like an entire major political ideology.
Why would that guy get invited in the first place?
What makes it rude to me is purposefully going in and distracting someone's speech via a walkout and showing disrespect to those who do want to be there for the intended purpose. It's just poor form. It would also be rude if they filled up the meeting area preventing others from attending only to walk out and waste that space. I'm all for protest, but I don't think this is a good way to do it. Not the worst way, I would just say it was rude.
Can you give an example of how one would go about protesting the speaker at this event in a manner you would respect?
I didn't take it to mean the same thing as you, but given how poorly worded it was I can understand how different people can have differing take-aways from it. I took it to mean that owning a gun is legal until the person proves that they are a harm, such as by being convicted of a crime. But again, it was poorly worded.
However, even leaving that aside, what GM said wasn't true. The idea that the only things that should be made illegal are things that cause others harm is not a liberal position; It's more of a libertarian position. Liberals tend to have a more balanced view and do support when the govt makes laws, not just to protect peoples' rights, but also to promote the general welfare
``
A felon owning a firearm doesn't harm anyone.
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?