MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
I wouldnt resist, revolution even is like war. Justice doesn't need hate. Peace doesn't need a revolution.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
When you #resist - keep these in mind
- Thread starter sun rise
- Start date
esmith
Veteran Member
Berkeley cancels Milo Yiannopoulos talk after violent protests - CNN.com
Protests Erupt on NYU Campus Over Conservative Speaker On Campus
In addition whether the Nazi party was conservative or liberal party is not the issue. The issue is that fascist parties deny those the freedom to speak out against what the fascist think is right.
That is why I consider those students who would protest a speaker because they do not agree with them are acting in the same manner that the Brown Shirts did. Or is protesting because the speaker doesn't conform to the students belief. I know what you are going to say so let me plug it before you do. How about Condoleezza Rice?
Condoleezza Rice rescinds invitation to speak at Rutgers commencement - CNN.com
Is that not a example of the Brown Shirts?
The alternative was being offended and taking a nazi comparision seriously. Life is short.
Electus de Lumine
Magician of Light
The alternative was being offended and taking a nazi comparision seriously. Life is short.
I do not have to be offended to know a messed up joke when I see it.
My sense of humour is getting pretty dark, so fair enough.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
So you're OK suspending their 1st amendment rights because someone gets offended? I'm certain that the Brits felt the Boston Tea Party was a violent protest. Imagine that.
If you don't like the resistance, then please don't join: we don't need you anyway! The more your rail against us and call us names that don't apply, the more we're going to resist. We won't tolerate the racism of this administration. We're not going to make it easy for you or Komrade Trumpsky to steal our right to resist either.
esmith
Veteran Member
So you agree with the idea that a speaker at an college or university must comply with the ideas of some or the majority of students and faculty?
Somehow that doesn't seem to correlate to the rights expressed in the 1st amendment. Or is it only those that agree with you have the right to express their ideas? Seems that a institution of higher learning should be open to the expression of different opinions. But I guess when you are in lockstep ones reasoning is taken over by the thought process of the group, something like hive mentality.
Oh by the why I did not call whomever "we" is names. I just compared the actions of those that require opinions to reflect their opinions. You know like the actions of the Brown Shirts. That is basically what they did isn't it.....shut down any opposing thoughts?
One other point. I wouldn't want to be associated with any group or political faction that is not willing to listen to others. I do have a brain that is not hardwired and can reason.
Last edited:
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
I never said that.
Possibly why I didn't say that.
You mean Komrade Trumpsky? Why change the subject?
Yet you defend Komrade Trumpsky. The irony is palpable.
esmith
Veteran Member
I read into your statements that you favored protest to the point that a speaker has to cancel their appearance. Now it appears that this is not the case, at least that is what you are saying now.
However, let me ask you a very simple question that can be answered with Yes or No.
If a groups actions in disagreeing with a persons opinion causes that person to forgo talking about their opinion, is not that coming very close to the actions of the Brown Shirts, just not as violent (they haven't killed anyone yet).
Yes or No
This was in response to my remark "Somehow that doesn't seem to correlate to the rights expressed in the 1st amendment." in reference to actions causing a speaker to cancel their appearance.
However, it does. If the actions of a group makes in impossible or dangerous to express their opinions then indirectly that group is not allowing the person to express their 1st Amendment rights.
Yes or No.
No it is not in reference to and the subject stays the same.....attempting to silence a person because they do not agree with the group think.. I said " I just compared the actions of those that require opinions to reflect their opinions." This is again in reference to the actions taken by the Brown Shirts.
I will defend the rights of anyone to be able to express their opinion whether I agree with it or not. Unlike many of our students at schools of higher learning.
If someone has the freedom to say racism is cool, someone has just as much right to complain about them. Freedom goes both ways.
esmith
Veteran Member
Here is the honest question.
First of all I agree that all citizens have the right to peacefully protest.
Second I think that any person or person who damages or destroys private or public property should be held criminally responsible.
Third I stand on the law that it illegal to incite a riot
Fourth anyone person or persons who violates another person 1st Amendment rights should be held responsible to the fullest extant of the law.
So with all of the above I am fairly positive that you agree. No need to answer yes or no unless you want to. You are not in court.
I was always under the conception that exchange of ideas was inherently beneficial to ones growth. That listing to someone who believes in ideas that are different than yours is required to succeed in life. In other words if you are not willing to listen to someone else how can one be sure that your perception of the issue is the only right answer. It appears to me that in many of our institutions of higher learning and in normal everyday life (including politics) that there are those that do not want to hear opposing ideas nor do they want others to do so either. They, those that manifest that idea have recently become excessively demonstrative to the point of violence in their objections to other ideas. As a student of history I am an avid reader especially in the area leading up to WWII. Now since I only completed High School my education was restricted to the curriculum and teaching methods where names and dates were more important than the whys. Anyway to get back to the point I made about Brownshirts. It was the Brownshirts who brought Hitler to power and their primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties among other activities. Therefore when I observe the actions of any group or groups exhibiting some of the same activities of the Brownshirts it is easier to use them as an example of what is going on. Anyone can lookup who and what the Brownshirts were thus making it easy to understand the comparison. Now here comes the question that can be answer with a simple answer or elaborate.
Is it right to attempt to disrupt the right of others to listen to opposing ideas or should only what you and those that agree with you be able to present their ideas?
esmith
Veteran Member
No problem with the idea of peaceful dissension. However, I do not like the idea of certain ideas like discrimination being promulgated, but that is their right (no matter how wrong) to do so.
Hey maybe white supremacists can play the oppressed minority card, then the left can't touch them they can be grouped the with LGBT.
esmith
Veteran Member
whatever floats your boat