Quote from: Madman Mordo on October 08, 2015, 08:21:15 AMQuote from: eggsalad on October 08, 2015, 08:19:38 AMQuote from: Madman Mordo on October 08, 2015, 07:33:48 AMQuote from: eggsalad on October 08, 2015, 01:09:06 AMObviously the real solution here is to give platform to anyone who's ideas can hold up to themselves, but this article seems to act under the premise that gay-marriage opponents aren't fueled by bigoted, or just plain retarded agendas like other retarded groups that aren't given platform are. Which is fucking stupid. Because they fail to present anything resembling an point that holds water, such as when I followed the first link in the article and found this gem of a truly airtight defense to sacred marriageHe spits the same substanceless trite all anti-marriage proponents do: circular reasoning that fails to uphold its own established values (marriage is specifically meant to foster procreation, yet marriage has never necessitated childbearing from the parties involved). Unless he starts saying old folks shouldn't marry, or you can't get your tubes tied unless you've got two kids already, he's just targetting homosexuals because he's a bigot. He's plain stupid, and nothing is learned from him.Point is though, you can't just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend these kind of facile opinions don't exist. Nothing of intellectual value is gained from it, and all it's going to do is galvanize people into believing these types of titillating ideas.The only way you can beat problematic ideals is within open discourse, rational arguments and mockery. Simply denying someone a platform, regardless of how retarded their beliefs might be, will only invigorate said opinion and give them a victim status to latch on to.Which is why I said that the article should extend it's sympathy to everyone, not just marriage opponents if it claims to value those things. I think it tells stories about the author's actual priorities.But gay marriage opponents are the ones that usually get shut down though, which is the whole point of the article.Comfortable speech doesn't need protected. Uncomfortable speech does.Everyone including neonazis, KKK rallies, WBC and etc in this context.
Quote from: eggsalad on October 08, 2015, 08:19:38 AMQuote from: Madman Mordo on October 08, 2015, 07:33:48 AMQuote from: eggsalad on October 08, 2015, 01:09:06 AMObviously the real solution here is to give platform to anyone who's ideas can hold up to themselves, but this article seems to act under the premise that gay-marriage opponents aren't fueled by bigoted, or just plain retarded agendas like other retarded groups that aren't given platform are. Which is fucking stupid. Because they fail to present anything resembling an point that holds water, such as when I followed the first link in the article and found this gem of a truly airtight defense to sacred marriageHe spits the same substanceless trite all anti-marriage proponents do: circular reasoning that fails to uphold its own established values (marriage is specifically meant to foster procreation, yet marriage has never necessitated childbearing from the parties involved). Unless he starts saying old folks shouldn't marry, or you can't get your tubes tied unless you've got two kids already, he's just targetting homosexuals because he's a bigot. He's plain stupid, and nothing is learned from him.Point is though, you can't just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend these kind of facile opinions don't exist. Nothing of intellectual value is gained from it, and all it's going to do is galvanize people into believing these types of titillating ideas.The only way you can beat problematic ideals is within open discourse, rational arguments and mockery. Simply denying someone a platform, regardless of how retarded their beliefs might be, will only invigorate said opinion and give them a victim status to latch on to.Which is why I said that the article should extend it's sympathy to everyone, not just marriage opponents if it claims to value those things. I think it tells stories about the author's actual priorities.But gay marriage opponents are the ones that usually get shut down though, which is the whole point of the article.Comfortable speech doesn't need protected. Uncomfortable speech does.
Quote from: Madman Mordo on October 08, 2015, 07:33:48 AMQuote from: eggsalad on October 08, 2015, 01:09:06 AMObviously the real solution here is to give platform to anyone who's ideas can hold up to themselves, but this article seems to act under the premise that gay-marriage opponents aren't fueled by bigoted, or just plain retarded agendas like other retarded groups that aren't given platform are. Which is fucking stupid. Because they fail to present anything resembling an point that holds water, such as when I followed the first link in the article and found this gem of a truly airtight defense to sacred marriageHe spits the same substanceless trite all anti-marriage proponents do: circular reasoning that fails to uphold its own established values (marriage is specifically meant to foster procreation, yet marriage has never necessitated childbearing from the parties involved). Unless he starts saying old folks shouldn't marry, or you can't get your tubes tied unless you've got two kids already, he's just targetting homosexuals because he's a bigot. He's plain stupid, and nothing is learned from him.Point is though, you can't just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend these kind of facile opinions don't exist. Nothing of intellectual value is gained from it, and all it's going to do is galvanize people into believing these types of titillating ideas.The only way you can beat problematic ideals is within open discourse, rational arguments and mockery. Simply denying someone a platform, regardless of how retarded their beliefs might be, will only invigorate said opinion and give them a victim status to latch on to.Which is why I said that the article should extend it's sympathy to everyone, not just marriage opponents if it claims to value those things. I think it tells stories about the author's actual priorities.
Quote from: eggsalad on October 08, 2015, 01:09:06 AMObviously the real solution here is to give platform to anyone who's ideas can hold up to themselves, but this article seems to act under the premise that gay-marriage opponents aren't fueled by bigoted, or just plain retarded agendas like other retarded groups that aren't given platform are. Which is fucking stupid. Because they fail to present anything resembling an point that holds water, such as when I followed the first link in the article and found this gem of a truly airtight defense to sacred marriageHe spits the same substanceless trite all anti-marriage proponents do: circular reasoning that fails to uphold its own established values (marriage is specifically meant to foster procreation, yet marriage has never necessitated childbearing from the parties involved). Unless he starts saying old folks shouldn't marry, or you can't get your tubes tied unless you've got two kids already, he's just targetting homosexuals because he's a bigot. He's plain stupid, and nothing is learned from him.Point is though, you can't just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend these kind of facile opinions don't exist. Nothing of intellectual value is gained from it, and all it's going to do is galvanize people into believing these types of titillating ideas.The only way you can beat problematic ideals is within open discourse, rational arguments and mockery. Simply denying someone a platform, regardless of how retarded their beliefs might be, will only invigorate said opinion and give them a victim status to latch on to.
Obviously the real solution here is to give platform to anyone who's ideas can hold up to themselves, but this article seems to act under the premise that gay-marriage opponents aren't fueled by bigoted, or just plain retarded agendas like other retarded groups that aren't given platform are. Which is fucking stupid. Because they fail to present anything resembling an point that holds water, such as when I followed the first link in the article and found this gem of a truly airtight defense to sacred marriageHe spits the same substanceless trite all anti-marriage proponents do: circular reasoning that fails to uphold its own established values (marriage is specifically meant to foster procreation, yet marriage has never necessitated childbearing from the parties involved). Unless he starts saying old folks shouldn't marry, or you can't get your tubes tied unless you've got two kids already, he's just targetting homosexuals because he's a bigot. He's plain stupid, and nothing is learned from him.
Let me know when you want me to shoot your school up bro I got my pointy hat at the ready LETS GET IT
Quote from: eggsalad on October 08, 2015, 01:09:06 AMHe spits the same substanceless trite all anti-marriage proponents do: circular reasoning that fails to uphold its own established values (marriage is specifically meant to foster procreation, yet marriage has never necessitated childbearing from the parties involved). What the fuck? Is that supposed to make it okay to roundly shun him?
He spits the same substanceless trite all anti-marriage proponents do: circular reasoning that fails to uphold its own established values (marriage is specifically meant to foster procreation, yet marriage has never necessitated childbearing from the parties involved).
Quote from: eggsalad on October 08, 2015, 08:31:56 AMQuote from: Madman Mordo on October 08, 2015, 08:21:15 AMQuote from: eggsalad on October 08, 2015, 08:19:38 AMQuote from: Madman Mordo on October 08, 2015, 07:33:48 AMQuote from: eggsalad on October 08, 2015, 01:09:06 AMObviously the real solution here is to give platform to anyone who's ideas can hold up to themselves, but this article seems to act under the premise that gay-marriage opponents aren't fueled by bigoted, or just plain retarded agendas like other retarded groups that aren't given platform are. Which is fucking stupid. Because they fail to present anything resembling an point that holds water, such as when I followed the first link in the article and found this gem of a truly airtight defense to sacred marriageHe spits the same substanceless trite all anti-marriage proponents do: circular reasoning that fails to uphold its own established values (marriage is specifically meant to foster procreation, yet marriage has never necessitated childbearing from the parties involved). Unless he starts saying old folks shouldn't marry, or you can't get your tubes tied unless you've got two kids already, he's just targetting homosexuals because he's a bigot. He's plain stupid, and nothing is learned from him.Point is though, you can't just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend these kind of facile opinions don't exist. Nothing of intellectual value is gained from it, and all it's going to do is galvanize people into believing these types of titillating ideas.The only way you can beat problematic ideals is within open discourse, rational arguments and mockery. Simply denying someone a platform, regardless of how retarded their beliefs might be, will only invigorate said opinion and give them a victim status to latch on to.Which is why I said that the article should extend it's sympathy to everyone, not just marriage opponents if it claims to value those things. I think it tells stories about the author's actual priorities.But gay marriage opponents are the ones that usually get shut down though, which is the whole point of the article.Comfortable speech doesn't need protected. Uncomfortable speech does.Everyone including neonazis, KKK rallies, WBC and etc in this context.Something wrong with that?
Quote from: DontbanmemodIknowyouwant2 on October 08, 2015, 01:26:02 AMLike I give a shit about Eurotrash plebs.Serious board is for serious discussion. These kind of posts will not be tolerated.
Like I give a shit about Eurotrash plebs.
Conservative on campus
