• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Walkout of Anti-Gay Event

Disgusting lifestyle behavior shouldn't be tolerated, its necessary for it to be quashed every time it shows itself.

Cool, so you approve of these kids doing this protest since they believe supporting the views that this guy has to be a "disgusting lifestyle behavior" and they were trying to quash it when it tried to show itself.


....or are you only okay when it's something YOU feel is a disgusting lifestyle behavior, and if it's one that someone else finds disgusting then they should simply tolerate it and leave it be?
 
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".
 
No it's restricting someone who's proven a reason to be restricted, therefore they no longer deserve the "default setting".

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.
 
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.

Yeesh.
 
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.

You fail to realize that a default setting implies no other forces working up the issue, as you note, a felon has other forces working upon the issue of his right to own a gun. You even recognize it in your response, but insist on not completing the equation.
 
Even in the former, it'd be creating a law limiting someone from the "default setting" despite the action in question harming no one.

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
 
Failing? Have you been paying attention?
Why are conservatives always against personal rights? They always come out for more government control in private lives.
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.
 
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

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.
 
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.

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).
 
You fail to realize that a default setting implies no other forces working up the issue

No I don't. I acknowledge that a default setting is the setting that is present before another force acts upon it.

What the poster claimed was that the "liberal positoin" is that the ONLY force that can "work" upon the default setting for an action is IF that action HARMS SOMEONE.

You're right, a felon has a whole host of other forces working upon the issue of his right to own a gun.

But specific to the poster's point....there is no force acting upon the default setting of "owning a firearm" that is HARMING another person.

EVERYONE, going off his logic, is allowed to own a firearm. That's the default setting. The only way that default setting can change, under his suggested "liberal position", would be if the act of "owning a firearm" harmed someone.

A felon owning a firearm doesn't harm anyone.
 
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).

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)
 
....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.
 
Standing up to bigotry in a civil manner shows maturity and good judgement.

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).
 
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.

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
 
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)

It's not just the students who attend and support the speaker who could use some info about their lack of support. It also sends a message to those outside of the school
 
The University would be castigated as being anti-gay and they know that.

...and that's not the image they want to project?
 
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).

Do we know that anyone was on the clock and trespassing during the incident? You seem to be making a lot of assumptions.
 
You're just all about making ignorant, incorrect, broad statements aren't you?

Aahhh, I love irony.

Conservatives are hardly ALWAYS against personal rights. You have conservatives on this very thread who support gay marriage (as just one example).

Conservatives (disclaimer- 'in my experience') are behind every effort to reduce the liberties of the individual. Conservatives support the 'war on drugs' that has turned the US into the most incarcerated nation in the world- well, maybe some third-world theocratic dictatorship might contest the crown but whatever. Conservatives support the power of the police over the rights of the citizen. If you've ever heard anyone say, "What are you afraid of if you're not doing anything wrong?" it was a conservative speaking. Conservatives support mandatory sentencing. Conservatives support suppression of gay rights- yes, I know, some don't and I was corrected by one here but I'm guessing those are the few conservatives who don't also identify as Christian. That's another thing- conservatism has that taint of religion about it. A few anomalies aside, of course, as always. Conservatives created big government and perpetuate the monster. Here in Canada, when the Liberal Party was in power we had eight or nine years of surplus federal budgets. Since the Conservative Party has formed the government we're back in the red- deficit budget after deficit budget. Big government. Trust me, if you find, in any area of your life where someone is taking steps that will limit your freedom, it's probably a conservative.
As an aside, I've noticed here that some who express liberal values identify as conservative. There seems to be some confusion among Americans about definitions.

Broad absolute claims are rarely accurate when you're dealing with a group as large as something like an entire major political ideology.

It depends on the claimant, and the claim. If I'm describing a large group, of course I'm using generalities. If my 'broad claims' are 75% and my absolutes 51%, I call myself accurate. Don't ask me to name names.
 
Last edited:
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?

*bumpety bump*

Seriously, digsbe, c'mon.
 
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

I'm gonna ask for an example of what you mean by laws that support the 'general welfare'. I picture anti-noise bylaws.
 
Back
Top Bottom