Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (167872)	4/16/2003 11:09:31 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1594648

Flynn was not not invited. He was invited and got booed down. That's a bigger example of intolerance. You know that's not true........getting an invite to speak your mind is better than no invite at all. You don't have to invite speakers you don't like but if they are invited you should either stay away or let them present their case without shouting them down. I see.......you want others to restrict their right to free speech so that someone like Flynn can say whatever bs comes to his mouth. Sorry but that's not how free speech works........as Rumsfeld said, democracy is messy. He went to a university known as a hot bed of liberal radicalism and tried to present his conservative views on a controversial subject. And you're surprised that he got heckled? Not surprised at all. But it still is an example of liberal intolerance. Intolerance would be not to let him speak at all. What he ran into was a lot of disagreement with his premise......understandably, given the location. And it wasn't just occasional heckling. He was shouted down. His material was torn down and burned. He was called a nzai and a murderer and was threatened. The campus authorities made no attempt to adequately protect the speaker. What do you mean his materal "was torn down and burned"? That potentially is the one area where he may not have been dealt with fairly. That's the equivalent of a white guy in black face going to all black party. No it isn't. It an attempt to seriously discuss ideas not, like a white guy in blackface at an otherwise all black party, an attempt to offend. But it was effectively censored by those who don't even want to hear, or let other people here these ideas. Its a matter of perception..........from my perspective, his premise is offensive. W. Connerly goes to a predominately black university to promote what many consider to be racist views. He's invited to speak but he's surprised at the response. Why? The though that the views are racist is nonsense. I don't know if he was surprised by the response or not but such responses, often organized planned responses are an example of intolerance and an attempt to shut out some ideas from the discussion. Also Ward Connerly was not the only example in that link. What would be the reaction if a white man proposed what Connerly is proposing? In comparison, Connerly has it easy. A black man who ignores the condition of the black race in this country is suspect. Its not surprising that when he speaks at a black school, people disagree with him. No one is shutting out his ideas......on the contrary, he gets a lot of press and speaking time but they definitely don't like what he has to say. Come on, Tim, the guy's been a student at Cornell for 9 years. What does that tell you.......he's an idiot Did it say that he is still an undergrad? He's in his late twenties and he's debating guys in their late teens and he thinks they're acting like kids.......well, duh....they are still kids! Mostly 18 to mid twenties. Almost all of them can vote or go to war for their country. Tim, you are getting a desperate to make your point. The guy is ten years the senior of the people he's debating.......btw those are important years.........the transition from kidhood to adulthood. Give me a break! http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/12/19/123702.shtml I thought this one might be analogous but frankly, it turned out to be more stupid stuff. Its not surprising that the Olympic Committee made 18 the cut off point........I thought 21 was the standard. And of course, the boy scouts were not to be allowed to wear their uniforms......its not that kind of event. This guy is looking for trouble where there is none. Unless he is flat out lying it doesn't seem that he is looking for trouble where there is none. See below. As for "of course, the boy scouts where not allowed to wear their uniforms...its not that kind of even." They have been allowed at every previous Olympics in the US. If they were, they shouldn't have been. They Olympics are not about promoting a particular group, they're about promoting the host nation. The boy scouts are being prigs over this issue. ted