Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Well then, he should just confuse the anti free speech SJWs and claim that they are either homophobic, anti-semitic, or transphobic for not allowing him to speak.

He sounds like a sick puppy. As a Gay of Greek heritage he is unlikely to curry the favour of many other right wingers.

I can't find anything evil about him, but that's from a brief search

Obviously far too brief.

I challenge you to read this for 3 days, and tell me whether you think he is a fir person to be lecturing at one of the USA's most prestigious universities?

http://www.breitbart.com

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
He sounds like a sick puppy. As a Gay of Greek heritage he is unlikely to curry the favour of many other right wingers.

I can't find anything evil about him, but that's from a brief search

Obviously far too brief.

I challenge you to read this for 3 days, and tell me whether you think he is a fir person to be lecturing at one of the USA's most prestigious universities?

http://www.breitbart.com

Why? That's hardly the point. Shutting people up because you don't like what they say is NOT free speech! It's irrelevant whether you or I agree with him. Can't you see that? There are people who would like to see you silenced and lynched for your 'Kazhar' comments. What's the difference?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I can't find anything evil about him, but that's from a brief search

Obviously far too brief.

I challenge you to read this for 3 days, and tell me whether you think he is a fir person to be lecturing at one of the USA's most prestigious universities?

http://www.breitbart.com

Why? That's hardly the point. Shutting people up because you don't like what they say is NOT free speech! It's irrelevant whether you or I agree with him. Can't you see that? There are people who would like to see you silenced and lynched for your 'Kazhar' comments. What's the difference?

At what point in your crazy idea of free speech does it mean that Berkeley has an obligation to give a platform to any crackpot that wants to preach his hate??

Is it not enough that this wierd boy has a fucking online Newspaper to spew his hate?

As for my Khazar comments. I'm sure there are many who'd want to lynch me, but I do not see Berkeley offering me a fucking platform.
So have a word with your self you are getting hysterical defending a complete fucker.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Obviously far too brief.

I challenge you to read this for 3 days, and tell me whether you think he is a fir person to be lecturing at one of the USA's most prestigious universities?

http://www.breitbart.com

Why? That's hardly the point. Shutting people up because you don't like what they say is NOT free speech! It's irrelevant whether you or I agree with him. Can't you see that? There are people who would like to see you silenced and lynched for your 'Kazhar' comments. What's the difference?

At what point in your crazy idea of free speech does it mean that Berkeley has an obligation to give a platform to any crackpot that wants to preach his hate??

Is it not enough that this wierd boy has a fucking online Newspaper to spew his hate?

As for my Khazar comments. I'm sure there are many who'd want to lynch me, but I do not see Berkeley offering me a fucking platform.
So have a word with your self you are getting hysterical defending a complete fucker.

OMG. You just don't get it do you. Where did I defend him? And whoever made fucking SJWs the moral guardians of the planet?? How dare those fucks dictate what people can and can't say!

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Why? That's hardly the point. Shutting people up because you don't like what they say is NOT free speech! It's irrelevant whether you or I agree with him. Can't you see that? There are people who would like to see you silenced and lynched for your 'Kazhar' comments. What's the difference?

At what point in your crazy idea of free speech does it mean that Berkeley has an obligation to give a platform to any crackpot that wants to preach his hate??

Is it not enough that this wierd boy has a fucking online Newspaper to spew his hate?

As for my Khazar comments. I'm sure there are many who'd want to lynch me, but I do not see Berkeley offering me a fucking platform.
So have a word with your self you are getting hysterical defending a complete fucker.

OMG. You just don't get it do you. Where did I defend him? And whoever made fucking SJWs the moral guardians of the planet?? How dare those fucks dictate what people can and can't say!

Take a fucking chill pill.
No **** is dictating anything IDIOT. Milo can fuck off home to Breitbart, the students of Berkeley don't have to have him on campus. They are in their rights to deny him that. They can always read his shit column on Breitbart.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
At what point in your crazy idea of free speech does it mean that Berkeley has an obligation to give a platform to any crackpot that wants to preach his hate??

Is it not enough that this wierd boy has a fucking online Newspaper to spew his hate?

As for my Khazar comments. I'm sure there are many who'd want to lynch me, but I do not see Berkeley offering me a fucking platform.
So have a word with your self you are getting hysterical defending a complete fucker.

OMG. You just don't get it do you. Where did I defend him? And whoever made fucking SJWs the moral guardians of the planet?? How dare those fucks dictate what people can and can't say!

Take a fucking chill pill.
No **** is dictating anything IDIOT. Milo can fuck off home to Breitbart, the students of Berkeley don't have to have him on campus. They are in their rights to deny him that. They can always read his shit column on Breitbart.

Right. And if he was preaching about 'Khazars', from the standpoint that Israel has no right to exist, then no doubt you would say the same thing?
'One man's 'hate speech' is another....' Who gave them the right to decide what is and isn't 'hate speech'? If you are shutting down one side of an argument, then you have to shut down both.
And why weren't the SJWs out in force protesting the invasions of muslim countries? Apparently it's ok to blow muslims up and destroy their countries, but it's not ok to 'offend' them. Hypocrites.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Your prejudiced hair-splitting just makes you look silly.

Who's hairsplitting? Islam wants to rule the world and their history shows them violence is the way to do it and I've never trusted the Yank to do anything other than to further what they consider their national interests. Soldiers generally obey orders as that's what being a soldier involves.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:... the students of Berkeley don't have to have him on campus. They are in their rights to deny him that. They can always read his shit column on Breitbart.

Surely some students must have invited him, what about their rights?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Absolute thinking is destroying the world, like blaming ALL Islam because of 0.0001% might be inclined towards terrorism.

Berkeley is under no obligation to offer Milo Yiannopoulos a platform. There is no "shutting down of free speech" for the simple reason that 'hate speech" is illegal in the USA.
On the contrary Berkeley have a legal responsibility to deny a platform to any hate-speech merchant.

You actually believe that there are only 1600 muslims 'inclined towards terrorism' out of 1.6 billion? After what the US has done to them it's probably more like 1 per cent.
Berkely did offer him a platform. And there are no 'hate-speech' laws in the US.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:If you (I assume you do in fact) wanted to reduce it to a stupid polarity...

Quite how you have managed to miss me pointing out that it is the hard of thinking who struggle to see beyond us and them, black and white, on/off digital thinking, is a mystery. I have acknowledged that this is a theme in philosophy, exemplified by Kant, Hegel and Marx, and clearly stated that I think this is a mistake. In the current context, I have referred to a piece that states that it was anarchists, not progressivists, who caused the trouble.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:...and take your side in a bickering fight...

I can only tell you what I believe. If you insist that I believe something else, then yes, we must resort to bickering, and you can go fuck yourself.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:...you will destroy the possibility of talking maturely about what is going on.

I have consistently responded with as much maturity as your attention warrants.