nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Posted November 10, 2010 Who cares? It doesn't matter whether it was public or private (you said why couldn't he have sent a private message). It was going to be made public and used politically anyhow. Quote
g_bambino Posted November 10, 2010 Report Posted November 10, 2010 (edited) It doesn't matter whether it was public or private (you said why couldn't he have sent a private message). It was going to be made public and used politically anyhow. No, it doesn't matter whether the message was public or private. It matters who Houle was speaking for: himself or the university. If he wanted to express his own personal opinions, he should've done so as a private individual, and been clear about it. (Though, even then it would've seemed odd that a person who holds such views occupies a high office in a university, of all places, where the free exchange of ideas should be a core principle.) [+] Edited November 10, 2010 by g_bambino Quote
M.Dancer Posted November 10, 2010 Report Posted November 10, 2010 It doesn't matter whether it was public or private (you said why couldn't he have sent a private message). It was going to be made public and used politically anyhow. He meant a message as a proivate individual and not in hois capacity as a university authority, but again, you knew that and were dropping the semantic card you like to accuse others of... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Posted November 10, 2010 No, it doesn't matter whether the message was public or private. It matters who Houle was speaking for: himself or the university. If he wanted to express his own personal opinions, he should've done so as a private individual, and been clear about it. And what does that matter? It will ALWAYS be inferred by folks like yourself that he was speaking on behalf of the university. Quote
ironstone Posted November 10, 2010 Report Posted November 10, 2010 Maybe this white supremacist should file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission. And I'm reasonably certain Mark Steyn does believe in free speech,but not hate speach. Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Posted November 10, 2010 Maybe this white supremacist should file a complaint with the Human Rights Commission. And I'm reasonably certain Mark Steyn does believe in free speech,but not hate speach. See, I've posted proof that he does. Find me proof he doesn't. Quote
g_bambino Posted November 10, 2010 Report Posted November 10, 2010 And what does that matter? It will ALWAYS be inferred by folks like yourself that he was speaking on behalf of the university. And now you're purporting to speak for me? All the man would had to have done was state: "I offer this as my personal opinion and am not speaking in my capacity as Vice-President Academic and Provost if the University of Ottawa," or some such thing. It's done all the time precisely so nobody can claim whomever said something was speaking on behalf of someone or something else. Quote
g_bambino Posted November 10, 2010 Report Posted November 10, 2010 (edited) See, I've posted proof that he does. No, you posted proof that Steyn hates human rights commissions and politically correct social engineering. We're all still waiting for the evidence he's against hate speech laws. Find me proof he doesn't. Prove a negative. Brilliant. [c/e] Edited November 10, 2010 by g_bambino Quote
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Posted November 10, 2010 And now you're purporting to speak for me? All the man would had to have done was state: "I offer this as my personal opinion and am not speaking in my capacity as Vice-President Academic and Provost if the University of Ottawa," or some such thing. It's done all the time precisely so nobody can claim whomever said something was speaking on behalf of someone or something else. They always would have because no matter what he states in the email, people always would've known that he was university president. People will always make the distinctions they want to despite what's written or not written on a piece of paper. Quote
M.Dancer Posted November 10, 2010 Report Posted November 10, 2010 Prove a negative. Brilliant. [c/e] Nicky is found of the appeal to ignorance fallacy. An affinity there I believe. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Alta4ever Posted November 10, 2010 Report Posted November 10, 2010 No, you posted proof that Steyn hates human rights commissions and politically correct social engineering. We're all still waiting for the evidence he's against hate speech laws. Prove a negative. Brilliant. [c/e] Don't worry nicky doesn't get it and never will. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Posted November 10, 2010 (edited) No, you posted proof that Steyn hates human rights commissions and politically correct social engineering. We're all still waiting for the evidence he's against hate speech laws. Prove a negative. Brilliant. [c/e] Prove a negative? You can prove a negative any time of day, any day of the week. All you have to do is find an article with him saying, jee, I'm for the freedom of speech but this goes WAY too far. I've seen NOTHING yet that says that. If it exists, it should be easy to find. The whole notion that proving a negative can't be done is an excuse for the feeble minded to be lazy. I'll be waiting. Edited November 10, 2010 by nicky10013 Quote
Alta4ever Posted November 10, 2010 Report Posted November 10, 2010 Nicky is found of the appeal to ignorance fallacy. An affinity there I believe. Nicky doesn't get that he/she needs to prove his/her accusations, and that if he/she doesn't that doesn't they become unfounded allegations. Just further hurts his/her credibility which is about nil now. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Posted November 10, 2010 Nicky doesn't get that he/she needs to prove his/her accusations, and that if he/she doesn't that doesn't they become unfounded allegations. Just further hurts his/her credibility which is about nil now. Says the imaginary business man. Quote
M.Dancer Posted November 10, 2010 Report Posted November 10, 2010 The whole notion that proving a negative can't be done is an excuse for the feeble minded to be lazy. I'll be waiting. God is real. Prove otherwise you lazy yob. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Alta4ever Posted November 10, 2010 Report Posted November 10, 2010 (edited) . Edited November 10, 2010 by Alta4ever Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Posted November 10, 2010 God is real. Prove otherwise you lazy yob. That would be proving a positive. As for god, he never wrote anyting regarding the topic at hand, did he? What's that? Mark Steyn did? Wow, crazy that. This is so stupid it can't even be considered an analogy. Try again. Quote
Alta4ever Posted November 10, 2010 Report Posted November 10, 2010 God is real. Prove otherwise you lazy yob. Exactly the way you debate perfect analogy. great impression Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Posted November 10, 2010 Exactly the way you debate perfect analogy. great impression This is desperate. Quote
M.Dancer Posted November 10, 2010 Report Posted November 10, 2010 That would be proving a positive. I wasn't aware that UofT had a SpEd class...no, saying God is real is the positive, proving the statement wrong os the negative, God is not real.... As for god, he never wrote anyting regarding the topic at hand, did he? What's that? Mark Steyn did? Wow, crazy that. Aside from the injuction against bearing false witness.... This is so stupid it can't even be considered an analogy. Try again. SpEd approved... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Posted November 10, 2010 I wasn't aware that UofT had a SpEd class...no, saying God is real is the positive, proving the statement wrong os the negative, God is not real.... Aside from the injuction against bearing false witness.... SpEd approved... There is no evidence either way as to what god is or isn't. Anything in the bible was written by man. There certainly is evidence in terms of Mark Steyn and his stance on what he believes in terms of freedom of speech. Written by him. Himself. His own views. The fact that you've reduced yourself to calling me a sped is probably realization that you know I'm correct and are lashing out the only way you know how. Ironic, it was only a couple pages ago you were laughing at my immaturity. Quote
M.Dancer Posted November 10, 2010 Report Posted November 10, 2010 The fact that you've reduced yourself to calling me a sped is probably realization that you know I'm correct and are lashing out the only way you know how. Yeah that's it...nothing to do with my impression on your abaility to frame and conduct an argument or your general dullness and lack of wit. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Posted November 10, 2010 (edited) Yeah that's it...nothing to do with my impression on your abaility to frame and conduct an argument or your general dullness and lack of wit. Perhaps I shouldn't be taking advice from someone who ceded the point to begin with and only now are just taking it up to score a few cheap hits. No, you could find his saying he believes that all restrictions on speech should be lifted.... Which as what I was arguing to begin with. Despite the fact that you blatantly said here that I've proven that he doesn't want any restrictions on freedom of speech, you're still arguing that he does in fact believe in some restrictions. Since you've told me that I proved my point, which in itself is proving a negative as I've clearly proved he doesn't believe in restrictions on speech, why don't you wrestle me up a quote saying where he believes in restrictions. The funniest thing about this is you wouldn't even have to prove a negative. I did that. You're only proving a negative to my argument which is hardly the same thing. You'd be proving a positive, that he believes in some restrictions. So why don't you drop the excuses, quit calling people names, stop being lazy and actually prove that you're intellectually capable of handling an argument above the 8th grade level. Of all my time at Maple Leaf Web I don't think I've ever seen you do such a thing. Edited November 10, 2010 by nicky10013 Quote
M.Dancer Posted November 10, 2010 Report Posted November 10, 2010 Perhaps I shouldn't be taking advice from someone who ceded the point to begin with and only now are just taking it up to score a few cheap hits. I ceded a point? What point would that be? That appeals to ignorance are normal for your level? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Posted November 10, 2010 I ceded a point? What point would that be? That appeals to ignorance are normal for your level? I posted your own words. You can try to deny them all you want, those words were in fact written by you. I notice how you ignored the rest of my post, though. You want to talk about my ignorance, how about you actually address everything I said before accusing anyone of ignorance, willful or otherwise. You try to give advice to me about framing a coherent argument. My advice to you, pretending something didn't happen isn't an argument to begin with. Just as hypocritical as Steyn. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.