Are we going to admit Universities are producing thin-skinned people?

[eyeball]

29 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Same as the religion that calls on their practitioners to kill infidels.

Absolutely.

Anyone who would think otherwise is just not thinking straight.

[drummindiver]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

 

I'm very curious, though - why do you believe what the vast MINORITY of Muslims believe?    Why are you so willing to accept that the terrorists who claim Islam are the defining characteristic of Islam, when there is such a preponderance of evidence that they aren't?    This attitude makes as much sense as someone believing all Christians are polygamous because they heard about fundamentalists Mormons, or believing that most Christians are pedophiles because of what they read in the paper.

 

I don't. I wrote that in response to eyeballs assertion all Americans are responsible for the actions of a few. True, they got voted in,  but it it also true you have a choice to follow a religion and how to follow that religion.

My point was bigotry is bigotry and eyeball  teal believe theirs is justifiable, which I don't.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

That's a perversion of what the Quran says, used by some followers to support their extremism.   Most followers of Islam pay much more attention to the Quran verses that instruct to tolerance and peace.

Which is why the Muslim world is so peaceful and tolerant, right? 

Oh wait! Muslim countries are by far the most violent and intolerant places on planet earth! How could that be!?

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

  Yes, they think gay people and apostates are immoral, just as many Christians do

Really? Yet apostasy is punishable by prison in some Muslim countries, by execution in others. And PEW surveys show the majority of Muslims, not a few, but over 90% in many countries feel apostates should be executed. 

Being judged immoral in the West is not in any way comparable to being judged immoral in the Muslim world. You aren't going to see mobs of Christians in France beating a suspected apostate or blasphemer to death and setting them on fire.

 

[Boges]

Only took 22 pages for this thread to descend into a debate about Muslims.

[GostHacked]

We have examples of some think skinned people here. I mean I see nasty rhetoric constantly from a few, but when I call them out, I am the one, not them,  that ends up getting slapped for it. 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Boges said:

Only took 22 pages for this thread to descend into a debate about Muslims.

 

Everything is about Islam at the moment. Everything you do is now affected by what Islam does.

[GostHacked]

Just now, Boges said:

Only took 22 pages for this thread to descend into a debate about Muslims.

This is a really good observation. I am sure there are similarities in other threads that have gone down this same road, way off of where the thread started.

[GostHacked]

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Everything is about Islam at the moment. Everything you do is now affected by what Islam does.

So that's why we are seeing universities creating a generation of wussies? All because of Islam? I mean there HAS to be at least something else causing this particular issue with regards to safe spaces, SJWs and the sort.

Ah screw it.. your right IT'S ALL ISLAMS FAULT !!!  Thanks Dog, for showing us the light.

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, Boges said:

Only took 22 pages for this thread to descend into a debate about Muslims.

I think if you look at what's happening in Europe, you see the institutional Left with its closed mind and rigid groupthink utterly refusing to discuss or even admit there was the slightest reason to question the rise in the number of Muslims coming into their territory, outright lying about the impact, ignoring the rise of crime and violence, all in the name of inclusiveness. This led to a build-up of anger which we see breaking out now in the support rapidly rising for extreme right groups because they're the only ones willing to actually admit there is a problem and discuss ways to alleviate that problem. The same mentality exists here and on university campuses, where the institutional left do their best to shut down debate or discussion of the issue, which causes it to break out all over the place.

 

[Boges]

7 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

So that's why we are seeing universities creating a generation of wussies? All because of Islam? I mean there HAS to be at least something else causing this particular issue with regards to safe spaces, SJWs and the sort.

Ah screw it.. your right IT'S ALL ISLAMS FAULT !!!  Thanks Dog, for showing us the light.

Well we do see that people are willing to completely ignore women and gay rights in order to be inclusive of Islamic culture. 

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, drummindiver said:

I don't. I wrote that in response to eyeballs assertion all Americans are responsible for the actions of a few. True, they got voted in,  but it it also true you have a choice to follow a religion and how to follow that religion.

My point was bigotry is bigotry and eyeball  teal believe theirs is justifiable, which I don't.

Ok then, sorry if I misunderstood you. 

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

Well we do see that people are willing to completely ignore women and gay rights in order to be inclusive of Islamic culture. 

Try this instead:  people are willing to be inclusive of Muslim people, but are no more willing to accept erosion of women's or gay rights from Muslims than they are from Christian Conservatives.  

Hint:  it is Christian Conservatives who are passing laws limiting women's access to abortion, and who object to gay marriage.  These are just two ways in which Christian Conservatives are exhibiting intolerance and misogyny you like to pretend only exists in Islamic cultures.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Try this instead:  people are willing to be inclusive of Muslim people, but are no more willing to accept erosion of women's or gay rights from Muslims than they are from Christian Conservatives.  

Hint:  it is Christian Conservatives who are passing laws limiting women's access to abortion, and who object to gay marriage.  These are just two ways in which Christian Conservatives are exhibiting intolerance and misogyny you like to pretend only exists in Islamic cultures.

I don't think that is true of Universities, currently.  I think Christian Conservatives would get much shorter shrift than Muslims, just based on who they are.  Nothing more.

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't think that is true of Universities, currently.  I think Christian Conservatives would get much shorter shrift than Muslims, just based on who they are.  Nothing more.

Do you really believe an Imam who was known to preach subordination of women and non-acceptance of gay people would be allowed to speak, while a Christian Conservative with the same message would not?   

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Do you really believe an Imam who was known to preach subordination of women and non-acceptance of gay people would be allowed to speak, while a Christian Conservative with the same message would not?   

No, but you're taking that to extremes.  I believe that criticism of Christian Conservatives would be considered de rigueur, while critcism of Muslims would be a good reason to be fired, or expelled.

 

 

[Argus]

17 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Do you really believe an Imam who was known to preach subordination of women and non-acceptance of gay people would be allowed to speak, while a Christian Conservative with the same message would not?   

Absolutely. Not only would the imam be allowed to preach but if anyone complained they would be attacked by you and others like you for being racist and intolerant.

[Bryan]

I just want to commend the moderators for allowing this conversation to continue, and not complaining about drift. The topic is flowing just like a real conversation, and the discourse here is richer for it. 

[bush_cheney2004]

12 hours ago, dialamah said:

...Hint:  it is Christian Conservatives who are passing laws limiting women's access to abortion, and who object to gay marriage.  These are just two ways in which Christian Conservatives are exhibiting intolerance and misogyny you like to pretend only exists in Islamic cultures.

 

Actually, easy breezy access to abortions is one of the worst forms of misogyny for the unborn, mother's mental health, health care professionals, fathers, and families.

This view is roundly criticized and suppressed on campuses.

 

Edited December 24, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

7 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Actually, easy breezy access to abortions is one of the worst forms of misogyny for the unborn, mother's mental health, health care professionals, fathers, and families.

This view is roundly criticized and suppressed on campuses.

It's not suppressed. It's criticized because it's logically incoherent when individuals have a right to freedom of their body that includes not having their organs, in this case their uterus, used against their will by another human being.

Also, criticism is not suppression. People don't have any right to publicly voice their opinions or views and not have them scrutinized. To say criticism is suppression is to advocate against freedom of speech for those voicing their criticisms. Would you advocate suppressing the speech of those who criticize the government? I don't know where this idiotic notion that criticizing beliefs and opinions is censorship or suppression, but it's not. And it's ironic too, considering the people whining about safe spaces are the ones also whining that they're being "censored" and "suppressed" by having their views challenged. Tender are the snowflakes who can't handle publicly voicing their opinions and having people criticize them without whining about being oppressed, suppressed, or otherwise censored.

[Michael Hardner]

It's a double-standard.  Protesting Christian prayers at official gatherings is suppression and censorship but somehow advocating for banning people because of their religion is ok.  Nonetheless, if your 'public' can't behave according to principles ... if that is too difficult for people to do then you have to find the wedge to achieve a better result.

As you yourself pointed out, the zeitgeist is about some mythical anti-human liberal that they all hate, so use the language of the masses to figure out how to make things better.  If separation of Church and State boggles the mind, then find a telegenic non-Christian who was treated like garbage and make that the story.

Better yet, figure out how to put forward a new media circle of forward thinkers, but that seems like a long-term approach.

[Argus]

58 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's a double-standard.  Protesting Christian prayers at official gatherings is suppression and censorship but somehow advocating for banning people because of their religion is ok.

You are confusing a respect for freedom of religion and speech for Canadians with the idea of applying standards to foreigners who want to come and live here.

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, Argus said:

...applying standards to foreigners who want to come and live here.

If it were about foreigners then for sure you would have a point.  It seems to be about immigrants AND visitors of a certain religion, including presumably Canadians.  Well, that's how it seems though, we shall see.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, cybercoma said:

It's not suppressed. It's criticized because it's logically incoherent when individuals have a right to freedom of their body that includes not having their organs, in this case their uterus, used against their will by another human being.

Also, criticism is not suppression. People don't have any right to publicly voice their opinions or views and not have them scrutinized. To say criticism is suppression is to advocate against freedom of speech for those voicing their criticisms. Would you advocate suppressing the speech of those who criticize the government? I don't know where this idiotic notion that criticizing beliefs and opinions is censorship or suppression, but it's not. And it's ironic too, considering the people whining about safe spaces are the ones also whining that they're being "censored" and "suppressed" by having their views challenged. Tender are the snowflakes who can't handle publicly voicing their opinions and having people criticize them without whining about being oppressed, suppressed, or otherwise censored.

There's nothing wrong with criticism of any sort.  Daily I wish that people on here could get that when it comes to religion.

Suppression isn't criticism, though.  To be criticized, an idea or an action has to be discussed.  If an organization refuses to allow the discussion, that's suppression. 

If the organization is private, that is their right, even though in the case of universities, it is hypocritical in the extreme and worthy of criticism.

[cybercoma]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

If an organization refuses to allow the discussion, that's suppression. 

That is absolutely incorrect. An organization doesn't have to humour you. You don't get to walk into a church and preach atheism to them. That's not freedom of speech. You also don't get to go on Twitter in your firefighter's uniform and be an asshat. You can say whatever you want and hold whatever beliefs you want. People don't have to humour you nor do they have to give you a platform, especially not your employer. Schools all have a code of conduct for both employees and students, just like any other workplace.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

That is absolutely incorrect. An organization doesn't have to humour you. You don't get to walk into a church and preach atheism to them. That's not freedom of speech. You also don't get to go on Twitter in your firefighter's uniform and be an asshat. You can say whatever you want and hold whatever beliefs you want. People don't have to humour you nor do they have to give you a platform, especially not your employer. Schools all have a code of conduct for both employees and students, just like any other workplace.

I'm absolutely correct.

I know all that you posted here, and I don't disagree with you.  It appears we just differ on the meaning of the word "suppression".

 

Edit> Did you not read this far?

Quote

If the organization is private, that is their right, even though in the case of universities, it is hypocritical in the extreme and worthy of criticism.

 

Edited December 24, 2016 by bcsapper