Tennessee Free Speech Bill Signed Into Law

[NineSpine]

Another logical fallacy!

The burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove? With a PhD you should know better. This is your wake up call.

This ladies and gentleman is why universities should be teaching kids HOW to think and debate, not WHAT to think.

That's not a logical fallacy either. That's why colleges teach how to properly use logical fallacies, not just how to google and regurgitate them.

I have not provided a deductive argument, but you keep blathering on as though I have. A deductive argument is intended to get to a conclusion which is certain. We are not discussing a topic where certainty is sensible to expect in any direction. Deduction is therefore of little value here. Can we be certain how all colleges handle speaking engagements? No, not unless there was an ample scientific work done on the topic, which there is not, so certainty is a moot point.

That leaves us with induction, and in this case more specifically probabilistic induction. It is absolutely reasonable to assume that if an authority makes a claim on the topic they are an authority on, the chance that that claim is valid is more probable than not, unless evidence is presented otherwise. For example, you are an authority on what you ate for breakfast. If you tell me you had waffles, it is absolutely reasonable for me to assume you are correct until someone comes along and shows me a timestampes photograph of you eating eggs.

If, however, you insisted that it is CERTAIN you had waffles, if you insist it is a fact derived deductively, obviously that would be fallacious. However, only a complete moron would insist that you were doing that.

So, maybe stop masturbating to lists of logical fallacies and learn how reason actually works. It's getting a little tiring that so many keyboard warriors think reading a Sam Harris book and looking at Wikipedia lists of fallacies teaches them how to actually use reason properly.

[Daelak]

This defies logic. And I don't mean you I mean them.

That's what happens when you give pseudo-science and discredited ideas a platform equal to real objective data and science.

[sarahtasher]

As an academic institution they would have to provide evidence and defend a position that such information is false in the first place... which is going to require some sort of debate, which is going to require the opposition to present for.

You don't get to claim fact, bar the opposition from actually opposing you... and then claim that because no one opposes its truth. And the people you are preventing from speaking are fascists?

You get debate with Milo-the-rat ? Who is going to call you a ''SJW'' and orders his rat pack to send death threats to you and especially your female family members is you do something else than nodding ?

Milo style of ''debate'' would be considered low brow in a pig pen.

[A dot Ham]

Try to talk about evolution in fundy colleges. Try to say something that is not 100% about killing democrats on the Donald. Alt-righters get into convulsions when someone is not agreeing with them. A no-MAGAboy is not even an animal for the usual edgelord : just someone to be exterminated when they will have the kill orders

Are these public institutions? No. They're private.

Now an argument can be made that because students receive federal aid... that such colleges are de facto public institutions because they probably couldn't survive if their students weren't eligible, but that is beyond the scope of this debate honestly.

- - - Updated - - -

You get debate with Milo-the-rat ? Who is going to call you a ''SJW'' and orders his rat pack to send death threats to you and especially your female family members is you do something else than nodding ?

Milo style of ''debate'' would be considered low brow in a pig pen.

Then he should be relatively easy to debate with especially if you have someone moderating the debate who won't stand for the use of such logical fallacies.

[NineSpine]

LOL I just can't with you...

Logical fallacy number 4 and 5... moving goal posts, and your last ditch comment there about sexual harassment, defamation, and slander, appeal to emotion.

This law addresses this process:


No one is allowed to question that decision? Even when it is clear that there is an obvious bias, and discrimination taking place. No...

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS ON PUBLIC
COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES

As a public institution a university doesn't actually have a say in the matter. They do not get to approve or deny a speaker on a whim based on how they are feeling that day or who they do or don't like, or the safety of students, etc. Providing the group/club sponsoring the event follows all of the policies and procedures of the university for a public speaking event, (assuming those policies/procedures are not discriminatory) then it should be approved. End of story. This law ensures this will happen.

In 1949 the Supreme Court reversed Terminiello's conviction. (Four of the nine justices dissented.) In the majority opinion, Justice William O. Douglas wrote that "it is only through debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people...." Justice Douglas stated that in a democracy free speech must occur even if it causes disputes, unrest, or "stirs people to anger."

But that's just basic bitch jurisprudence.

If someone says "Tell me X", you can't call that a logical fallacy, because it isn't even an argument. Do you have any idea what a logical fallacy actually is?

- - - Updated - - -

Are these public institutions? No. They're private.

Now an argument can be made that because students receive federal aid... that such colleges are de facto public institutions because they probably couldn't survive if their students weren't eligible, but that is beyond the scope of this debate honestly.

- - - Updated - - -



Then he should be relatively easy to debate with especially if you have someone moderating the debate who won't stand for the use of such logical fallacies.

These aren't debates. They are paid speaking engagements.

[sarahtasher]

Are these public institutions? No. They're private.

Now an argument can be made that because students receive federal aid... that such colleges are de facto public institutions because they probably couldn't survive if their students weren't eligible, but that is beyond the scope of this debate honestly.

Why do you want debate with Milo ?

He is going to look at any female on the stage. He is going to call her STOOPID SJW BITCH and his fanboys will moan in delight and say Milo ''won'' the debate. A parrot dressed to croak ''SJW ! '' or ''FEMINAZI'' would be able to impersonate Milo flawlessly, altough his followers would likely think the parrot is too intellectual.

[therayeffect]

You get debate with Milo-the-rat ? Who is going to call you a ''SJW'' and orders his rat pack to send death threats to you and especially your female family members is you do something else than nodding ?

Milo style of ''debate'' would be considered low brow in a pig pen.

Did he ever actually 'order' death threats or are you using your freedom of speech to imply as such? Also, as was said, a proper debate monitor won't stand for that.

[A dot Ham]

That's not a logical fallacy either. That's why colleges teach how to properly use logical fallacies, not just how to google and regurgitate them.

I have not provided a deductive argument, but you keep blathering on as though I have. A deductive argument is intended to get to a conclusion which is certain. We are not discussing a topic where certainty is sensible to expect in any direction. Deduction is therefore of little value here. Can we be certain how all colleges handle speaking engagements? No, not unless there was an ample scientific work done on the topic, which there is not, so certainty is a moot point.

That leaves us with induction, and in this case more specifically probabilistic induction. It is absolutely reasonable to assume that if an authority makes a claim on the topic they are an authority on, the chance that that claim is valid is more probable than not, unless evidence is presented otherwise. For example, you are an authority on what you ate for breakfast. If you tell me you had waffles, it is absolutely reasonable for me to assume you are correct until someone comes along and shows me a timestampes photograph of you eating eggs.

If, however, you insisted that it is CERTAIN you had waffles, if you insist it is a fact derived deductively, obviously that would be fallacious. However, only a complete moron would insist that you were doing that.

So, maybe stop masturbating to lists of logical fallacies and learn how reason actually works. It's getting a little tiring that so many keyboard warriors think reading a Sam Harris book and looking at Wikipedia lists of fallacies teaches them how to actually use reason properly.

Personal attacks. Welcome to my ignore list Mr. PhD. A fine example of American [I'm American so fuck off stupid mods it isn't nation bashing] education where a moron can get a PhD, and not have a clue how to debate... who spends far too much time on a video game forum debating with plebeians so that he can feel superior.

[sarahtasher]

Are these public institutions? No. They're private.

Now an argument can be made that because students receive federal aid... that such colleges are de facto public institutions because they probably couldn't survive if their students weren't eligible, but that is beyond the scope of this debate honestly.

- - - Updated - - -



Then he should be relatively easy to debate with especially if you have someone moderating the debate who won't stand for the use of such logical fallacies.

First, it's completely useless to debate with negationnists, flat-earthers, climate denialists or creationnist-they are not interested in any thing like ''debate'' but rather in placing their lines.

Second, ''DEBATING'' with Milo means that if you contradict him, you will be 4-chaned with swatting and doxxing. Oddly enough, some weak beta cuck think that freedom of speech means you can disagree with Z-list trolls without having your female relatives called whores.

[NineSpine]

Personal attacks. Welcome to my ignore list Mr. PhD. A fine example of American [I'm American so fuck off stupid mods it isn't nation bashing] education where a moron can get a PhD, and not have a clue how to debate... who spends far too much time on a video game forum debating with plebeians so that he can feel superior.

Complain about personal attacks, then go right into "fuck off stupid mods", call me "a moron" and then blather on with more personal attacks.

You are just mad that someone here is able to call you out on your shit, when you clearly get a lot of traction with similar-minded dullards with your wikipedia list of logical fallacies.

[therayeffect]

Why do you want debate with Milo ?

He is going to look at any female on the stage. He is going to call her STOOPID SJW BITCH and his fanboys will moan in delight and say Milo ''won'' the debate. A parrot dressed to croak ''SJW ! '' or ''FEMINAZI'' would be able to impersonate Milo flawlessly, altough his followers would likely think the parrot is too intellectual.

Once again, a proper debate won't stand for ad hominem. In fact, the very thing you're complaining about is what I hope this law can put a stop to because a lot of very liberal campuses are doing exactly that to conservative speakers.

[sarahtasher]

Did he ever actually 'order' death threats or are you using your freedom of speech to imply as such? Also, as was said, a proper debate monitor won't stand for that.

No just the ''subtle'' approach of ordering people to attack actresses or twitter user he don't like. Milo submissve fanboys will gladly carry the death threats, if such is the will of the Master

[satimy]

That's his point: It has a definition, whether it is illegal or not.

OK what is the legal definition of hate speech then?

[Arayaa]

As an academic institution they would have to provide evidence and defend a position that such information is false in the first place... which is going to require some sort of debate, which is going to require the opposition to present for.

You don't get to claim fact, bar the opposition from actually opposing you... and then claim that because no one opposes its truth. And the people you are preventing from speaking are fascists?

I agree. it didn't really come across with what I was quoting though.

My original point was that if you've already debated on a topic before and proven something, you shouldn't be forced to debate it again. In doing so, you give the impression that no firm consensus has already been established (e.g. having a speaker come and say that vaccines cause autism when you know with some certainty it is not true).

But yes, debate is an important part of forming this consensus.

[sarahtasher]

Personal attacks. Welcome to my ignore list Mr. PhD. A fine example of American [I'm American so fuck off stupid mods it isn't nation bashing] education where a moron can get a PhD, and not have a clue how to debate... who spends far too much time on a video game forum debating with plebeians so that he can feel superior.

Ah yes, Milo is such a master debater.

YOU URE UH GIRL. YOU URE UH SJW.

[satimy]

that is not an answer to my question

Well if you are going to continue acting this obtuse I’ll just assume you don’t actually have a genuine argument


Later bro

[sarahtasher]

Once again, a proper debate won't stand for ad hominem. In fact, the very thing you're complaining about is what I hope this law can put a stop to because a lot of very liberal campuses are doing exactly that to conservative speakers.

In the books that the alt-right venerates, they ''debate'' by taking their guns and shooting the opposing speaker.

[satimy]

Ah yes, Milo is such a master debater.

YOU URE UH GIRL. YOU URE UH SJW.

Damn those sick hate phrases, STOP HIM NOW

[A dot Ham]

If someone says "Tell me X", you can't call that a logical fallacy, because it isn't even an argument. Do you have any idea what a logical fallacy actually is?

Your use of logical fallacies make your arguments not worth debating.

Your flawed reasoning means that you cannot see reason, so it isn't worth my time.

I find it hard to believe you ever defended a Thesis given your affinity for the use of these fallacies. A group of your peers should have torn anything you had to say to pieces.

[Orange Joe]

Well if you are going to continue acting this obtuse I’ll just assume you don’t actually have a genuine argument


Later bro

So you can't admit you were wrong. lol got it. Later