Tennessee Free Speech Bill Signed Into Law

[A dot Ham]

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.

LOL so you're mad because I responded in kind... rich! See where this gets us when we simply accept logical fallacies... you should be ashamed. Not only for your personal behavior, but as an academic. I imagine though that your inability to debate properly is why you find these "controversial" personalities so offensive.

[therayeffect]

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

Okay, so you're basically attacking Milo in the way he supposedly attacks people. Do you have proof that he does this? Also, you said 'no, just the subtle approach' and then make a claim that 'fanboys will gladly carry the death threats'.

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

Once again, you're making very serious claims and probably don't have any argument to back it up. There have been general acts of violence to go both ways but I don't recall any specific speaker directly inciting acts of violence of people they disagree with.

[sarahtasher]

Damn those sick hate phrases, STOP HIM NOW

I know it's unfathomable for some people, but ''SHUT UP, YOU SJW'' is not an actual argument. Neither ''I'M GOING TO KILL YOU WITH MY GLOCK''. As the alt-right is more used to pass condoms full of urines and shivs than books, they are not very good debaters except on tribunes that ban the opposition...

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, so you're basically attacking Milo in the way he supposedly attacks people. Do you have proof that he does this? Also, you said 'no, just the subtle approach' and then make a claim that 'fanboys will gladly carry the death threats'.



Once again, you're making very serious claims and probably don't have any argument to back it up. There have been general acts of violence to go both ways but I don't recall any specific speaker directly inciting acts of violence of people they disagree with.

Play pretend is so old.

[I Push Buttons]

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?

Doesn't even matter if the facts exist, left wing extremists don't accept them.

Reminds me of this thing I saw on the front page of Reddit recently about British Pakistanis.

TL;DW: Over 50% of British Pakistani marriages are between first cousins, in some areas over 75% are. Between 4-10% of their children have debilitating and ultimately fatal recessive gene genetic disorders because of these incestuous marriages. Around 1/3 of all rare genetic conditions in the UK occur in British Pakistani children, they are 1.5% of the population.

Politicians and such have been hesitant to take steps to end this because they get accused of racism, being intolerant, etc. by the fringe left if they do.

[NineSpine]

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.

Pointing out deductive fallacies against a probabilistic inductive argument doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You don't know how reason works. You don't even know the difference between induction and deduction. You tried to say that an affirmative request for information "Tell me X" is a fallacy somehow, when it isn't an assertion of any claim whatsoever. It is not coherent for that to be a fallacy. There has to be a conclusion for a fallacy to exist.

If you were right, here is what every history dissertation defense would look like: "You cited something someone said. That is an argument from authority fallacy." and then that would repeat 500 times.

[sarahtasher]

Doesn't even matter if the facts exist, left wing extremists don't accept them.

Reminds me of this thing I saw on the front page of Reddit recently about British Pakistanis.

TL;DW: Over 50% of British Pakistani marriages are between first cousins, in some areas over 75% are. Between 4-10% of their children have debilitating and ultimately fatal recessive gene genetic disorders because of these incestuous marriages. Around 1/3 of all rare genetic conditions in the UK occur in British Pakistani children, they are 1.5% of the population.

Politicians and such have been hesitant to take steps to end this because they get accused of racism, being intolerant, etc. by the fringe left if they do.

Short of showing your colors, what is exactly the point between consanguinity and Milo ?

I would be wary of using this argument for the record, since outside large cities, consanguinity was generalized across the world well unto the 20th century.

[therayeffect]

Play pretend is so old.

And that implies what? You have not attempted to even disagree with my argument and have been merely throwing around insults and raging about Milo. I'm all for many on the right having to sit under the spotlight of a debate since a great deal of their current ideals won't hold up. The same would be true of many of the more eccentric left. The US NEEDS people to be put under a spotlight so we can debate out all of this false information that clogs up the minds of the people.

[Zeek Daniels]

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.

It takes more faith to believe the universe happened randomly than it does to believe some all powerful creator created it. Check your maths bro. As for climate change i look at it like this. Climates are different in different parts of the world. Hell the US has a bunch of different climates running through it. You ask someone who lives in a desert climate if they wouldnt mind a little more rainfall. The problem is climate change supporters were "global warming" supporters. And everyone had to jump ship on "Global Warming" because its been proven time and again the globe isnt warming anywhere close to where the alarmists say it is. And they have been saying it since b4 i was born apparently so why we keep giving them a platform is beyond me. Btw according to them we should have been wiped out by sea level rise by now.

Anyway so now everyones calling it climate change. Ok so what? We live in the most transient society. Never b4 could we move from on place to another across giant distances in just a few hours. You try asking the Indians who migrated from asia across the bearing straight in mass numbers in search of food across the cold where im sure alot of them died just to settle all around the Americas. How did climate change effect them?

There is no 1 climate change fits all. We have 13 different climates in the world. All climate change will do is shift where those climates are. Why does this cause you people to hate people who say who cares or deny that it will happen? If the middle east became a lush green forest you have a problem with that? If the unlivable parts of the world that are too cold became warmer and fertile land you would have a problem with that?

Ancient societies have survived worse by MOVING. Maybe you people should stop your moaning and let it happen and if it requires people to move then so be it.

[Tinykong]

The state of Tennessee just passed the relevant fucking law
How many fucking times do i need to say this?
The state of Tennessee just passed the relevant fucking law.

No shit, what do you think this thread is about?

It's going to wind up going to the SCOTUS because (in my opinion, before you get even more rustled) the state doesn't have the authority to do this by mere virtue of institutions accepting tax dollars, they need to provide a compelling reason as to why it's necessary to force the institution to host anyone saying anything.

Title IX has a clear and compelling reason, it provides compliance enforcement for a protected class under the Constitution.

You don't have a constitutional right to an audience or a venue, therefore the state has no compelling reason for forcing an institution to host a particular person. "We give you money, therefore do what we say" is flimsy as shit.

[I Push Buttons]

Short of showing your colors, what is exactly the point between consanguinity and Milo ?

I would be wary of using this argument for the record, since outside large cities, consanguinity was generalized across the world well unto the 20th century.

Merely pointing out that fringe leftists such as yourself are immune to facts...

[Draco-Onis]

Doesn't even matter if the facts exist, left wing extremists don't accept them.

Reminds me of this thing I saw on the front page of Reddit recently about British Pakistanis.

TL;DW: Over 50% of British Pakistani marriages are between first cousins, in some areas over 75% are. Between 4-10% of their children have debilitating and ultimately fatal recessive gene genetic disorders because of these incestuous marriages. Around 1/3 of all rare genetic conditions in the UK occur in British Pakistani children, they are 1.5% of the population.

Politicians and such have been hesitant to take steps to end this because they get accused of racism, being intolerant, etc. by the fringe left if they do.

So you are basically saying British Pakistanis are like Southerners? why doesn't the right love these guys?

[A dot Ham]

Pointing out deductive fallacies against a probabilistic inductive argument doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You don't know how reason works. You don't even know the difference between induction and deduction. You tried to say that an affirmative request for information "Tell me X" is a fallacy somehow, when it isn't an assertion of any claim whatsoever. It is not coherent for that to be a fallacy. There has to be a conclusion for a fallacy to exist.

If you were right, here is what every history dissertation defense would look like: "You cited something someone said. That is an argument from authority fallacy." and then that would repeat 500 times.

Appealing to authority is valid when the authority is actually a legitimate (debatable) authority on the facts of the argument.

You presenting yourself as that authority is not a legitimate authority.

So if you're willing to post personal information to actually verify you are who you claim to be. We could actually establish your authority.

Except that I have presented equally shaky information (which could be verified if I supplied personal information) establishing myself as a counter authority to your own.

Which is why I tried to redirect your comments to something worth debating (which you weren't having). The issue isn't about the bureaucracy (which if you are who you say you are , and I am who I say I am, we are both slaves to). But what happens behind closed doors. Which neither of us is really privy to. What we are privy to is the type of speaker(s) that actually do get approved and allowed to speak. From my perspective those are overwhelmingly liberal, and those that get denied are overwhelmingly conservative.

Your question:

Where in the First Amendment does it say "You have a right to a paid platform at any public university of your choice whenever you would like"?

Is meant to establish that the speaking event is a privilege not a right. To which I would respond with (given the obvious discrimination against conservative speakers) why is that a privilege only extended to liberal speakers?

All of that is irrelevant because the reasoning behind your question is flawed from the beginning. As a publicly funded institution there are funds allocated and budgeted for public speaking events. Security and other costs not related to the direct payment of the individual doing the actual speaking. These are costs the public institution willing and knowingly accepts. The issue I keep circling back to is who determines what is or isn't allowed or rather what content is or is not allowed. We both agree that takes place behind closed doors and isn't up for debate.

What does the constitution say about free speech?

Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental...

Now I hope I don't need to break down the connection between a public university and congress to you, but suffice to say they are an extension of that and are (well established) bound by the constitution.

Whether it is a written policy that universities do not allow conservative guests, or a written policy/bylaw that gives authority to a specific person and their judgement Dean, President, Provost... etc. If they are discriminating they are breaking the law... plain and simple.

[I Push Buttons]

why doesn't the right love these guys?

I wouldn't know.

[A dot Ham]

Merely pointing out that fringe leftists such as yourself are immune to facts...

Stop engaging. They are trolling.

They continue to try to devolve this to make this about a specific speaker. The law will allow countless others with conservative viewpoints to not be barred from public campuses. This is a win for the free exchange of ideas and IF liberals do actually hold the true secrets of the universe then allowing conversations between opposing viewpoints to happen will only win over hearts and minds.

[sarahtasher]

Merely pointing out that fringe leftists such as yourself are immune to facts...

And what are those facts ? ''Pakistanis are endogamous''. No s... Sherlock, a traditional rural society is endogamous ! I imagine that alt-righters would be a-okay with Pakistanis dating British girls-ah, no.

- - - Updated - - -

Stop engaging. They are trolling.

They continue to try to devolve this to make this about a specific speaker. The law will allow countless others with conservative viewpoints to not be barred from public campuses. This is a win for the free exchange of ideas and IF liberals do actually hold the true secrets of the universe then allowing conversations between opposing viewpoints to happen will only win over hearts and minds.

A conversation with Milo about what ?

About how his backdoor shenanigans with a black guy means he is not racist ?

[I Push Buttons]

And what are those facts ? ''Pakistanis are endogamous''. No s... Sherlock, a traditional rural society is endogamous ! I imagine that alt-righters would be a-okay with Pakistanis dating British girls-ah, no.

The facts are that those marriages are causing a health crisis and the UK government refuses to address it because they get attacked by the fringe left.

Exactly like how you are doing here.

Apart from my supporting the death penalty and regularly giving police the benefit of the doubt, I have only ever expressed fairly left wing ideals on this forum; IE: given no indication I am right wing at all, let alone "alt-right"... Yet you have now accused me of being on the alt-right twice in both of your replies to me... Based on literally nothing other than relaying facts to you.

[Daelak]

Stop engaging. They are trolling.

They continue to try to devolve this to make this about a specific speaker. The law will allow countless others with conservative viewpoints to not be barred from public campuses. This is a win for the free exchange of ideas and IF liberals do actually hold the true secrets of the universe then allowing conversations between opposing viewpoints to happen will only win over hearts and minds.

They aren't trolling. If conservatism actually had legitimate, credentialed people who didn't engage in slander and incite audiences with undercurrents of racial superiority, none of this would be necessary. There's a reason why conservative "think" tanks, publications, and literature had a renaissance during the civil rights era and desegregation. There's a reason why conservative speakers and influencers all have coincidentally the same messages against immigration, public schooling, and welfare.

[Deleted]

No shit, what do you think this thread is about?

Then how many fucking times do i need to say it?

It's going to wind up going to the SCOTUS because (in my opinion, before you get even more rustled) the state doesn't have the authority to do this by mere virtue of institutions accepting tax dollars, they need to provide a compelling reason as to why it's necessary to force the institution to host anyone saying anything.

it's really not.

- - - Updated - - -

They aren't trolling. If conservatism actually had legitimate, credentialed people who didn't engage in slander and incite audiences with undercurrents of racial superiority, none of this would be necessary. There's a reason why conservative "think" tanks, publications, and literature had a renaissance during the civil rights era and desegregation. There's a reason why conservative speakers and influencers all have coincidentally the same messages against immigration, public schooling, and welfare.

Doesn't make them wrong.

[A dot Ham]

They aren't trolling. If conservatism actually had legitimate, credentialed people who didn't engage in slander and incite audiences with undercurrents of racial superiority, none of this would be necessary. There's a reason why conservative "think" tanks, publications, and literature had a renaissance during the civil rights era and desegregation. There's a reason why conservative speakers and influencers all have coincidentally the same messages against immigration, public schooling, and welfare.

Ah yes, liberals have a patent on the secrets to the universe. Makes you wonder why they are so afraid of debating in a controlled environment. If you have absolute truth... a debate should be pretty easy.

No the only way liberals can accomplish their goals is by demonizing everything right of center. By making demons out of all conservatives you are no longer obligated to engage the opposition. Because how could a demon have anything reasonable to say?

Honestly if you subscribe to propaganda and the rhetoric of either side and buy into the stereotypes that liberals care about people and conservatives only care about money you have zero place in any sort of political discussion.

[Tinykong]

Then how many fucking times do i need to say it?

You can repeat it as often as you like, it's not going to change my opinion, it certainly won't be the first time a government body has been accused of over reaching their authority.

it's really not.

This is real compelling stuff here.

Looking forward to the shit fit people throw when the local chapter of "Kill all Niggers" shows up at the university and demands a venue where they spew racism about blacks and burn and lynch effigies of black people, and the school has to let them have a rally, despite everyone on the planet with a brain realizing they should be told where to shove their hate speech.