Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
He didn't accuse anyone of being illiterate. If you don't like his tone, and think it's combative, well you're the one who just called him an idiot out of the blue, so I'm not sure who's standing on the civility high ground here.
Re-read that exchange. Peter12 made a point, his point was dismissed by Duffman as "BS" with a blatant non-sequitur, to which Peter responded by saying "case in point" and asking how dismissing people's views without an actual argument wasn't a problem, to which Duffman responded in turn by outdoing his original non-sequitur by bringing up pedophilia of all things. As someone else said, "wtf?" And you think Peter's the source of the communication problem in that exchange? That is ridiculous.
There seriously have to be some standards for talking to other people, whether it be on a campus or an internet forum, besides "does this person generally share my political ideology".
|
What is Peter saying here?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peter12, quoting someone else
That, by the way, is why liberal students (and liberals in general) are so bad at defending their own positions. They never have to, so they never learn to. That is also why it tends to be so easy for conservatives to goad them into incoherent anger. Nothing makes you more enraged than an argument you cannot answer.
|
Pretty sure he is calling Liberals idiots that are too stupid to understand why they are against something, and are easily goaded by superior Conservatives.
My comment about Milo, was illustrating that it's possible that universities etc. should not just let anyone speak there carte blanche.
How about a white supremacist that advocates violence against non whites? should they be allowed to speak at universities? should Liberals let them, not just because they are stupid and don't understand their own arguments, but because of free speech and the 1A? Should Milo be allowed to go give a speech about the positive aspects of pedophilia?