On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 13:27, Jacob Albretsen wrote: > On Thursday 16 September 2004 10:13 am, Michael Halcrow wrote: > > http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/52204 > > > > It'll be October 20th. UVSC students have started a petition to have > > the student government officers resign for inviting him. > > > > Reminds me of when BYU had that liberal speaker (a woman, but I don't > > remember her name) a year or two ago, and students started walking out > > in the middle of it. > > Great, another off topic thread.
I find it very interesting that those who wish to complain don't follow their own logic. If it is off topic, and it is not such a big deal why contribute to the noise? > > <rant> > Good grief. > > Why is this such a big deal? No one is forcing you (you in the general term > here, not directed at Halcrow). No one is dragging you by the legs kicking > and screaming to listen to him talk. No one is forcing you to agree with > him. It's simple, if you don't want to listen to him speak, don't go. If > you don't want to agree with him, don't. Wow, what a concept. No one if forcing you to read this. No one is dragging you by the legs kicking and screaming to read these posts. No one is forcing you to agree with the posts. It's simple, if you don't want to read off topic threads don't. Wow, what a concept. > > I'm offended. I'm a BYU student. > > But even though you won't be there, you're going to try everything you can to > make sure no one else can go too. No one must be able to hear other points > of view! That's the freedoms in America we're fighting for! Sign me up. It is interesting to me that the very thing you want, freedom of speech, is the very thing you are upset with. If people in a post are upset with Michael Moore and they exercise their freedom of speech to say so, is that is a bad thing? Is it only bad if they disagree with you? If the posts had been in strong support of Michael Moore would you have written this same response? Would you have been on a rant about off topic subjects? It is interesting that both conservatives and liberals have a knee jerk reaction when someone posts "I don't think we should have invited him" and claim that someone exercising their free speech to say so somehow violates some elses free speech. Free speech is the right so say almost anything you want (execpt things like "fire" in a theather). Telling someone they shouldn't say "I don't think we should have invited him" does more harm to free speech then letting them say it. A year and a half ago Sean Hannity came to the freedom festival which is entirely privately funded. Many called into radio stations and wrote letters to the editor expressing their disapproval with his selection claiming it was not right and we shouldn't have him. I suspect that many who are angry with these anti-Moore posts were sympathetic with the anti-Hannity callers and would claim the writers and callers had a right to express their opinions based on "free speech". You can't say it is pro-free speech to let someone say "don't invide Sean Hannity" and it is anti-free speech for someone to say "don't invite Michael Moore". To do so is to reveal a bias so strong you become internally inconsistent. This goes for conservatives and liberals. You must either allow both or deny both. I personally vote for free speech. > > So I guess hearing different points of view is a bad thing, so the Earth is > still flat and at the center of the Universe. Go home Galileo, we don't need > your kind here. Let us use a little logic. 1. I assert that these posts are different from your point of view. Thus they are a different point of view. 2. Your response implies these posts are a bad thing. 3. Thus you must agree that these different points of view are a bad thing. 4. Thus the earth must indeed be flat and the center of the Universe, and we don't need these anti-Moore kind here. The problem Galileo had was that the leading authorities of the time had an incorrect world view. They refused to consider any other point of view because they believed they were correct. Their pride got in the way. Our problem is that whether we are conservative or liberal we often believe we are persecuted like Galileo when in fact we are acting like "leading authoities" with an incorrect world view. We could be wrong. Tolerance is the answer. Tolerance is allowing those who disagree with us to be right, or wrong, implying we could be wrong or right. Tolerance is one thing I struggle with. > I'd like to apologize on the behalf of Michael more for exercising his freedom > of speech. Evidently in Utah, freedom of speech is one way and means you can > give a talk, but only if you agree with everyone else. Otherwise I'm going > to take offense and try take that freedom away from you. I would like to apologize on behalf of all those who post on this newsgroup for exercising their freedom of speech. Evidently at BYU and on this newsgroup, freedom of speech is one way and means you can only post if it is on topic and agrees with the liberal point of view. Otherwise anti-Bush members are going to take offense and try and take that freedom away from you. > > And after we oust Moore, I hear them Mormons are nutballs too. Can you > believe they're opposed to slavery?!?! We better be getting together and > forcing them out of the state. > </rant> > Jacob, I agree that you should have the right to say the things you said. But, please don't take away my right to disagree with you. > -- > Jacob Albretsen > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ____________________ > BYU Unix Users Group > http://uug.byu.edu/ > ___________________________________________________________________ > List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list -- Scott N. Woodfield 2232 TMCB Computer Science Dept. Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 801 378 2915 ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
