›
To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).

Peak Article on Pro-Life Group

randomuser
edited February 2009 in General
Did anyone else reach the article this week, published none other by morro?

I'm a bit confused how people can be angry that it violates the groups freedom of speech. They're making public displays in a semi-private (yeah yeah public institution in a way) area, using funds from a body that does not represent their views.

If they want to have the views thats fine, but their views are ones that only involve other people, and not themselves, which should not be protected. I wouldn't say what theyre doing is hate speech, as more as it is insensitive, ignorant and rude. It would be akin to me parading around a confederate flag. There is a limit to what people should be able to do when it is blatantly going to affect others in a negative way.

I would go as far as saying they are extremists as well, because they are parading around beliefs that affect other people and not themselves. Some people need to mind their own fucking business really.

If they care so much about life, instead of wasting time, money, and pissing people off, they could be doing things such as raising charity funds for orphans here and abroad. Do these people know nothing of the plight of how many children die a day because they can't be supported monetarily (hello Africa)? Yes! Lets bring in more children into the world that can't be supported!

Comments

  • NukeChem
    edited January 2009
    I'd just as soon they found something more worthwhile to protest about.
  • Simon604
    edited January 2009
    Link to article: http://www.the-peak.ca/article/6610
  • primexx
    edited January 2009
    It's not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear, and every time you silence somebody you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something. In other words your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view. Indeed as John Stuart Mill said: if all in society were agreed on the truth and value and beauty of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important - in fact it would become even more important - that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view. In more modern times this has been put I think best by...Rosa Luxemburg, who said that the freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently.
    […]
    Who's going to decide? To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful or who is the harmful speaker? Or to determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about it in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the task of being the censor? Isn't it a famous old story that the man who has to read all the pornography in order to decide what's fit to be passed and what is fit not to be, is the man most likely to be debauched?
    Highly recommend you watch the full recording, it contains much more than ^
    http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/03/free_speech_6.html
  • IVTIVT
    edited January 2009
    randomuser;45986 said:
    using funds from a body that does not represent their views.
    so its ok for me to go to Out On Campus and demand my money back?

    a sensible person doesn't raise a fuss over these things.

    It's called "freedom of speech". If you don't like it, get the fuck out.
    Also, it is in no way a hate speech issue.
  • Morro
    edited January 2009
    They applied and were given the proper permits for their demonstration. The SFSS works based on taxes, basically, and so has no ability to decide which issues it likes and doesn't like. It can't decide to only allow a certain portion of its constituents to express themselves.
  • JayDub
    edited January 2009
    While I don't necessarirly have a side for the pro life/choice arguement it was totally censorship to say they couldn't protest in this way.

    [youtube]iD97OVJ4PNw[/youtube]
  • randomuser
    edited January 2009
    IVT;45997 said:
    so its ok for me to go to Out On Campus and demand my money back?

    a sensible person doesn't raise a fuss over these things.

    It's called "freedom of speech". If you don't like it, get the fuck out.
    Also, it is in no way a hate speech issue.
    Quit being so ignorant and make comparisons that actually make sense, out on campus is intrinsic to gay people, pro-life group is only concerned about what other people are doing, theres a difference, get yourself educated boy.

    Almost as bad as when you were comparing intel CPU to evolution.

    I also said it wasnt hate speech, so why did you even add that in?

    A sensible person won't make a fuss over it? I'm sorry that I'm a critical thinker, a sensible person doesn't just take things at face value. I don't like it and I wont get the fuck out either, we're also not in america so quit preaching "freedom of speech", go read the Canadian constitution. If you want to live in a country where biggots can preach their hearts out go to America where that actually exists in the form you're trying to preach.
  • randomuser
    edited January 2009
    Morro;46000 said:
    They applied and were given the proper permits for their demonstration. The SFSS works based on taxes, basically, and so has no ability to decide which issues it likes and doesn't like. It can't decide to only allow a certain portion of its constituents to express themselves.
    That is true, but I can also go ask for whatever part of my money.

    I'm just curious as to what would happen if I went and made a fake crucifix with jesus on it saying murder is wrong, and people don't come back to life to express my atheism.

    Clearly it would be taken down because I don't have the permits, but how would it be any different from what they are doing? I think it would be rather inappropriate.
  • Morro
    edited January 2009
    If you DID go get the proper permits, I would very much support your right to put up that display.
  • IVTIVT
    edited January 2009
    randomuser;46006 said:
    That is true, but I can also go ask for whatever part of my money.
    see, this is my point. You can, and I can go ask Out On Campus for my money also, but no sensible person would do that.

    In short: quit whining.
  • randomuser
    edited January 2009
    IVT;46009 said:
    see, this is my point. You can, and I can go ask Out On Campus for my money also, but no sensible person would do that.

    In short: quit whining.
    I'm not whining, I'm starting discussion, go poll the entire forum and see who makes this place more interesting: My whining and creating activity in the forum, or you acting like the male ann coulter, but with a smaller penis.

    Lets use logic, and quit holding a vendetta against me, and I'll put my bias of you aside if you are willing to actually follow my logic:

    Being gay; intrinsic, out on campus is not trying convince people to be gay.

    Pro-life stance; extrinsic, trying to tell people something is wrong that does not affect them personally.

    Me wanting my mone back from SFSS is quite different from yours. I don't mind their club receives funding, if they aren't trying to tell me what to do with my body I really don't care how they think to be honest.

    Out on Campus has never once shown me a picture of gay sex to offend my senses, or tried to convert me.

    Out on Campus is there to support gays, Pro-Life club right now is acting to attack other peoples choices.

    I don't believe in Pro-Life but I'm not attacking their right to hold that belief, them expressing it in such a manner I do find offensive. If they want to tell their members that abortions or bad, or watch pro-life videos in one of the lecture halls they can go right ahead.

    Now, would you like to critique my logic with examples or facts, or just post irrelevant quotations or "shut up" "quit whining".
  • randomuser
    edited January 2009
    Morro;46008 said:
    If you DID go get the proper permits, I would very much support your right to put up that display.
    From what I gather of your ?'libertarian'? points of view, what do you think is the threshold of allowing people to express their beliefs and do what they want as long as they aren't huring anyone else, and when it starts to turn into actions like building displays in public? I mean clearly, we can all agree something anti-asian would be inappropriate, but what else?
  • primexx
    edited January 2009
    ^ nit picking the difference between freedom of speech and freedom of expression is quite unnecessary. we do have s.1, but even then it doesn't mean that we can't disagree with certain aspects of the constitution. Unless you're making a legal argument (I don't think you are?) you can't just use it as a trump card over IVT.
  • randomuser
    edited January 2009
    Thats fine, do you want to address the rest of my argument or just nit pick mine now :P?

    That really wasn't my intent, or main argument, it was just a quick throw in for someone inferring I should leave a country on that premise. I was mainly providing the fact we don't live in America, and freedom of speech is not the same in this country.
  • buflibufli
    edited January 2009
    xkcdwrongoninternet.jpg
  • Kevin M.Kevin M.
    edited January 2009
    nicccce bufli lol
  • randomuser
    edited January 2009
    bufli;46017 said:
    xkcdwrongoninternet.jpg
    Wow that comic is so me, I have never been so personified by a comic.

    Please sir, can I have some more?
  • buflibufli
    edited January 2009
    hmm strange i don't recall directing the comic at you
  • primexx
    edited January 2009
    randomuser;46016 said:
    Thats fine, do you want to address the rest of my argument or just nit pick mine now :P?

    That really wasn't my intent, or main argument, it was just a quick throw in for someone inferring I should leave a country on that premise. I was mainly providing the fact we don't live in America, and freedom of speech is not the same in this country.
    well, you're still making a descriptive claim ("the fact we don't live in America, and freedom of speech is not the same in this country") which doesn't have much to say in a normative argument.

    I already did address your question on free speech, it's that quote & video I included in my first post in this topic.
  • NukeChem
    edited January 2009
    Out on Campus has never once shown me a picture of gay sex to offend my senses, or tried to convert me.
    Damn, I knew there was a reason they refused my nefarious "Give every gay man a toaster oven for five conversions" plan! :teeth:

    For the humor-impaired, the above is a JOKE. J-O-K-E.
  • DaNoobie
    edited January 2009
    Just an aside, from what I know, it is an overwhelming belief amongst Christians (and I suppose Catholics too) that being gay is a choice despite numerous studies demonstrating otherwise.
  • NukeChem
    edited January 2009
    Oh well, they have to be wrong about a few things. Self-righteousness doesn't come as easily to the right side of an argument. :tongue:
  • PhilBPhilB
    edited January 2009
    DaNoobie;46032 said:
    Just an aside, from what I know, it is an overwhelming belief amongst Christians (and I suppose Catholics too) that being gay is a choice despite numerous studies demonstrating otherwise.
    What do you mean "Catholics too"? Catholics are a subset of Christians, so I assume that what you attribute to Christians, you attribute to Catholics.

    Phil
  • DaNoobie
    edited January 2009
    Yah basically what you said. I wasn't sure if I should lump them into one or not.
  • randomuser
    edited January 2009
    DaNoobie;46032 said:
    Just an aside, from what I know, it is an overwhelming belief amongst Christians (and I suppose Catholics too) that being gay is a choice despite numerous studies demonstrating otherwise.
    Fair enough, to be fair they also burned witches at the stake and wanted to persecute those who said the earth wasn't flat and who also believed in gravity.

    Irregardless of what they believe, if you ask a lot of gay people whether or not it is a choice, or read the literature, there is an overwhelmingly answer of "no".

    I know you're playing devils advocate, but it's amazing this issue isn't done and over within the christian community, the whole choice to be gay, and choice to abort issue.
  • randomuser
    edited January 2009
    bufli;46028 said:
    hmm strange i don't recall directing the comic at you
    Oh, well I wasn't being sarcastic though, I am an internetz crusader.
  • randomuser
    edited January 2009
    primexx;46029 said:
    well, you're still making a descriptive claim ("the fact we don't live in America, and freedom of speech is not the same in this country") which doesn't have much to say in a normative argument.

    I already did address your question on free speech, it's that quote & video I included in my first post in this topic.
    What does me making a descriptive claim have to do with me making a normative argument. Why are you nit picking the most inane things I say instead of contributing something useful? I made a claim, we do not live in america, and freedom of speech is not the same in Canada. I don't understand when I was addressing issues of normality in regards to this subject? I don't think canada ought to have freedom of speech like america, and it was never my intent to imply such things. However, my normative argument in regards to abortion, was something separate from the freedom of speech tidbit. His freedom of speech point was an aside I chose to address, which I stated in my last post, which if you want to nitpick, was not normative, but matter of fact. It was not part of the main argument.

    Also, if you want to address me do it directly, I'm not going to respond to the authors of quotes or videos you provide me, even if I do choose to watch them at all.
  • buflibufli
    edited January 2009
    randomuser;46160 said:

    I know you're playing devils advocate, but it's amazing this issue isn't done and over within the christian community, the whole choice to be gay, and choice to abort issue.
    randomuser;46161 said:
    Oh, well I wasn't being sarcastic though, I am an internetz crusader.
    well i guess it seems like u want to be the opposite of a crusader on this topic , maybe u can get salah ad-din to help u take down ivt while ur at it
  • ThunderRooster
    edited February 2009
    bufli;46187 said:
    well i guess it seems like u want to be the opposite of a crusader on this topic , maybe u can get salah ad-din to help u take down ivt while ur at it
    Grammar and spelling are sub par, content references material and shows some thought. Value is mired in execution.

    Overall grade: C-

Leave a Comment