Anyone watch Ahmadinejad's speech @ Columbia University yesterday?

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: moshquerade

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the ROTC has to do with the practical concerns of privacy. It doesn't disallow homosexuals from joining the military.

No, it just prohibits anyone who "demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the military. So they can join the military, but they can't ACT gay. And if they're discovered, out they go (no pun intended).

The difference between allowing them to speak and allowing them to recruit is that words are just words, but if you allow them to recruit you are allowing them to actively discriminate.

You're wasting your time as it seems logic is beyond her grasp.

Are you posting as yourself or as a moderator right now? I want to get that clear because if you are going to start unleashing insults towards me because you don't agree with me then I want the same liberties.

I'm posting as myself, to ask that I'm not is Mod Baiting and is against the rules. However I will overlook it as I know how paraniod you are.

All I'm saying is that I truly believe that your alleged moral indignation over this matter to be disengenious at best.

You don't agree with me, that's fine. How boring it would be if *everyone* agreed with everyone, but you have this PROBLEM of crossing the line of civility whereby if someone takes a different view than you they must be a fool, close minded, have no concept of logic, etc.

Wrong. Yours is NOT the only right view.

Sometimes things don't make any logical sense. Saying that "don't ask, don't tell" is a privacy policy is one of those. You can't just make up your own reality and then call it equal.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: moshquerade

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the ROTC has to do with the practical concerns of privacy. It doesn't disallow homosexuals from joining the military.

No, it just prohibits anyone who "demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the military. So they can join the military, but they can't ACT gay. And if they're discovered, out they go (no pun intended).

The difference between allowing them to speak and allowing them to recruit is that words are just words, but if you allow them to recruit you are allowing them to actively discriminate.

You're wasting your time as it seems logic is beyond her grasp.

Are you posting as yourself or as a moderator right now? I want to get that clear because if you are going to start unleashing insults towards me because you don't agree with me then I want the same liberties.

I'm posting as myself, to ask that I'm not is Mod Baiting and is against the rules. However I will overlook it as I know how paraniod you are.

All I'm saying is that I truly believe that your alleged moral indignation over this matter to be disengenious at best.

You don't agree with me, that's fine. How boring it would be if *everyone* agreed with everyone, but you have this PROBLEM of crossing the line of civility whereby if someone takes a different view than you they must be a fool, close minded, have no concept of logic, etc.

Wrong. Yours is NOT the only right view.

Sometimes things don't make any logical sense. Saying that "don't ask, don't tell" is a privacy policy is one of those. You can't just make up your own reality and then call it equal.

I also recognized a lack of logic. I don't believe that it is uncivil to point out illogical statements/thought processes.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: NFS4
I thought that the University president was a dickhead for how he introduced him and I'm glad that Ahmadinejad called him out on it.

How was he introduced?

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: NFS4
I thought that the University president was a dickhead for how he introduced him and I'm glad that Ahmadinejad called him out on it.

How was he introduced?

The president of the univ came out and talked for several minutes.

He basically said "just because we are asking to you come and speak here, doesn't mean we like you. In fact you suck. And you're a petty dictator and a holocaust denier and an asshole and why won't you answer these quesitons and why can't we visit freely to verify the conditions in Iran. Now go ahead and talk."

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: NFS4
I thought that the University president was a dickhead for how he introduced him and I'm glad that Ahmadinejad called him out on it.

How was he introduced?

The president of the univ came out and talked for several minutes.

He basically said "just because we are asking to you come and speak here, doesn't mean we like you. In fact you suck. And you're a petty dictator and a holocaust denier and an asshole and why won't you answer these quesitons and why can't we visit freely to verify the conditions in Iran. Now go ahead and talk."

Ah, ok. Thanks.

 

[ManBearPig]

I rarely read through 4 pages of arguing between people, but for some reason i did...and I would have to side with Red Dawn on every point haha. Seems like on some things Mosh is arguing just to argue, even though it doesnt really make sense.

 

[djheater]

I prefer the Fark meme for Ahmadinejad...

AhmanAttentionWhore

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: Kazaam
I rarely read through 4 pages of arguing between people, but for some reason i did...and I would have to side with Red Dawn on every point haha. Seems like on some things Mosh is arguing just to argue, even though it doesnt really make sense.

You need to change your user preferences. This here is a 1 page thread.

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Interesting, could one then argue that selecting a student for admission based factors like gender or race rater than purely the merits of their educational performance and extracurricular activities also be considered discrimination?

The difference is, Columbia is not hiring you, it's accepting you to an educational program. Their fellowships program, on the other hand, is equal opportunity employment (even for foreign students).

The act of selecting or excluding an individual for a job or university position based on factors like sexual orientation, gender or race rather than their individual merit is discrimination even if that doesn't fit the typical PC mindset. You can't pick and choose how to apply the concept, it applies if you're talking about accepting someone to a university, hiring them for a job or deciding to serve them in a restaurant or not.

One could argue that the university discriminates against middle/upper class Caucasian students by accepting a number of "diversity" students of lesser academic qualification (Affirmative Action) for their limited number of openings based purely on race or gender. If the university can effectively discriminate against one group via it's admissions policy it seems rather hypocritical to prevent certain groups from speaking/recruiting on campus for the same sort of behavior.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Funny nobody has mentioned the James Gilchirst fiasco at Columbia. You all remember? When a bunch of students bum rushed the stage? What happened to freedom of speech guys? isn't Columbia supposed to be the pinnacle for free speech, no matter what the speech entials? wasn't that the rational of having Ahmadinejad there?

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Interesting, could one then argue that selecting a student for admission based factors like gender or race rater than purely the merits of their educational performance and extracurricular activities also be considered discrimination?

The difference is, Columbia is not hiring you, it's accepting you to an educational program. Their fellowships program, on the other hand, is equal opportunity employment (even for foreign students).

The act of selecting or excluding an individual for a job or university position based on factors like sexual orientation, gender or race rather than their individual merit is discrimination even if that doesn't fit the typical PC mindset. You can't pick and choose how to apply the concept, it applies if you're talking about accepting someone to a university, hiring them for a job or deciding to serve them in a restaurant or not.

One could argue that the university discriminates against middle/upper class Caucasian students by accepting a number of "diversity" students of lesser academic qualification (Affirmative Action) for their limited number of openings based purely on race or gender. If the university can effectively discriminate against one group via it's admissions policy it seems rather hypocritical to prevent certain groups from speaking/recruiting on campus for the same sort of behavior.

The difference is no money is involved. I also agree with you. In my opinion certain practices private university apply when forming, for example, MBA classes are quite unfair.

When I was in business school they told me they do it to have diversity in the class, in terms of careers and industries, nationalities etc etc. You don't want a class full of people coming from the same 3 companies.

In fact, based on the numbers, without this kind of policy most universities would have 40% Chinese students, 40% Indian students 20% rest of the world. I don't remember the figures, but the amount of applications from China and India was insane. I guess now it's probably even higher...

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
Funny nobody has mentioned the James Gilchirst fiasco at Columbia. You all remember? When a bunch of students bum rushed the stage? What happened to freedom of speech guys? isn't Columbia supposed to be the pinnacle for free speech, no matter what the speech entials? wasn't that the rational of having Ahmadinejad there?

It's been discussed in P&N. It wasn't Columbia University. It was an invitation by the Columbia Republican Students Association, who rented a room for the conference.

That's why other students were free to storm it, because there was no security, being the event not a university event.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
Funny nobody has mentioned the James Gilchirst fiasco at Columbia. You all remember? When a bunch of students bum rushed the stage? What happened to freedom of speech guys? isn't Columbia supposed to be the pinnacle for free speech, no matter what the speech entials? wasn't that the rational of having Ahmadinejad there?

It's been discussed in P&N. It wasn't Columbia University. It was an invitation by the Columbia Republican Students Association, who rented a room for the conference.

That's why other students were free to storm it, because there was no security, being the event not a university event.

I see the difference but I still think that it's hypocritical for students to engage in de facto cenorship at a school thats prides itself on being a beacon for free speech.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
Funny nobody has mentioned the James Gilchirst fiasco at Columbia. You all remember? When a bunch of students bum rushed the stage? What happened to freedom of speech guys? isn't Columbia supposed to be the pinnacle for free speech, no matter what the speech entials? wasn't that the rational of having Ahmadinejad there?

It's been discussed in P&N. It wasn't Columbia University. It was an invitation by the Columbia Republican Students Association, who rented a room for the conference.

That's why other students were free to storm it, because there was no security, being the event not a university event.

I see the difference but I still think that it's hypocritical for students to engage in de facto cenorship at a school thats prides itself on being a beacon for free speech.

It's absolutely hypocritical, but those are the actions of the students and not the university. Hopefully they were punished if they were identified.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Interesting, could one then argue that selecting a student for admission based factors like gender or race rater than purely the merits of their educational performance and extracurricular activities also be considered discrimination?

Or politican connections or how wealthy their parents are? What's your point?

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Interesting, could one then argue that selecting a student for admission based factors like gender or race rater than purely the merits of their educational performance and extracurricular activities also be considered discrimination?

Or politican connections or how wealthy their parents are? What's your point?

I'll quote myself since you obvously didn't finish reading the thread...

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
The act of selecting or excluding an individual for a job or university position based on factors like sexual orientation, gender or race rather than their individual merit is discrimination even if that doesn't fit the typical PC mindset. You can't pick and choose how to apply the concept, it applies if you're talking about accepting someone to a university, hiring them for a job or deciding to serve them in a restaurant or not.

One could argue that the university discriminates against middle/upper class Caucasian students by accepting a number of "diversity" students of lesser academic qualification (Affirmative Action) for their limited number of openings based purely on race or gender. If the university can effectively discriminate against one group via it's admissions policy it seems rather hypocritical to prevent certain groups from speaking/recruiting on campus for the same sort of behavior.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Interesting, could one then argue that selecting a student for admission based factors like gender or race rater than purely the merits of their educational performance and extracurricular activities also be considered discrimination?

Or politican connections or how wealthy their parents are? What's your point?

I'll quote myself since you obvously didn't finish reading the thread...

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
The act of selecting or excluding an individual for a job or university position based on factors like sexual orientation, gender or race rather than their individual merit is discrimination even if that doesn't fit the typical PC mindset. You can't pick and choose how to apply the concept, it applies if you're talking about accepting someone to a university, hiring them for a job or deciding to serve them in a restaurant or not.

One could argue that the university discriminates against middle/upper class Caucasian students by accepting a number of "diversity" students of lesser academic qualification (Affirmative Action) for their limited number of openings based purely on race or gender. If the university can effectively discriminate against one group via it's admissions policy it seems rather hypocritical to prevent certain groups from speaking/recruiting on campus for the same sort of behavior.

It matters what their qualifications are for admittance and what they constitute as a proper student body.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Interesting, could one then argue that selecting a student for admission based factors like gender or race rater than purely the merits of their educational performance and extracurricular activities also be considered discrimination?

Or politican connections or how wealthy their parents are? What's your point?

I'll quote myself since you obvously didn't finish reading the thread...

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
The act of selecting or excluding an individual for a job or university position based on factors like sexual orientation, gender or race rather than their individual merit is discrimination even if that doesn't fit the typical PC mindset. You can't pick and choose how to apply the concept, it applies if you're talking about accepting someone to a university, hiring them for a job or deciding to serve them in a restaurant or not.

One could argue that the university discriminates against middle/upper class Caucasian students by accepting a number of "diversity" students of lesser academic qualification (Affirmative Action) for their limited number of openings based purely on race or gender. If the university can effectively discriminate against one group via it's admissions policy it seems rather hypocritical to prevent certain groups from speaking/recruiting on campus for the same sort of behavior.

Oh please. What about when the university reserves space for the children of alumnis, big donors, or well-connected politicians? Is that not bias as well? You are doing exactly what you claim the universities are doing: cherrypicking.

One COULD argue that. Whether it would stand up in court is another matter. Give it a go.