What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

College professor displays painting of a decapitated Trump with Hillary (1 Viewer)

I don't hear anyone complaining about free speech.  What I hear is that people viewed it as distasteful, and also highlighting the hypocrisy with the way the Press treats stuff like this.   :shrug:
That might be too much for these alt left nutjobs to wrap their heads around.

 
Not because it was hate speech. The bill was a poorly conceived attempt to equate flag burning in the same category as cross burning, except flag burning is considered symbolic speech, while cross burning is not, as it is used to intimidate a minority. Flag burning was simply not analogous, which is why the bill failed and I have never heard of anyone being intimidated or feeling they were subjected to hate speech by being in the presence of the flag being burned. It was a poorly conceived bill, but again, she never referred to flag burning at the time or subsequently as a form of hate speech.
Yes.  As you pointed out, Hillary directly attempted to link flag burning to cross burning.  And everyone agrees that cross burning is hate speech.  QED.

I know it is incredibly important for you to have the last word, so I will drop this little tangent.  Nobody cares, and anybody who does can sort back through this exchange for themselves.

 
Yes.  As you pointed out, Hillary directly attempted to link flag burning to cross burning.  And everyone agrees that cross burning is hate speech.  QED.
Except, as I keep pointing out, Hillary was not calling flag burning hate speech. Flag burning going back to the Vietnam era, has been considered symbolic speech and to get it to pass constitutional muster, the attempt was this poorly conceived statute that tried to equate cross burning as also a form of symbolic speech and if it could be regulated, flag burning could be regulated under the same rationale. Legal experts considered it a rather frivolous claim but there was no argument made by anyone at the time that flag burning was hate speech.

 
If I may, I think I can sum up 2 pages of bickering thusly:

Hillary Clinton believed in 2005 that ONE of the following statements was 100% true--


1. flag burning is hate speech.



or



2. cross-burning is NOT hate speech./



We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.


 
Oh. Good thing I didn't teach reading comprehension. 
But I do agree with you.  My students really have no idea which way I lean politically.  I'm sure a few of the more astute ones over the years might pick up a clue or two but not many.

I don't even tell them who I vote for.

"Well, Khylher...it's like my Uncle Donny used to say 'there's a really good reason why we vote in private'."

 
But I do agree with you.  My students really have no idea which way I lean politically.  I'm sure a few of the more astute ones over the years might pick up a clue or two but not many.

I don't even tell them who I vote for.

"Well, Khylher...it's like my Uncle Donny used to say 'there's a really good reason why we vote in private'."
:lmao:

 
If I may, I think I can sum up 2 pages of bickering thusly:

Hillary Clinton believed in 2005 that ONE of the following statements was 100% true--

1. flag burning is hate speech.

or

2. cross-burning is NOT hate speech./

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.
Nope, neither - false dichotomy. She never claimed or said that flag burning is hate speech. And she never suggested cross burning was not hate speech. She and the other bill's sponsors were trying to claim that cross burning was also a form of symbolic speech like flag burning, except that was a really poor argument which would have doomed the statute under a constructional challenge even if it has passed.

 
Nobody here is actually advocating violence.  But if you're going to pick out somebody who is headed down that path, which is what adonis was trying to do, then it seems logical to start with the guy who thinks it's cool and provocative to draw pictures involving the decapitation of people who he doesn't like and the sexual enslavement of those who he does like.  Not the folks who are saying "Ew."
When trying to draw a parallel to people who lose their #### over stupid pictures, I think Muslims, the far left, and the far right are all pretty close.  A painting of naked Captain America holding the President's head is a 9th grade art student's project.  So stupid. Very much on par with the picture of Muhammad bending over and spreading his butt cheeks from Charlie Hebdo. 

 
But I do agree with you.  My students really have no idea which way I lean politically.  I'm sure a few of the more astute ones over the years might pick up a clue or two but not many.

I don't even tell them who I vote for.

"Well, Khylher...it's like my Uncle Donny used to say 'there's a really good reason why we vote in private'."
You mean they don't catch on when give them detention for standing during the Pledge of Allegiance?   :lol:

 
My impression is that relatively few people really support freedom of speech as a genuine matter of principle.  Most people are really good at inventing a reason for banning or otherwise punishing speech that they happen to dislike.
Wait, what do you mean by punishing? Because freedom doesn't mean freedom from consequences. 

For instance, I looked up this guy's other work, and he should be slapped in the face every time he picks up a paintbrush.  I think that's reasonable punishment.

look up his name and the word "Mother" in a google image search (NSFW)

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top