To be honest haven’t read too much about the protests. If it’s a private college - they need to leave the property. If it’s publicly funded via taxes, it should be fair game to protest on.
The thing is, if any of these schools had a KKK club, it wouldn’t even be allowed to exist let alone protest. The question is the double standard. These students have been allowed to use hate speech, intimidate other students, wear the garb and fly the flag of a terrorist organization, etc. Go wear a white hood on campus and you’ll be kicked out because it will make certain students feel unsafe. You could burn a US flag on campus but try and burn a rainbow one. Campuses have speech codes, there is no First Amendment protection, so all of this freedom of speech talk is disingenuous. Misgender someone and you’ll find that out quickly.
1 Like
Yes, this is a violation of the Constitution. Codes like this shouldn’t exist. If you are a racist POS and want to proudly display that, then the community at large should be able to respond as appropriate.
No longer a peaceful protest then so outside my point.
What about at work? Not for a private but say, a government agency? You could call a coworker a slur and tell him to just go and deal with it?
Cyrus the Great.
Useful idiots
Without a precise meaning for “Zionism” from the speakers perspective, this is extremely vague. But isn’t that an old Muslim tactic: intentional ambiguity.
The use of the word “Zionism” without a precise definition of what is Zionism and what is not Zionism from the speaker’s perspective is little more than smoke and mirrors. Nothing more than vague verbiage.
You didn’t need to post this twice.
At most, it violates the interpretations of a majority of the Supreme Court at some point.
Possible applicable Amendments:
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
14th Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If you can find where accepting a penny of money taken from the citizens means an institution can no longer decide who does what on its property, then you may well have what it takes to be a Supreme Court Justice.
2 Likes
The problem is, on college campuses there are restrictions on speech. This bill only removes the double standard. If you can’t say death to any country, outside of a European one or Israel, then free speech is being applied through some intersectional, feminist, marxist, CRT, DEI filter.
I also don’t believe this is restricting speech. A college can still allow students to spout antisemitism but the government isn’t going to give the school money.
1 Like
Guilty until proven innocent?
It stands in opposition to the original claim.
It seems to explicitly draw a distinction between a political movement and a race/religious group.
I was told that Hamas’ charter explicitly mentions genocide of Jews. I asked where and was given some sources. I found something contrary within one of the sources and pointed it out.
I did not find the sources given to back the original claim. I explained why that source could lead one to believe the opposite. It was not even my source, so if something within it is not conclusive enough for your tastes - great.
Maybe. Where did you get that from? I haven’t been taught to be intentionally ambiguous. However one instance from hadith comes to mind.
I think accusing with an unfounded degree of specificity is a more dishonest tactic than intentional ambiguity.
I thought you were being sarcastic and hadn’t noticed earlier that you had asked me twice if Muhammad (saw) would have liked that kind of power (Re 70,000 legions of angels iirc)
I don’t think he (saw) would have. He (saw) had a mission to deliver a message. That kind of military power would not have helped in my opinion.
Did his implementation of law allow women to initiate divorces? What were women’s property rights like? That’s roughly half of the population, so a decent starting point.
I wrote my entire post for the sole reason of wanting to understand what “Zionism” means to the speaker. In the case you mentioned, it is Hamas.
Just out of curiosity, what does “Zionism” mean to you? What do you think it meant to Hamas?
You found something contrary, but do you know what it means? As I see it, you found a vague comment that could mean just about anything.
As best I can find, “Zionism” can mean anyone of the following:
- Israel has the right to have a physical land area that can be called Israel somewhere on earth.
- Israel has the right to have a physical land area within what was called Palestine which they would share some of the land with a people who are known as Palestine.
- Israel has the right to have all the land that was once called Palestine and it be called Israel.
Or whatever other definition there might be. How would you define “Zionism”? Be specific.
It seems that “Zionism” has become a charged word that is thrown out to mean the Jewish colonization of another people’s land by force.
Can you honestly say that the word “Zionism” doesn’t carry with it a boat load of ambiguity?
Just to be accurate:
Matthew 26:53, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?”
What I said, a political movement. Being a little more specific, a political movement for the establishment, continued existence or growth of a Jewish state in The Promised Land.
A word can have a range of meanings. Hot or cold don’t need to have numbers attached to them in the dictionary. I consider any of those bolded above to be Zionism, to different degrees.
From the first paragraph of Wikipedia:
Yes, I honestly could, depending on context. In this response I am dealing with a person who wants more clarity, I made an effort to give some rather than argue over it’s importance.
I think it means what I said above with the three bolded descriptions. It makes a lot of sense to me and doesn’t present any logical inconsistencies that I am aware of. I don’t claim to know for absolute sure but I don’t see good reason to doubt it either
I wasn’t aware of that. I highly doubt that is what Hamas meant in the document.
That is how I understand it.
That sounds about right, specifically Palestinians however. Zionism has become a charged word that is thrown out to mean the Jewish colonization of Palestinians’ land by force.
You want to focus on one issue, ok. Women could initiate divorce in ancient Rome. That is centuries before your false prophet infected the Earth. So he didn’t do anything special.
Ask Mohammad’s first wife. She was wealthy prior to meeting his broke ass and his invention of Islam.
No, I explicitly stated that it was a decent starting point. You haven’t answered my questions.
Rome is not a person.
Dimwit.
By definition, this makes “Zionism” ambiguous.
AMBIGUOUS meaning: 1 : able to be understood in more than one way having more than one possible meaning
It was governed by men. Next question.
Now you know how everyone feels about you. But I understand why you would avoid answering as you don’t want to confront the reality that Islamic nations are shitholes.
1 Like
How about hot, or cold, or feminism, or isolating any singular word (by itself ignoring all other context) that can be found in any dictionary that has more than one and only one entry?