kunst nugget wrote: » They're not trying to actually legalize incest or forcing you to shag your sister.
jimgoose wrote: » It is traditional within the walls of Academia to use controversial, even outrageous, debate topics such as "Should Bestiality Be Legalised". This is quite deliberate, and goes back about 200 years with the Oxford Union.
givyjoe wrote: » Interested to know what purpose that ultimately serves, the ability to defend the indefensible? (That is an actual genuine question btw)
givyjoe wrote: » Good job on completely distorting my words, not even remotely what i said. No where did i say 'ban' anything I dont agree with it. I said incest isn't legal, nor should it be and that debating it is a complete waste of time.
givyjoe wrote: » I perfectly understand the point of debating societies, which is why debating nonsense such as this (in my view) is a complete waste of time. There's a million and 1 other topics (soft and fluffy or relevant to students) that they could/should use their time to debate.
jimgoose wrote: » That's part of it - useful for those who end up as criminal defence lawyers, for one example. The students and academics find that getting used to forcing yourself to compose and present a logical, coherent argument in favour of something you find absurd and/or reprehensible is a useful skill.
mzungu wrote: » At the moment marijuana is illegal, so should we stop all debates on legalising for medicinal use? Of course there is no chance of pedophilia ever being acceptable, or legal, which is why it makes for an interesting debate. It won't be a waste of time because both sides will develop their skills at argumentation. It is a college society after all, I've no idea why there is such furore about it. Exposure to alternate viewpoints is healthy and is pretty much the point of university. Long may they continue to debate such matters.
givyjoe wrote: » On cannabis, absolutely not.. which was the exact point I've just made and the opposite to incest. It has no chance of ever becoming legal and no right minded individual would think it should, hence putting students in a position where one side has to think like well 'someone who is not of sound mind' is not useful nor should it be encouraged. Like I said, some things are black and white. PS, no furore from me, i just saw the post about it and gave my opinions.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » you do realise that these debates are entirely voluntary?
givyjoe wrote: » As is actually going to college, but while they are there. someone decides what they will learn and how or rather debate.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » again, you seem to think they are being forced to participate. If they dont want to, they dont. these debates are not ran by the college themselves.
givyjoe wrote: » Hang on just a second, first off i started to defend myself based on something i didnt actually say, christ. I said putting students in a position.. i didnt say forced. I can put you in an awkward position by asking you well, an awkward question.. nothing forced about it. You can choose to answer, or not and just walk away. Just like these societies. Do me a favour and stop twisting my words
givyjoe wrote: » By all means debate soft and fluffy all you like, that sort of stuff has no place anywhere.
osarusan wrote: » You say this, and still waffle on about others who need 'safe spaces'. The lack of awareness is stunning.
givyjoe wrote: » On cannabis, absolutely not.. which was the exact point I've just made and the opposite to incest. It has no chance of ever becoming legal and no right minded individual would think it should, hence putting students in a position where one side has to think like well 'someone who is not of sound mind' is not useful nor should it be encouraged.
givyjoe wrote: » Like I said, some things are black and white. PS, no furore from me, i just saw the post about it and gave my opinions.
givyjoe wrote: » Sorry, but what... long may they continue to debate such matters.. as legalising incest.. get the boat will you. Healthy debate on any number of topics, controversial or not is fine.. that **** isn't.
givyjoe wrote: » Tell ye what, would you be happy for your son to be debating whether its ok to forecefully have sex with someone (i.e. rape) from the POV of the rapist. The general jist being, is rape shouldn't 'exist' or be illegal rather and should I fcuk whoever i want however i want, that they should think of ways to defend that position, put themselves in a state of mind to understand why that should be acceptable..? Sorry but, long may those kind of debates continue my arse.
mzungu wrote: » It is not like it was being put before the Dáil. The entire notion is completely zany, which I am sure was most likely what Maynooth were aiming for.
me_right_one wrote: » Unfortunately not. I was there that week. There is an air of "sexual revolution, lets get every norm and turn it on its head, just for the hell of it" about the place. Very liberal and PC. The place is full of vegetarians and SJW's. These people are naifs. But they are the ones who will shape the future with their attitudes, and more importantly, votes.
me_right_one wrote: » Debate is fine, but some things are off limits. End of story.
mzungu wrote: » I highly doubt all of the above.
mzungu wrote: » This is more or less a safe space scenario you are asking for here. If you want a safe space that is fine, however, you can not expect the college to change what they do just to accommodate your views on the matter.
me_right_one wrote: » Unfortunately not. I was there that week. There is an air of "sexual revolution, lets get every norm and turn it on its head, just for the hell of it" about the place. Very liberal and PC. The place is full of vegetarians and SJW's.
me_right_one wrote: » Unfortunately not. I was there that week. There is an air of "sexual revolution, lets get every norm and turn it on its head, just for the hell of it" about the place. Very liberal and PC. The place is full of vegetarians and SJW's. These people are naifs. But they are the ones who will shape the future with their attitudes, and more importantly, votes. Debate is fine, but some things are off limits. End of story.
me_right_one wrote: » Haha!!! Do ya now?
me_right_one wrote: » Well I highly doubt that you highly doubt it.
me_right_one wrote: » I suspect you know exactly what colleges are like and for some reason you are in a state of denial about it.
me_right_one wrote: an air of "sexual revolution, lets get every norm and turn it on its head, just for the hell of it" about the place. Very liberal and PC. The place is full of vegetarians and SJW's.
me_right_one wrote: » Maybe thats because you contribute to the naif-SJW culture yourself?
me_right_one wrote: » I have never mentioned "safe spaces". I dont expect anyones views to change to suit mine. careful, you're beginning to sound like a naif-SJW there.
me_right_one wrote: Debate is fine, but some things are off limits. End of story.
me_right_one wrote: » So who did fiddle with LON? Did she say in her article?
ivytwine wrote: » Disgusting post.
ivytwine wrote: » Ah vegetarianism, one step away from paedophilia. And you'd be the first to scream down the place about SJWs looking for safe spaces and trigger warnings no doubt.
RonFan wrote: » If power and responsibility are one, and women in a culture like this undoubtedly posses an exaggerated level of sexual power over men, what constitutes their obligation of responsibility in this regard?
me_right_one wrote: » I dont think they do. They have a sexual attractiveness, sure, but men equally should have a "self-control" responsibility, especially considering they are usually physically way more powerful than women. And to be fair, 99.99% of men do.
RonFan wrote: » Sex is the fundamental driving force of men, directly or indirectly. This does give women an inordinate amount of power. And there is a strong teasing element. "Tease all, toy with some".
Grayson wrote: » You mean when they talk to you and then don't sleep with you.
