• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Ezra Klein on Yes means Yes

So what if a generation of males need be sacrificed, he implies sanctimoniously, against the justice of building "new men", contrite and brought to heel by feminism? Why let obstacles like "due process" get in the way of the lavish use of campus inquisitions, gender tribunals, and metaphorical guillotines ? "Blood" must be spilled to make progress.

Its sad that the feminist left (and their male fellow-travelers and part-time apologists) have betrayed their liberal roots - perhaps a few of them need be reminded of basic due process their ideological ancestors once demanded:

“(Due Process) embodies a system of rights based on moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our whole history. Due Process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just.”1 The content of due process is “a historical product”2 that traces all the way back to chapter 39 of Magna Carta, in which King John promised that “[n]o free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”3 The phrase “due process of law” first appeared in a statutory rendition of this chapter in 1354....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt5bfrag1_user.html

Sigh, one would have thought we made progress since the 13th century.

Yes, because getting barred from a college campus is exactly the same as being imprisoned, and/or being hunted down by the King's men.
 
So what if a generation of males need be sacrificed, he implies sanctimoniously, against the justice of building "new men", contrite and brought to heel by feminism? Why let obstacles like "due process" get in the way of the lavish use of campus inquisitions, gender tribunals, and metaphorical guillotines ? "Blood" must be spilled to make progress.

Its sad that the feminist left (and their male fellow-travelers and part-time apologists) have betrayed their liberal roots - perhaps a few of them need be reminded of basic due process their ideological ancestors once demanded:



http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt5bfrag1_user.html

Sigh, one would have thought we made progress since the 13th century.

Yes, because getting barred from a college campus is exactly the same as being imprisoned, and/or being hunted down by the King's men.

This is like a moral Gordian knot. Damned if you do....damned if you don't. The one thing that seems to shine through in this rule is authoritarianism. I have never had this type of thing hanging over my head and I have had a lot of sex in my life. It is a fact, the rule has the potential to be abused. It is a fact that in the absence of a rule, there also has been human abuse.

I just feel that our sexuality is perhaps too important to turn over to uncaring feminists or uncaring male chauvinists. Both of these positions have a problem... The biggest problems...lack of civility, lack of empathy, and inability to tell truth from lies. So here is this great divide and we in this forum must line up on one side or the other of this arbitrary line...go with the Feminazis or go with the animals in the animal house.

Sexuality is not and should not get too legalistic, yet genuine rapists force this on us and college authoritarians just wring their hands in glee. I have had some differences with women with whom I have had sex, sometime after we had the sex and the issue was not rape. At the time, I became aware of the fact that women have it in their power to make a rapist out of a consensual sex partner as the law now stands...even with all that due process crap. Lucky for me, the gal I was having issues with was civil enough to admit that all our sex had been voluntary...and we went on to squabble about other matters. But what hits me was that there is a kind of resentment that some women adopt toward men that seems to license all sorts of maltreatment and even false accusations.

Maybe the cell phone industry can come up with an app for "Yes." I have already seen something about that on TV news.
 
I think it won't make any difference to actual rapists and will make it more likely innocent people will get ground up and spit out.

A lot more clarity and definition needs to be added.
 

This appears to be a description of a forum with a few hundred members.

How is this evidence that liberals are the same as socialists?

It appears to be a secret forum where select journolists including specifically Chait and Klein went to coordinate.

Maybe you should go back and see how this matches what I actually said versus what you have imagined.
 
Yeah! Destroying innocent people's lives to maybe make some vague and nonspecific point sometime in the future!

Go freedom!

Oh my god, this is so true. Can't people see that it is obviously better to destroy thousands of innocent women's lives than tens of innocent men's toward a better future? How can people be so short-sighted! How can they be so warped as to put any value on the women when men's sex lives are at stake? ~smh~ Men are not going to be able to pick up on this new program quickly - not without actual jail time - don't they know that? Men are just not capable of learning about being damn sure. And these people are willing to throw away a few completely normally nonempathetic men when all that's at stake is thousands of women? :sadyes:

Sarcasm aside... this seems to mirror a lot of the same concerns and principles that come up in discussions of the Death Penalty versus Life Without Parole. What strikes me as somewhat surprising is that many people who I would otherwise assume to be against the death penalty because of the risk of punishing innocent people, are NOT against this policy, even though it also runs the risk of punishing innocent people. Similarly, some people who I might normally expect to see supporting the death penalty, because the uncertainty and risk of accidentally executing a very small percentage of innocent people is considered to be worth the safety of all of the law abiding citizens being protected by removing the vast majority of hardened criminals from society permanently... are the ones arguing against this policy because the trade-off is not deemed to be worthwhile.

Where are the boundaries drawn? For those of you who hold views that to me seem contradictory, what makes one policy acceptable and the other not?
 
Yes, because getting barred from a college campus is exactly the same as being imprisoned, and/or being hunted down by the King's men.
No, it's not "exactly the same". But it certainly does have far-reaching and profound consequences. Being expelled from a college can make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to be accepted to another college. There's a very high possibility that the effect of expulsion is to bar that person from being able to get a degree - it condemns them to work in fields that do not require degrees, and it could feasibly ruin lives in a way that is as drastic as imprisonment would be.
 
Yes, because getting barred from a college campus is exactly the same as being imprisoned, and/or being hunted down by the King's men.
No, it's not "exactly the same". But it certainly does have far-reaching and profound consequences. Being expelled from a college can make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to be accepted to another college. There's a very high possibility that the effect of expulsion is to bar that person from being able to get a degree - it condemns them to work in fields that do not require degrees, and it could feasibly ruin lives in a way that is as drastic as imprisonment would be.

All that may be true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with due process, which is a legal term, nor the history of that part of jurisprudence beginning with the Magna Carta.
 
Chait against Klein. I thought these guys were supposed to coordinate:
What, liberals and socialists? Why would you think that?

Well, does evidence count?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList
This appears to be a description of a forum with a few hundred members.

How is this evidence that liberals are the same as socialists?

It appears to be a secret forum where select journolists including specifically Chait and Klein went to coordinate.

Maybe you should go back and see how this matches what I actually said versus what you have imagined.

Because it doesn't really help (see above). You posted something that showed these two acting against each other, with the comment that you thought they coordinated. Then you presented the secret forum as 'evidence' of coordination (the same evidence that would have you and me coordinating), even though you'd just said they weren't coordinating. I asked if you were talking about a wider trend, but it doesn't look like you were.

I think it's pretty obvious these two don't agree, and I don't see that both being members of same private forum necessarily mean they're co-conspirators in some larger plan.
 
Chait against Klein. I thought these guys were supposed to coordinate:
What, liberals and socialists? Why would you think that?

Well, does evidence count?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList
This appears to be a description of a forum with a few hundred members.

How is this evidence that liberals are the same as socialists?

It appears to be a secret forum where select journolists including specifically Chait and Klein went to coordinate.

Maybe you should go back and see how this matches what I actually said versus what you have imagined.

Because it doesn't really help (see above). You posted something that showed these two acting against each other, with the comment that you thought they coordinated. Then you presented the secret forum as 'evidence' of coordination (the same evidence that would have you and me coordinating), even though you'd just said they weren't coordinating. I asked if you were talking about a wider trend, but it doesn't look like you were.

I think it's pretty obvious these two don't agree, and I don't see that both being members of same private forum necessarily mean they're co-conspirators in some larger plan.

I think we've all had enough Koch.
 
I think it's pretty obvious these two don't agree, and I don't see that both being members of same private forum necessarily mean they're co-conspirators in some larger plan.

But that's exactly what makes their plan so machiavellian.
 
So, wait, I'm secretly in league with dismal now? Man, I should really check my messages...
 
Yes, because getting barred from a college campus is exactly the same as being imprisoned, and/or being hunted down by the King's men.
No, it's not "exactly the same". But it certainly does have far-reaching and profound consequences. Being expelled from a college can make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to be accepted to another college. There's a very high possibility that the effect of expulsion is to bar that person from being able to get a degree - it condemns them to work in fields that do not require degrees, and it could feasibly ruin lives in a way that is as drastic as imprisonment would be.
The explosion of on-line and for-profit colleges along with data privacy concerns dramatically reduce those probabilities. And, of course, all of that pales in comparison to possible violence and rape from imprisonment.
 
Chait against Klein. I thought these guys were supposed to coordinate:
What, liberals and socialists? Why would you think that?

Well, does evidence count?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList
This appears to be a description of a forum with a few hundred members.

How is this evidence that liberals are the same as socialists?

It appears to be a secret forum where select journolists including specifically Chait and Klein went to coordinate.

Maybe you should go back and see how this matches what I actually said versus what you have imagined.

Because it doesn't really help (see above). You posted something that showed these two acting against each other, with the comment that you thought they coordinated. Then you presented the secret forum as 'evidence' of coordination (the same evidence that would have you and me coordinating), even though you'd just said they weren't coordinating. I asked if you were talking about a wider trend, but it doesn't look like you were.

I think it's pretty obvious these two don't agree, and I don't see that both being members of same private forum necessarily mean they're co-conspirators in some larger plan.

What I posted is there for everyone to read.

They can also see how you have attempted to twist it, and that I have refused to engage your twists because I did not say them.

But keep trying, I guess, if it makes you feel better.
 
No, it's not "exactly the same". But it certainly does have far-reaching and profound consequences. Being expelled from a college can make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to be accepted to another college. There's a very high possibility that the effect of expulsion is to bar that person from being able to get a degree - it condemns them to work in fields that do not require degrees, and it could feasibly ruin lives in a way that is as drastic as imprisonment would be.
The explosion of on-line and for-profit colleges along with data privacy concerns dramatically reduce those probabilities.
Do you believe that a degree from one of those on-line for-profit colleges is comparable to a degree from an accredited university, and will be viewed as comparable by prospective employers? I don't. I also don't think that those on-line and for-profit colleges offer the full complement of studies available at an accredited university. I suppose if your life's goal is to be a medical transcriptionist then you're probably okay. but if you want to be a lawyer, it might be a bit more of a challenge.

And, of course, all of that pales in comparison to possible violence and rape from imprisonment.
:D Perhaps there needs to be the threat of expulsion if prisoners don't get an explicit affirmation of consent beforehand?

ETA: Upon re-reading, I am 90% certain that your post in reference to on-line and for-profit schools was intended sarcastically. In which case, I apologize for being oblivious.
 
Oh my god, this is so true. Can't people see that it is obviously better to destroy thousands of innocent women's lives than tens of innocent men's toward a better future? How can people be so short-sighted! How can they be so warped as to put any value on the women when men's sex lives are at stake? ~smh~ Men are not going to be able to pick up on this new program quickly - not without actual jail time - don't they know that? Men are just not capable of learning about being damn sure. And these people are willing to throw away a few completely normally nonempathetic men when all that's at stake is thousands of women? :sadyes:

Sarcasm aside... this seems to mirror a lot of the same concerns and principles that come up in discussions of the Death Penalty versus Life Without Parole. What strikes me as somewhat surprising is that many people who I would otherwise assume to be against the death penalty because of the risk of punishing innocent people, are NOT against this policy, even though it also runs the risk of punishing innocent people. Similarly, some people who I might normally expect to see supporting the death penalty, because the uncertainty and risk of accidentally executing a very small percentage of innocent people is considered to be worth the safety of all of the law abiding citizens being protected by removing the vast majority of hardened criminals from society permanently... are the ones arguing against this policy because the trade-off is not deemed to be worthwhile.

Where are the boundaries drawn? For those of you who hold views that to me seem contradictory, what makes one policy acceptable and the other not?

Good question. if you take my post at face value (you shouldn't I was being sarcastic, and you acknowledge that, but if you did...) then one difference is that this policy happens BEFORE THE CRIME while the death penalty does not. That may not be enough of a difference for either of us, but it is a big whopping difference.

I would want these laws to be worked to diminish ambiguity, but I do not accept the oft-repeated claims that men's sex drives should not be blocked, even if it means women's lives are ruined.

I have no problem with sex being a little harder to get in order to diminish rapes. If people are unwilling to accept that sex might be a little harder to get when you are careful to avoid rape and they want to keep things as they are so that there is no risk of sex being a little harder to get, then it is not accurate, in my opinion, to call that the same thing as deciding to punish innocent people.
 
The explosion of on-line and for-profit colleges along with data privacy concerns dramatically reduce those probabilities.
Do you believe that a degree from one of those on-line for-profit colleges is comparable to a degree from an accredited university, and will be viewed as comparable by prospective employers? I don't. I also don't think that those on-line and for-profit colleges offer the full complement of studies available at an accredited university. I suppose if your life's goal is to be a medical transcriptionist then you're probably okay. but if you want to be a lawyer, it might be a bit more of a challenge.
Perhaps but then again, probably not. I noticed you completely ignored the data privacy concerns. Some places do not explain the expulsion or even mention it. So, expulsion may not be as big deal as you think. Especially given the recruitment goals for most colleges. There is an accredited school somewhere that will accept someone. So, the expulsion may not put as big a dent in one's life prospects as you imagine.
 
Back
Top Bottom