1 In context of the hearing where mass demonstrations were the topic, advocating genocide would by my convention meet pervasive criteria. No one was talking about private or in class academic discussions. 2. The concern is that these rules are applied differently to classes of people which would therefore constitute discrimination. We co…
1 In context of the hearing where mass demonstrations were the topic, advocating genocide would by my convention meet pervasive criteria. No one was talking about private or in class academic discussions. 2. The concern is that these rules are applied differently to classes of people which would therefore constitute discrimination. We could discuss if this actually happens. 3. The presidents would have done themselves a favor if they actually used the kind of examples you provided. That they couldn’t suggests they don’t really understand the issue. It was a trap but they walked right into it.
David, I think you’re going to continue to find that I write about my point, not your point, and once I again I invite you to leave if you don’t like it.
What part of "The college presidents did a rather clumsy job of saying, accurately but unconvincingly, that the answer depends on the context" from KW's post did you not understand?
1 In context of the hearing where mass demonstrations were the topic, advocating genocide would by my convention meet pervasive criteria. No one was talking about private or in class academic discussions. 2. The concern is that these rules are applied differently to classes of people which would therefore constitute discrimination. We could discuss if this actually happens. 3. The presidents would have done themselves a favor if they actually used the kind of examples you provided. That they couldn’t suggests they don’t really understand the issue. It was a trap but they walked right into it.
We agree they were badly prepared and handled it badly.
I find it hard to fathom that they were not prepped by a team of legal scholars and crisis management experts prior to their testimony.
Would have been helpful if you said this up front.
David, I think you’re going to continue to find that I write about my point, not your point, and once I again I invite you to leave if you don’t like it.
What part of "The college presidents did a rather clumsy job of saying, accurately but unconvincingly, that the answer depends on the context" from KW's post did you not understand?
The part where it completely refutes the commentor's complaint, obviously.