Western Europe UK Student barred from free speech debate for saying ‘women don’t have penises’

submitted by SundogsPlace from voiceofeurope.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Wasn't this on the radio? They haven't barred him from speaking; just rescheduled the talk.

Edit: They didn't even reschedule; that was merely a recommendation.

[–]SundogsPlace[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

So it appears he was scheduled for a talk, bu then everyone got involved, and singled this guy out; after he was scheduled. For this guy to speak, the folks who want him to speak have to go through extra hoops, or it's a no go.

If the 'extra steps', aren't necessary for others, why can it not be viewed as 'barred'?

As to this being on any radio program, I'm not familiar with it.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

why can it not be viewed as 'barred'?

Because he wasn't barred…

2. Prevented, either by a physical barrier or by conditions.

He is barred by term limits from running for a third term in office.

— Wiktionary

He's not been prevented from talking. He can still talk there. They've just rescheduled when he was going to talk. There aren't extra hoops that have to be jumped through by "the folks who want him to speak"; that's already sorted.

[–]SundogsPlace[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Right, I think '2. Prevented, either by..........................., or by 'conditions'.

A condition-"noun: condition; plural noun: conditions

2.
the circumstances affecting the way in which people live or work, especially with regard to their safety or well-being."https://www.google.com/search?ei=3VVoXLXhCr-Q0PEPrsaR4Ac&q=condition+definition&oq=condition+definition&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.4533.10967..11187...8.0..0.128.1932.26j2......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0i131j0i131i67j0i10j0i13.qKhTZrCgnFg

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

And those conditions haven't prevented him from speaking.

He has not been prevented from speaking. The Student Union merely strongly recommended against him being there without security involved since they reckoned his presence was going to cause disturbance.

Ultimate proof: He was there. Therefore, he was not prevented from speaking. Therefore, he was not barred.

[–]SundogsPlace[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Okay, so originally banned, but allowed due to outcry would be what this was. Had no one mirrored, and spoken up, he would've not been allowed. Even as the post event article that showed him there, it stated he was 'allowed on stage', it never even said, 'hey, the libtard student union apologizes for trying to ruin the students event, and we apologize even further as we know what we did, actually cost participation in the event due to people thinking this speaker was banned'.... NOPE, NOT A MENTION. I'm glad they allowed him to attend.

Having that said though, everyone one of the articles you linked to, backed up that he was indeed 'conditionally banned'. You can shorten that to banned, and then once you read the definitions of banned, the wording was proper. I mention this, as I read through every link you provide.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I'm not sure why the titles of the articles said "banned", unless the society felt that the union was ordering them to ban him. What I've heard from interviews has been firmly on the "not-banned" side.

[–]SundogsPlace[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

It probably said banned, as the university used that wording, as well as the man who was 'banned'; he also used it.

I don't think there's much of an issue with the word banned, in this context. The bat-s***-crazy liberals, know to publicly demonize events like this.

While what they did actually garnered more attention, and did result in the man 'being allowed on stage', but how many people did it detour from the actual event?

Due to the student unions actions, how many didn't attend? How many pertinent questions, or answers were never spoken?

It's not a freak occurrence what was done in the situation outlined in the article. It's somewhat of a common ploy by the far gone liberal left.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You're asking questions. You should know that I'm not omniscient. Do the research, call the people, gather the data. That's how to find the answers.

[–]SundogsPlace[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I think we've all seen 'absolute fact' in journalism, where even the experts agree that the topic turns out to be contrived. I'm trying to comprehend where you're coming from; as you seem to dismiss topics based off of wording used, rather than what potential merit is there.

My questions were directed towards you; as in our current state in time, the regular journalists, the ones paid to lie, and now that are learning to code(LOL), well, we're seeing their lies unfold everywhere. Also, I think it is somewhat an effect of the same, but it seems like it's becoming common for people to raise a stink over things that would've never been issues; without modern society 'creating' a reason to make them such.

Oh, and thanks for letting me know your not omniscient.