Comments by
Page 1 of 5 | Next
Posted on February 13 at 10:17 a.m.Suggest removal
Easily the worst article I've seen in 3 years since I started reading the Daily.
"This is seen in both the terrorist attack of 9/11 and in Pearl Harbor."
If you think World War II and the wars in Afghanistan/Iraq are historical equivalents, you are far too ignorant to be writing any kind of article in a university paper. We were attacked by a COUNTRY in Pearl Harbor, and by an international criminal group on 9/11. They were trained in Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, just FYI.
"It is very possible that there would have been many more attacks on American soil if we hadn’t shown the world not to mess with us."
You have no idea whether that's true or not. Personally, I find the argument that our occupation of Muslim holy sites has exacerbated extremism and insurgency far more plausible. A lot of people in the intelligence community agree with that assessment. Perhaps you should consider the facts they've gathered instead of relying on speculative fear-mongering.
"So why are we wasting our time complaining about all we do not agree with regarding politics when there are men and women dying every day for us. "
Complaining is only a waste of time when there aren't any injustices to be corrected. Clearly, there are injustices in modern America. If anything is out of line, it's telling people to just suck it up because some other people chose to place themselves in a war-zone.
Posted on February 10 at 10:27 a.m.Suggest removal
Tank:
I fully believe public nudity should be legal.
When public urination, vagrancy, and littering harm property they shouldn't be.
But if you weren't justifying the government's use of a blanket ban on alcohol to solve those tangentially related problems, I don't see how your point was relevant to this discussion about the university using a blanket ban on tobacco to solve other tangentially related problems. At least, that's where I thought you were going with the example. My mistake.
Posted on February 6 at 9:41 p.m.Suggest removal
Tank:
You're still not making sense. Some of those activities are harmless (nudity), some (like public urination and littering) actually destroy property. What I don't get is why the undesirability of those acts should serve to justify a blanket ban on alcohol. The relation is tenuous at best.
Evan:
I wouldn't expect you to know whether my arguments are coherent when you clearly don't even know what they are.
1.) For instance, when did I say there was a "right" to smoke? What does that have to do with any part of my argument? We're talking about the desirability of a policy, not the constitutionality of it.
[I am not in agreement or any sort of collaboration with EvanIsDumb or the author of this article, so please don't conflate our opinions. For the record I see nothing wrong with a reasonable excise tax on tobacco.]
2.) I already acknowledged that some regulation was desirable. What we have is a disagreement about which ones. I said limits to indoor smoking, where there is clearly a risk to third parties, are reasonable. On the other hand, it's totally unreasonable to use that same argument to justify a ban on outdoor smoking, because third parties weren't in any real danger.
3.) You're not physically harmed - get a grip. I've got allergies myself, so don't expect me to buy into that hyperbole. You're mildly inconvenienced for a few seconds, and even then there are ample ways for your to avoid exposure. We're talking about the OUTDOORS, not an unventilated room, or any stationary location that you're forced to be in.
This isn't about public health no matter how much you want people to believe that's what you're standing up for. So far I see no reason to believe that second hand smoke is a valid concern with regards to the outdoors. Note that I am ONLY talking about the outdoors, NOT the indoors -- as much as you like to conflate them they are different because ventilation matters. If you can provide sound science to the contrary then I'll consider your line of reasoning. Until then, it's irrelevant to the discussion.
How about you put forth an ethical reason why your tastes and preferences -- because that's the only thing at stake here (your health and rights are not in any sort of jeopardy) -- are a valid reason to impose restrictions on the actions of others. My ethical reason to the contrary, not that a non-coercive opinion should ever require one, is that restrictions based on preference are disrespectful to personal choice.
Posted on February 6 at 3:35 p.m.Suggest removal
Alcohol causes vagrancy, nudity, littering, and urination?
Posted on February 6 at 3:09 p.m.Suggest removal
The thing is, you're not actively causing harm to people if you smoke outside - no more than people with cars are actively* harming others with their exhaust. That's why banning smoking OUTSIDE is DIFFERENT than banning the use of alcohol in motor vehicles or banning smoking inside of public buildings, both of which actively harm others. The point being, if your argument really is about protecting third parties, then it doesn't extend to smoking outdoors. By applying it to smoking outdoors what you're really saying is that protecting others is not what motivates you - controlling behavior you find undesirable is what motivates you. That kind of attitude is totally disrespectful of other people's autonomy.
*(the accumulated exhaust, however, does have an environmental impact, but that's an indirect rather than direct effect)
Posted on November 29 at 8:07 a.m.Suggest removal
Thanks for this. The critics who chastise OWS for not taking their fight to the ballot box have fundamentally misunderstood the movement's message: every level of our government, and nearly every member in it, has been bought by a monied interest. Big money would be needed to compete in the electoral arena in the first place, and for a group that criticizes such tactics, engaging in them would be hypocritical.
Posted on November 22 at 1:51 p.m.Suggest removal
So a safer version of the test comes out, you condemn it, and still call yourself pro-life. What a joke.
Posted on November 15 at 2:50 p.m.Suggest removal
If you think Smith's criticism have any thing whatsoever to do with the views on Fox News I find it hard to believe you read past the title.
Overall this piece had valid criticisms of the administration's priorities, but lacked focus.
Page 1 of 5 | Next
Posted on May 3 at 2:42 p.m.Suggest removal
It's my understanding that the Gender Neutral Housing coalition wants anybody who is forced to live on campus - i.e. freshmen - to have the option of rooming with either gender so as to avoid discomfort and promote safety.
If that's not what we're getting - i.e. if the plan excludes freshmen - then it's not a compromise. It's a totally different policy. It's Boren doing what he wants, ignoring what we want, and taking credit for "negotiating" some kind of bargain.
On