Iran leader denied WTC wreath request

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


Because, if Columbia University is going to unjustifiably excoriate Ahamadinejad for his views, it's rather hypocritical to employ someone who has similar views. .

Massad has organized holocaust denial conferences?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

I dont think Ahmahdinajad has a leg to stand on complainging about "rudeness".

It's up to you if you approve Bollinger's rudeness, of course.

However, approving of the rudeness doesn't mean Bollinger wasn't rude.

Unless, of course, you wish to argue that one cannot be rude to a rude/bad person, which seems absurd on it's face.

-Arrian

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Massad has organized holocaust denial conferences?

Now you're just being intentionally dense. It's my pleasure to own you again.

Bollinger said:

Why have women, members of the Baha'i faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country?

So presumably, he's not going to agree with Massad's stance on gays.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


It's up to you if you approve Bollinger's rudeness, of course.

However, approving of the rudeness doesn't mean Bollinger wasn't rude.

Unless, of course, you wish to argue that one cannot be rude to a rude/bad person, which seems absurd on it's face.

-Arrian

I think someone who is going to complain about rudeness, as Ahmadinajad has done must have a record of politeness themselves.

Was Bollinger technically rude? I havent yet seen a complete transcript of his remarks, and so I cant say. I do think that what is appropriate politeness varies with the circumstance, and that when you are a Univ President introducing someone who has defended and encouraged the most flagrant and repulsive violation of academic integrity in our time (which is what I beleive holocaust denial to be - YMMV) then the standards of what is polite are not the same as in other cases. Mr Bollingers words that I have seen quoted were far more polite than what I would have said. I consider him a model of etiquette for his degree of restraint.

[Arrian]

Anyway, Bollinger came off sounding like a complete ass. That he was addressing his comments to a man who has made an ass of himself in the past, and likely will in the present, doesn't really change that.

He gets in A in competitive asshattery.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon



So presumably, he's not going to agree with Massad's stance on gays.

Presumably he wont. So what?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Anyway, Bollinger came off sounding like a complete ass. That he was addressing his comments to a man who has made an ass of himself in the past, and likely will in the present, doesn't really change that.

He gets in A in competitive asshattery.

-Arrian

Should he have not invited the denier?

[Arrian]

If he couldn't treat him with a modicum of respect, NO.

If a man is not worthy of basic civility, then don't make him your guest.

-Arrian

[Ramo]

The whole enterprise was pretty silly. There's basically no respect why Ahmedinejad should belong on the same stage as a prominent American academic in NYC The man is both a bigoted idiot with very little of interest to say, and has little power and no credibility at home. If one or the other weren't true, this "debate" might have had merit. But all it does is bolster his importance in both Iran and the US (which leads to bad policy choices).

The other side of the coin is that there's a severe amplifying effect byAmerican asshats. Denying his right to visit the WTC just makes us look like closed-minded, and is probably a legitimate free speech issue (security issues could have been worked out). Duncan Hunter (not exactly an irrelevant politico regardless of how pathetic his Pres bid is- Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Cmte, Chair before the election) has called for cutting off federal funding for Columbia. It's the oldest trick in the book - domestic hardliners using foreign hardliners as a convenient foil, and we fell for it. This pointless handwringing has only made Ahmedinejad stronger.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Presumably he wont. So what?

Yet we don't see him excoriating Massad in front of the students, do we? Or basically calling him a repulsive idiot? Or making false accusations based on dubious evidence? I'm sure that if Massad were at a Columbia conference, that the university president wouldn't introduce him with comments of stating the university's mission to confront evil.

No we don't. Funny that. Could Bollinger actually be a disgusting hypocrite?

Nice to see that you'd resorted to one liners. You always do this when you've been whupped.

Now you're even doing it to Arrian. Why not simply accept that Ahamdinejad was wronged, whatever else he might have done.

[lord of the mark]

It does occur that if the UN were NOT located in NYC, this wouldnt even have come up.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


Yet we don't see him excoriating Massad in front of the students, do we?

because massad isnt a holocaust denier.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon

Nice to see that you'd resorted to one liners. You always do this when you've been whupped.

I do it when Im busy, and when they make the point sufficiently.

Do you actually beleive that the format of my argument makes your case?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

because massad isnt a holocaust denier.

Except that Bollinger didn't have a go at Ahmadinejad just for being a holocaust denier, but for a whole range of things, some of which were obviously fictional, and in particular, he had a go at him over human rights, specifically those of homosexuals. Now do you agree that someone who believes that homosexuality does not exist in Muslim societies is realistically likely to have a bad attitude towards homosexuals, or not?

Thank you, and do come again.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

I do it when Im busy, and when they make the point sufficiently.

No. You do it when you're being whupped and you're getting snippy.

Do you actually beleive that the format of my argument makes your case?

No, but I believe based on prior experience that this is a good indication that you know you've got nothing.