Iran leader denied WTC wreath request

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

I have had many interesting discussions with folks here who have criticized Israel, as many here can attest.

Except that we often reach a point at which you simply clam up in the face of the evidence, as has happened here.

AFAIK, none have expressed the views wrt to the holocaust that Ahmadinajad has.

Big deal. His views on the holocaust, whatever they are, do not give Lee Bollinger the right to act like that. Frankly, I feel that Ariel Sharon is or was an evil sack of crap, but I wouldn't like it if the same thing happened to him. It's just not on in an academic setting.

Let's compare this with the visit of Netanyahu to Concordia. In that case, the students were right to protest and try to prevent him from speaking on campus, because that particular speech was closed to opponents of Netanyahu, so that he could not be confronted and questioned about his disgusting views. In the Columbia case, students were not prevented from attending the Ahamadinejad event based on their political or religious views, and students with virulenty opposing views were allowed both to attend and to ask critical questions of him.

If you are invited to speak at a university, you should be treated with respect, as long as you agree to allow your opponents to hear your speech, and, if appropriate, ask critical questions.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil


That is the way it looks.

"I'd like to Thank Ms. Clinton for attending our forum tonight. Of course we all know her as a carpetbagger that also happens to be an enabler for a philanderer. Perhaps she will be kind enough to address these issues tonight...."

Fair.

Carpetbagging and philandering is now in the same moral category, as holocaust denial, among other things?

What does philandery have to do with Columbia's mission as an academic institution? Holocaust denial is a flagrant assault on academic as well as being morally repulsive.

[Shrapnel12]

Arrian,
My excuse for Bush is that we didn't have anyone better to vote for (matter of opinion of course), but that's not proof that we're not morons because if we were smart, we'd never be in a position where we only have bad options for president in the first place.

Wezil,
You seem like a pretty reasonable person. I was actually refering to people like Aggie. Does this really reflect your opinion of the US as a country though? Are you really going to let what one university president says determine your view of the country as a whole? You may not have a PHD (do you?) but your at least smarter then Aggie aren't you?

Anyway here's a summary of what I get from this thread so far:

Inviting Ahmahdinajad
Allowing him near WTC
Insulting a guest speaker regardless of their views

[Wezil]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Carpetbagging and philandering is now in the same moral category, as holocaust denial, among other things?

What does philandery have to do with Columbia's mission as an academic institution? Holocaust denial is a flagrant assault on academic as well as being morally repulsive.

Quit being obtuse. It is the nature of the introduction you give your guest.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


Except that we often reach a point at which you simply clam up in the face of the evidence, as has happened here.

I sometimes decide that I think a particular discussion is generating more light than heat. I think in many circumstances that is by far the best choice. Biting on every troll is a mistake.

and I sometimes simply dont have time to go on endlessly.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil


Quit being obtuse. It is the nature of the introduction you give your guest.

You made the Hillary comparison. That comparison is not illuminating, IMO.

Like I said, I woulnd have made Ahmadinajad a guest. You have said you wouldnt in your home, but havent said if you would have at Columbia.

[Agathon]

And I just found out that Columbia's own Professor Joseph Massad holds similar views about homosexuals to Ahmadinejad.

Glass houses eh? Sheesh...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil


Quit being obtuse. It is the nature of the introduction you give your guest.

If hitler were my guest, Id put poison in his food. Sorry if I dont meet some cultures standards of the sanctity of hospitality.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon
And I just found out that Columbia's own Professor Joseph Massad holds similar views about homosexuals to Ahmadinejad.

Glass houses eh? Sheesh...

You agree that Massad is not qualified to teach at Columbia?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I sometimes decide that I think a particular discussion is generating more light than heat. I think in many circumstances that is by far the best choice. Biting on every troll is a mistake.

and I sometimes simply dont have time to go on endlessly.

Especially when your co-religionists are discovered to have been doing very bad things.

How convenient for you.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
Wezil,
You seem like a pretty reasonable person. I was actually refering to people like Aggie. Does this really reflect your opinion of the US as a country though? Are you really going to let what one university president says determine your view of the country as a whole?

I wasn't actually reffering to this thread specifically. You've been around long enough now to have seen my posts on the issue. Just wondering where yu thought I was.

You may not have a PHD (do you?) but your at least smarter then Aggie aren't you?

No, no PHd. Aggie is pretty smart, he just has twisted politics.

Anyway here's a summary of what I get from this thread so far:

Inviting Ahmahdinajad
Allowing him near WTC
Insulting a guest speaker regardless of their views

I don't really care if Mr. Denier was invited. It is a silly debate for an institute of knowledge to engage in (as lotM rightly points out). It would be akin to inviting a Bigfoot expert to speak on the life and times of our unseen furry friends.

The WTC part of it? Meh, don't know. If he was stopped for political reasons then I think he should have been allowed to go. If it was security concerns, then fair enough. I just don't know.

But yes, insulting a guest during the introduction is just no good. There was ample opportunity to make him look silly during the Q&A (as actually happened wrt to the "homosexual" question. He looked absolutely ridiculous).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

You agree that Massad is not qualified to teach at Columbia?

Of course not.

Lots of Professors have weird views.

Although, I could see how you'd love him to be fired, since among other things he's pretty good at exposing the perfidy and racism of Zionists.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon

How convenient for you.

trolls do get frustrated when someone wont bite, for whatever reason.

No arguments from silence. I dont debate everyone. Thats my choice.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


Of course not.

Lots of Professors have weird views.

So why is Bollinger responsible for Massads weird views?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

So why is Bollinger responsible for Massads weird views?

Because, if Columbia University is going to unjustifiably excoriate Ahamadinejad for his views, it's rather hypocritical to employ someone who has similar views. Presumably, Columbia University does not see its mission as employing people with "defective intellects" or whatever it was that Bollinger called Ahmadinejad.

On the other hand, you could simply respectfully indicate disagreement with both of them. But that probably wouldn't have appeased the warmongering crowd.