President of Iran at Columbia University

[eleanor]

[font="trebuchet ms"] So, as most of you hopefully know, Columbia University invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (the president of Iran) to speak at the university.

There was hell from some groups who protested the event and criticized Columbia for allowing "evil to enter" and whatnot, which I believe is incredibly stupid and close-minded, but that's not my main point.

The Columbia University dean also said, basically, that if Hitler were alive today, Columbia would invite him to speak as well. I applaud it, because the idea of talking with the enemy and getting a greater feel for their intentions and ideas can only help us in the long run. This recent mindset in the American people that people we hate are people we can't converse with is rather ignorant (when Obama recently said that he would, if elected president, negotiate/talk with Ahmadinejad, he came under heavy criticism).

My main point (finally):

But what I found rather undignified was how Ahmadinejad was treated when he spoke at Columbia. The university's president, Lee Bollinger, gave him a harsh introduction. Some of his quotes:
-"[you exhibit] all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator"
-"either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated"
-"I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions"

True? Yeah, maybe. Ahmadinejad said some stupid things, too, like how no homosexuals existed in Iran and that they were friends to the Jews, and etc. (we all know how much Ahmadinejad has said horrendous things and how much the US hates, him, so don't rehash it).

But why would Columbia do this? I thought a place like Columbia University would recognize the importance of learning, but instead the whole thing was just ruined when the president just called him out and insulted him in the beginning. Yeah, he's a morally corrupt man, but that wasn't the point of inviting him to speak at the University (or at least I hope to god it wasn't).

Ahmadinejad was invited to Columbia, actually [i]accepted[/i] the invitation, and then Columbia decides to make it a Ahmadinejad hate-fest? Where's the benefit of that?

[i]“Inviting him and then turning around and alienating and insulting an entire nation, whose representative this man happens to be, is simply inappropriate,” as said by Hamid Dabashi, a professor of Iranian studies at Columbia.[/i]

In addition, I wanted to slap each any every one of the people in that audience who applauded Lee Bollinger. You're not 'sticking it to the man', you're just being distasteful.

[i]
Ahmedinejad ridiculed Bollinger saying, “I think the text read by the dear gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here. In a university environment we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed by all”.

The Iranian president said, “… nonetheless, I should not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment”.[/i]

And here we see Mahmoud ****ing Ahmadinejad being the bigger man. This is just embarrassing.[/font]

[Darren]

Wow... O_o
I had no idea. I hadn't heard of it. (But I don't really get out much)
I just don't have any words. It's terrible and embarrassing.

I have to remain neutral on this. I think it's terrible that the Iranian president was the bigger man... But, then again, I can understand where the Americans were coming from.

Still, if they invited him, but then did that... It's just wrong.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=#9933ff][font=lucida calligraphy]Yeah I heard about it the other night on CNN. From what I heard after the initial debate or whatever he either refused to answer questions or just used more of his own retoric when the students asked him questions.

He never offered facts to back up his comments. And some of his comments (ie: We don't have homosexuals in Iran, I don't know who told you this) were just downright stupid.

I do agree that the University president should have maintained some dignity or at least a vague manenr of maturity instead of name calling and taunting the Iranian president there's really a time and a place for everything and a university is not a place for that type of conversation.

Sorry that I can't add any more to this to sound more intelligent, but I don't really get to watch the news that much.[/color][/font]

[The13thMan]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I only saw a bit of this on the Daily Show the other day so i really know very little about the whole affair. I heard some random girl (probably a student at Columbia) remark that she thought it was horrible that such an evil man would be allowed here in the US and not instantly locked up. I thought that comment was pretty lame.

I honestly know very little about the Iranian president, so i can't really give my feelings in that regard. I also don't know much about the meeting besides the very small portion i saw on the Daily Show and what you just said so yeah...

I actually don't have a huge problem with the president of Columbia University bad-mouthing the Iranian president. I'm all for free speech, and unfortunately that's part of it. Disrespectful? Sure. But i'd rather him speak his mind than censor himself for the sake of diplomacy. That's just me though. =D
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[James]

[color=#606060]I don't really understand the controversy about Ahmadinejad visiting the United States.

The fact of the matter is that he is the head of state of a country. Yes, he heads an oppressive regime and yes, you can definitely accuse Iran of multiple forms of human rights violations.

But you know, again, he is a head of state and he was in the US to speak to the United Nations. Even the worst of people do have certain rights, especially as sovereign states.

I don't think that allowing him to speak at Columbia University equates to support for him, either. I didn't see the logic in that argument from some American commentators.

I had heard that Bollinger's comments went into quite some detail about Iran's place in the world - unfortunately we only hear the rude soundbytes that the media choose to play.

I didn't quite think Bollinger should have called Ahmadinejad petty as such...but his comments about being provocative or ignorant are definitely fair. Ultimately I think it was reasonable for him to provide an alternative viewpoint.

I suppose at the end of the day if I were Bollinger, I could have criticised Iran without being directly rude to its President.

On the other hand, Ahmadinejad has said some outright insane and offensive things and this is what free speech unfortunately affords at times. Bollinger may have been a little harsh in some respects, but he certainly had the right to say what he did...and he certainly had the right to hold the opinion.

So I suppose at the end I don't have much of an opinion about Bollinger; my annoyance is directed more toward the media, especially those who equate a public speaking engagement with support for a dictator. The two are (and should be) unrelated.[/color]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='The13thMan'][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I actually don't have a huge problem with the president of Columbia University bad-mouthing the Iranian president. I'm all for free speech, and unfortunately that's part of it. Disrespectful? Sure. But i'd rather him speak his mind than censor himself for the sake of diplomacy. That's just me though. =D [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]Censor? Speak his mind? All he did was make himself look like a [I]jackass[/I] even more so than the President of Iran. Honestly, he didn't need the President there to state all that stuff. Free speech isn't about mouthing off in an attempt to look smart, it's about not having that right to have said opinions taken away.

The President of Iran looked like an idiot on his own, he didn't need the President of Columbia University to do that. Really, all he did was look stupid right along side with the President of Iran. He could have easily directed his comments as more politely spoken questions instead of being rude.

The whole thing was silly, they had the chance to let the President of Iran look like an idiot all by himself, but instead took the low road of trying to look clever by deliberately insulting the guy when it wasn't necessary.

[The Spectacular Professor]

Gah, how I pine for humanity.

I really don't think ANYone in the room was justified to do ANYthing done there. It's embarrassing to everyone involved. I think it basically boils down to another simple equation of mine.

People=Stupidity

Seriously. I'm no exception either. I've done more than my share of stupid and rude things (three years in a row. It's what some would call "middle school.") The only way to fix it... welll, there is no way to fix it, because people are predetermined not to get along. 'Cuz they're stupid. It's why we have wars, barfights, Nazis, the KKK, you get the idea, but my point is that everyone was out of line there and really should have shown more control over themselves, host and guest alike. It's just sad. If ya wanna hate a dictator, don't bring him here so he can hear you. You're a human, too, which means you're just as stupid as he is (perhaps more if you invite him into your home exclusively to diss him. He's a DICTATOR for pete's sake! Countries tend to own heavier artillery than Universities.)

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]While the comments directed towards the President of Iran were certainly rude and unnecessary... At the same time he also said some really stupid and idiotic things in return. XP My conclusion... Both sides were idiots. lol Though when you consider that those who invited him there consider him a dictator and such, one would hope that they would at least have the ability to be a bit more civilized in their dealings with the President of Iran. But it seems that such is not the case.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[font=Arial]I was actually sitting on South Lawn watching the big screen television. After all, I do go to Columbia. :p

It was quite a day, I must say. As for Bollinger's statements, I wouldn't say they were unfounded, but at the same time Mahmoud had a point when he said something along the lines of "In Iran, when you invite a guest into your home you offer them respect, not insults" which is absolutely true.

[QUOTE]-"[you exhibit] all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator"[/QUOTE]
Petty might've crossed the line, but the criticism is valid.

[QUOTE]-"either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated"[/QUOTE]
What's wrong with this?

[QUOTE]-"I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions"[/QUOTE]
Alright, this was over the line, but we'll never know if it's true.

At the end of the day, the President of Iran is a ridiculous fellow in many respects, so where's the problem when Bollinger calls out his idiocy? To be frank, there's no other way the forum could've unfolded... it was doomed to be an Amadinejad hate-fest from the onset. Things held as holy fact in the West simply carry no weight for him, and so any form of questioning his positions are more or less going to be highly charged. I doubt anyone could've truly stopped things from degenerating into vitrol, no matter how much you preached about "respect" and the like.

As for A-man saying "We should let the audience decide" I believe this was in reference to either the Holocaust or flagrant human rights violations. The man is a rhetorical genius, and while he's right, it's also kind of silly. To his credit, if I were an outsider and knew nothing of the fellow I would've thought him a very reasonable and nice guy.

On the whole, the day was amazing. I photographed all the protestors and thoroughly enjoyed being under seige for a day.[/font]

[The13thMan]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']Censor? Speak his mind? All he did was make himself look like a [I]jackass[/I] even more so than the President of Iran. Honestly, he didn't need the President there to state all that stuff. Free speech isn't about mouthing off in an attempt to look smart, it's about not having that right to have said opinions taken away.

The President of Iran looked like an idiot on his own, he didn't need the President of Columbia University to do that. Really, all he did was look stupid right along side with the President of Iran. He could have easily directed his comments as more politely spoken questions instead of being rude.

The whole thing was silly, they had the chance to let the President of Iran look like an idiot all by himself, but instead took the low road of trying to look clever by deliberately insulting the guy when it wasn't necessary.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]All he did was make himself look like a jackass? I believe you're underestimating the effect of Bollinger's introduction. It's obvious a lot of people feel quite strongly about the Iranian President. Perhaps he was one of these people. Actually, considering the bit he mentioned about the alumni being held under house arrest (among other things), i think he almost certainly does have some emotional stake in the whole matter.

Now, this is not to say that i agree with the way he introduced him. It was rude, i'm not here debating that. My point is that he should and is perfectly within his rights to say what he said. He spoke his mind. He didn't hold back like so many people do in those situations. The man's got cojones. It's unfortunate, though, that it was rude and innapropriate for the setting.

Free speech is about saying whatever the hell you damn well want. If that's "mouthing off in an attempt to look smart" then so be it. Too many people these days have mixed and greatly hypocritical views on the rights of the American citizen. Free speech does [B]not[/B] mean you can say whatever you want as long as it's nice or agrees with popular points of view. This is the case for other rights of Americans, but that's not for this discussion. I just have a problem when people don't realize the hyprocrisy of what they say. I'm not talking about anybody in specific though, so don't get me wrong. =D


[/FONT][/COLOR]

[quote name='AceBurner']People=Stupidity[/quote][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Hah, somebody sounds a bit angsty.


[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][quote name='The13thMan'][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Free speech is about saying whatever the hell you damn well want. If that's "mouthing off in an attempt to look smart" then so be it. Too many people these days have mixed and greatly hypocritical views on the rights of the American citizen. Free speech does [B]not[/B] mean you can say whatever you want as long as it's nice or agrees with popular points of view. This is the case for other rights of Americans, but that's not for this discussion. I just have a problem when people don't realize the hyprocrisy of what they say. I'm not talking about anybody in specific though, so don't get me wrong. =D
[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]He could have easily addressed all those points without being rude. lol And yet still fall into the free speech bit just fine. Don't confuse being a jackass and speaking your mind with freedom of speech. In this case he could have been the better man instead of making a point of being rude. That's not hypocrisy, but rather being smart enough to openly criticize someone without looking stupid in the process.

Personally, I really don't care, like Retribution said, it was doomed to be a Amadinejad hate-fest from the onset. I just find it ironic that other nations consider themselves better and yet can't manage to be more polite than the guest they invited to come and be a part of the whole deal. lol[/COLOR]

[The13thMan]

[quote name='indifference'][COLOR="Indigo"]He could have easily addressed all those points without being rude. lol And yet still fall into the free speech bit just fine. Don't confuse being a jackass and speaking your mind with freedom of speech. In this case he could have been the better man instead of making a point of being rude. That's not hypocrisy, but rather being smart enough to openly criticize someone without looking stupid in the process.
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Of course he could have expressed all his points without being rude. He also could've done it while wearing a chicken suit. The point is he [B]was [/B]rude. I'm sure he knew that what he was reading was rude, it was almost certainly what he was going for. This is just speculation of course, but seeing as i'm not nearly as educated as the president of Columbia University is i'm sure he would have seen the implications of his own speech.

Everybody here is saying that he was rude, no arguing it. I'm just saying that i'm fine with him being rude.

Don't confuse being a jackass and speaking your mind with freedom of speech? What's there to confuse? Freedom of speech protects the right of its citizens to choose to be jackasses who speak their minds whenever they wish.

The hypocrisy comes from when people spew pride all over the place about how great it is that we're Americans and have such great freedoms when they themselves don't fully believe in it. Lots of Christians love America and freedom of speech and praise God for America and yet they sometimes try to take away the rights of those who express anything negative towards Christians and/or Christianity. [B]That [/B]is hypocrisy in its finest. (Sorry if that offends anyone, it's just an example. I'm not accusing all Christians of this, only a few ignorant and hypocritical radicals.)

I don't want you to think, though, that i think freedom of speech is absolutely limitless. I know that when this speech crosses over into mongering hate and violence it crosses a line. If a KKK member got up and tried to convince us to start killing off minorities and whoever else they have a beef with, then yes, they are violating their freedom of speech and don't deserve to speak. But the President of Columbia most certainly did not do anything like that.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='The13thMan'][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic] Don't confuse being a jackass and speaking your mind with freedom of speech? What's there to confuse? Freedom of speech protects the right of its citizens to choose to be jackasses who speak their minds whenever they wish. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]I think you're missing what Rach and Crystia were getting at. ^_~ Because in a way I agree, for someone in a higher position or rather in one where they can speak to the President of another country, it is, kind of expected that they aren't rude. Doing so, in my opinion, made him look even more foolish than the President of Iran. He was invited to come and yet they couldn't even attempt to be polite to him?

Seriously, for someone who is educated, [I]supposedly[/I], that's just low and stupid. [[SIZE="1"]in my opinion[/SIZE]] I already know that the President of Iran is an idiot, only now I know that Bollinger is also an idiot as well. lol I don't expect him to not have his views or to not bring them up, only for him to at least try to be more civilized about it when addressing someone else. I guess what makes me sad is that it was a hate fest from the start instead of any real attempt to talk to the guy.

In other words, we often get too caught up in our [I]we have free speech so we can be as rude as we want[/I] attitude. I consider that to be a form of hypocrisy in itself. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Adam]

I thought the 'petty and cruel dictator' comment was interesting

First, the President of Iran is democratically elected

Second, the President has no real power, the clerics hold all the power in the country, the President is just a figurehead. That's why when Iran had a very moderate/progressive President, he wasn't able to do much

Third, while he has said a lot of idiotic things, he's also been GROSSLY mis-quoted by the media, who ignore any intelligent arguments he's made and blow up mis-translations as bumper sticker headlines...really, when is the media's job to serve as a propaganda platform?

It's a shame that our democratically elected, thoroughly incompetent, religiously fanatic President actually has power and the media doesn't do nearly as good a job at calling him out on anything.

[Gavin]

[quote name='SunfallE'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]In other words, we often get too caught up in our [I]we have free speech so we can be as rude as we want[/I] attitude. I consider that to be a form of hypocrisy in itself. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[SIZE="1"]Pretty much sums up my thoughts on this, why go to the bother of inviting someone you think is an idiot to your college just to insult him ? It doesn't make him look any dumber, it just makes you look like an ***.[/SIZE]

[eleanor]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]
At the end of the day, the President of Iran is a ridiculous fellow in many respects, so where's the problem when Bollinger calls out his idiocy? To be frank, there's no other way the forum could've unfolded... it was doomed to be an Amadinejad hate-fest from the onset. Things held as holy fact in the West simply carry no weight for him, and so any form of questioning his positions are more or less going to be highly charged. I doubt anyone could've truly stopped things from degenerating into vitrol, no matter how much you preached about "respect" and the like.
[/font][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Bollinger could've called him out on his idiocy easily just by asking him hard-hitting questions, which he did. Inviting a world leader to speak at your college, and then beginning it with insults is unnecessary.

If it was doomed to be an Amadinejad hate-fest because the US hates him, Bollinger didn't need to push it. Why did Columbia even invite him? If it was to further educate the students, then just let it be what it is. You don't have to humiliate him further; it's not like students at Columbia don't know who Amadinejad is and what he's said. Let the students ask him questions and laugh at his ridiculous answers by themselves.

There's a reason why the rest of the world hates America, and this is explains why. [/font]

[The13thMan]

[quote name='SunfallE'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]I think you're missing what Rach and Crystia were getting at. ^_~ Because in a way I agree, for someone in a higher position or rather in one where they can speak to the President of another country, it is, kind of expected that they aren't rude. Doing so, in my opinion, made him look even more foolish than the President of Iran. He was invited to come and yet they couldn't even attempt to be polite to him? [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Am i missing what they're getting at? There's no real way that i can tell. How would i know if i was without somebody telling me?

If the point you made was what you thought i was missing then you were mistaken. I know quite well how innapropriate it was for Bollinger to say what he said. He invited the guy and dissed him in his intro. Not very nice. I'm saying that i don't have a problem with it. I even give him some credit for speaking his mind with little restraint. Often times being politically correct isn't something we should strive for. Sometimes people need to be blunt and real instead of fake. It seems to me that Bollinger did this.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=SunfallE][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]
Seriously, for someone who is educated, [I]supposedly[/I], that's just low and stupid. [[SIZE="1"]in my opinion[/SIZE]] I already know that the President of Iran is an idiot, only now I know that Bollinger is also an idiot as well. lol I don't expect him to not have his views or to not bring them up, only for him to at least try to be more civilized about it when addressing someone else. I guess what makes me sad is that it was a hate fest from the start instead of any real attempt to talk to the guy. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]You sure do seem to know a lot of idiots. Perhaps you are judging unfairly? I mean... is it truly an opinion based on a decent base of knowledge of these two people or are you just agreeing with everybody else? I'm not accusing you of it, i'm just asking cuz i know too many people do this.

I think Bollinger was uncivilized on purpose. I think the implications and attitude of his introduction was part of the overall message. It was a mean message and i think that's what he wanted.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=SunfallE][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]
In other words, we often get too caught up in our [I]we have free speech so we can be as rude as we want[/I] attitude. I consider that to be a form of hypocrisy in itself. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate how you see that to be hypocrisy in itself.

I'd rather people be loud mouthed and obnoxious rather than reserved. At least when you're speaking your mind the true feelings come out. I get tired of all the back handed behind your back bullcrap. (Whoo, alliteration! And i didn't even do it on purpose) Sensitivity is for people who have emotionally tied themselves to certain beliefs and should be left with those people and those beliefs.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='The13thMan;792292][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]If the point you made was what you thought i was missing then you were mistaken. I know quite well how innapropriate it was for Bollinger to say what he said. He invited the guy and dissed him in his intro. Not very nice. I'm saying that i don't have a problem with it. I even give him some credit for speaking his mind with little restraint. Often times being politically correct isn't something we should strive for. Sometimes people need to be blunt and real instead of fake. It seems to me that Bollinger did this. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]You're not listening at all here. Try re-reading what I just said? [I]in my opinion[/I]? being rude is not necessary, you think it was fine, I think it was not and that there is no need to give him credit for doing so. I think one can speak their mind without being rude, it?s that simple. Being blunt does not require being rude. There is nothing fake about being to the point without the added rudeness. What?s fake is thinking that blunt and being rude must go hand in hand. Being real does not equal being rude. I?m not talking about being politically correct here, I?m talking about having better manners than Bollinger did. [QUOTE=The13thMan'][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]You sure do seem to know a lot of idiots. Perhaps you are judging unfairly? I mean... is it truly an opinion based on a decent base of knowledge of these two people or are you just agreeing with everybody else? I'm not accusing you of it, i'm just asking cuz i know too many people do this.

I think Bollinger was uncivilized on purpose. I think the implications and attitude of his introduction was part of the overall message. It was a mean message and i think that's what he wanted. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]I?m going on the statements made by Bollinger as well as the equally stupid statements made by the President of Iran. Not on what was posted here in the thread. My opinion may agree with others, but it did not stem from them. Yes it was likely that Bollinger was uncivilized on purpose and I?m still saying that to me that makes him an idiot who?s no better than the man he was rude to.[quote name='The13thMan'][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate how you see that to be hypocrisy in itself.

I'd rather people be loud mouthed and obnoxious rather than reserved. At least when you're speaking your mind the true feelings come out. I get tired of all the back handed behind your back bullcrap. (Whoo, alliteration! And i didn't even do it on purpose) Sensitivity is for people who have emotionally tied themselves to certain beliefs and should be left with those people and those beliefs.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]I think it shows a distinct lack of education really, the notion that being loud mouthed and obnoxious is somehow better than being more polite. I can speak my mind, get my true feelings out in the open without being rude in the process. It?s not about going behind their back, it?s about being direct instead of taking cheap shots and thinking that doing so is cool. To give an example I think you are so caught in the idea that being rude is necessary for free speech that you've missed the point of what it's really about.

All your doing here is reinforcing the image that all Americans are pig headed idiots who think being rude makes them civilized or somehow better since they have the right to be rude. Again, free speech really is more about not having the right to express how you feel openly taken from you, not the right to be rude. Though some see it as that and on some level it's true since that is a part of it, but it's not a required part of it and that's what I'm getting at here.

And my feeling on this is that Bollinger was a jackass instead of having the wit and intelligence to really carry out a good session of questioning the President of Iran. The hypocrisy is thinking that one [I]has[/I] to be rude or loud mouthed or obnoxious in order to be expressing their free speech rights.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[The13thMan]

[quote name='SunfallE'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]You're not listening at all here. Try re-reading what I just said? [I]in my opinion[/I]? being rude is not necessary, you think it was fine, I think it was not and that there is no need to give him credit for doing so. I think one can speak their mind without being rude, it?s that simple. Being blunt does not require being rude. There is nothing fake about being to the point without the added rudeness. What?s fake is thinking that blunt and being rude must go hand in hand. Being real does not equal being rude. I?m not talking about being politically correct here, I?m talking about having better manners than Bollinger did. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I think i'm listening perfectly well. It seems to me that you're the one that's misinterpreting what i'm saying. You gotta realize that not everything i said was a direct response to something you said. I never claimed you said anything about being politically correct. It was more of a side point of mine.

You're very mistaken in the fact that you think that i think rudeness and speaking your mind freely must go hand in hand. That's absolutely absurd. I don't know how you could have gotten that from what i said. Instead i said that i simply prefer that a person be rude and open instead of polite and reserved. Of course the opposites are possible. You can very easily be rude and reserved or open and polite. I prefer to go the open and polite route myself. But if i need to be rude and open i sure as hell will be. I think my main point here is that people need to speak their mind and speak whole truths instead of sugar coating things. People care too much about what other people will think of them so they will answer with restraint which often times lessens their true feelings towards something. Like... if a woman asks you if they look fat you shouldn't say no if she truly does. Unfortunately the truth (in this example) is often times connected to being rude. Rudeness is a creation of society and culture, truth is not (and if you disagree with that then i won't argue it here, that's a whole other matter).
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[quote name='SunfallE][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]I?m going on the statements made by Bollinger as well as the equally stupid statements made by the President of Iran. Not on what was posted here in the thread. My opinion may agree with others, but it did not stem from them. Yes it was likely that Bollinger was uncivilized on purpose and I?m still saying that to me that makes him an idiot who?s no better than the man he was rude to.I think it shows a distinct lack of education really, the notion that being loud mouthed and obnoxious is somehow better than being more polite. I can speak my mind, get my true feelings out in the open without being rude in the process. It?s not about going behind their back, it?s about being direct instead of taking cheap shots and thinking that doing so is cool. To give an example I think you are so caught in the idea that being rude is necessary for free speech that you've missed the point of what it's really about. [/COLOR'][/FONT][/quote]
[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]If that's truly the case then i think you're being a bit harsh labeling these people as idiots. There are real idiots all over the place, i don't think the president of either Columbia University or Iran qualify as being an idiot.

I actually wasn't implying that you were agreeing with people exclusively on this thread. I think the dislike and in some cases hatred of the Iranian President is very common everywhere. That's more what i meant. It's ok to agree with others when you truly feel the same as they do. It's not ok to agree with others purely to agree and especially to deceive yourself.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=SunfallE]
[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]
All your doing here is reinforcing the image that all Americans are pig headed idiots who think being rude makes them civilized or somehow better since they have the right to be rude. Again, free speech really is more about not having the right to express how you feel openly taken from you, not the right to be rude. Though some see it as that and on some level it's true since that is a part of it, but it's not a required part of it and that's what I'm getting at here. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Hahaha. You're so very wrong here. I'll disect it a bit and respond to each part seperately.

Reinforcing the image of Americans as being pig headed idiots? Am i doing so unjustly? Most people aren't very intelligent here in the US. The majority of America's citizens are frightenly ignorant when it comes to politics, laws, foreign affairs, sciene, medicine, spiritualism... the list goes on and on. I'm not calling out any individual here. I'm more going on polls that i've heard and observed and plain speculation (be it a slightly pessimistic one).

Rude makes people civilized? Dear God! How on earth did you get that out of what i said? I'm fairly certain i said the opposite to some extent, though not exactly. There can be a connection between the two, but there certainly doesn't have to be. And if there is a connection then i'm not saying it's directly or inversely proportional. It differs, i believe.

Free speech is about having the freedom to speech. That statement is quite plainly A=A. Freedom of speech isn't about not having the right taken away from you. It's about having the right and being able to choose how you use it freely. Certainly i prefer all people to be civilized and polite, but i will never require it. And i openly suggest (and in some cases demand) it when the opposite results in something "less" than the truth.

I agree with you. Being rude is not required of free speech. Barely anything is required of free speech. The only thing that i can think of required in free speech is simply not saying something that will directly cause physical harm to another person or take away the rights of another.

[/FONT][/COLOR]



[QUOTE=SunfallE]
[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]
And my feeling on this is that Bollinger was a jackass instead of having the wit and intelligence to really carry out a good session of questioning the President of Iran. The hypocrisy is thinking that one [I]has[/I] to be rude or loud mouthed or obnoxious in order to be expressing their free speech rights. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]One doesn't have to be at all. My point is only that i prefer it when it will help the truth to be adequately presented.


[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Rachmaninoff]

The13thMan, honestly dude, you drag things out and keep insisting that everyone is misunderstanding you when all that's going on here is they have a different opinion than you do. :animesigh As well as having underlying implications as to what others think that when called on you change your stance. Talking to you is like talking in circles since you always come back with 'you are mistaken and didn't understand me'

You questioned if Beth was simply agreeing with everyone and she said no in the context of the boards. Whether or not you were talking about everyone is pointless since her statement said she was going on what the two people said and not what others did. There really is no need to completely nitpick every single word when the general statement of what people are saying is obvious here.

Like the openly speaking their mind and not sugar coating things. No one is saying they should! Only that often we expect people in a higher position to at least try to be politer. It's got nothing to do with sugar coating the content.

Your arguing semantics and giving meaning to people's statements that isn't there. I think he shouldn't have been so rude, you think it was fine. XP How hard is that to understand? That's what's making you look pig headed and stubborn, you're arguing that it's freedom of speech and such when it's merely a difference in opinion here. lol

[Aaryanna_Mom]

I would have liked to have seen the insults left out as well since I feel they tend to make one look less creditable instead if really making a more constructive point. In all honesty, it's sad, I was expecting more and instead got the usual nonsense that I've come to expect out of these things.

[The13thMan]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']The13thMan, honestly dude, you drag things out and keep insisting that everyone is misunderstanding you when all that's going on here is they have a different opinion than you do. :animesigh As well as having underlying implications as to what others think that when called on you change your stance. Talking to you is like talking in circles since you always come back with 'you are mistaken and didn't understand me'

You questioned if Beth was simply agreeing with everyone and she said no in the context of the boards. Whether or not you were talking about everyone is pointless since her statement said she was going on what the two people said and not what others did. There really is no need to completely nitpick every single word when the general statement of what people are saying is obvious here.

Like the openly speaking their mind and not sugar coating things. No one is saying they should! Only that often we expect people in a higher position to at least try to be politer. It's got nothing to do with sugar coating the content.

Your arguing semantics and giving meaning to people's statements that isn't there. I think he shouldn't have been so rude, you think it was fine. XP How hard is that to understand? That's what's making you look pig headed and stubborn, you're arguing that it's freedom of speech and such when it's merely a difference in opinion here. lol[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I personally hate it when people try to end or sum up an argument by simply stating that it's a difference of opinions. I know it's a difference of opinions, i know it very well, that's why we argue. If it was anything other than opinion (fact) there would be no arguments.

Difference of opinion is no mere thing. I'm trying to convince someone else to see my side of things and make them come over to the dark side. I know that it rarely ever works. I actually enjoy arguing. So sue me. =P Actually, i prefer to call it debating. It seems less negative.

And i think that she actually did misunderstand a number of things i said. What's wrong with me thinking that and stating it? I admit that there's a possibility that she did not mistake and it's i that is mistaken, that is i've mistaken as to whether she's mistaken.

I also disagree with what you said regarding what i said being pointless about Beth simply agreeing with other members of the OtakuBoards. My point was that you need to think on your own. Don't be such a sheeple, basically. I didn't accuse her of it, only warned her of it. This is also not to say she needed to be warned of it (how exhausting).

I'm sorry if ask too many questions and am repetitive! God!! :animecry:
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR="goldenrod"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"][quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"] Bollinger could've called him out on his idiocy easily just by asking him hard-hitting questions, which he did. Inviting a world leader to speak at your college, and then beginning it with insults is unnecessary.

If it was doomed to be an Amadinejad hate-fest because the US hates him, Bollinger didn't need to push it. Why did Columbia even invite him? If it was to further educate the students, then just let it be what it is. You don't have to humiliate him further; it's not like students at Columbia don't know who Amadinejad is and what he's said. Let the students ask him questions and laugh at his ridiculous answers by themselves.

There's a reason why the rest of the world hates America, and this is explains why. [/font][/QUOTE]Exactly what I was thinking. XP People like Bollinger just make the rest of us look stupid too since it gives the impression that all of us would do that. They had the chance to do so much more and instead they couldn't even be mature enough to behave better than the man they insulted. Pathetic really. :animesigh[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Lunox']If it was doomed to be an Amadinejad hate-fest because the US hates him, Bollinger didn't need to push it. Why did Columbia even invite him? If it was to further educate the students, then just let it be what it is. You don't have to humiliate him further; it's not like students at Columbia don't know who Amadinejad is and what he's said. Let the students ask him questions and laugh at his ridiculous answers by themselves.[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]He was invited to provide his defense in what was supposed to be a "rigorous debate" so that we could better understand what he stands for. You're right that it's not mature or civil to toss ad homs at the guy, but let's acknowledge a few things first.

- Bollinger is a human, and as such he has very strong emotions. I'll make the dubious statement that when addressing the President of Iran, one's anger at his crimes sort of spills into you.

- This is free speech.

At the same time, you're absolutely right that ad-hominems are more or less intellectually bankrupt, but don't think for a minute that was all he was doing.

[QUOTE]There's a reason why the rest of the world hates America, and this is explains why.[/QUOTE]
Not really. The rest of the world hates America because we buck international law and do what we want when we want. Columbia inviting him to speak is a step up from what we're currently doing -- outright ignoring the fellow, even if there were some dirty blows thrown in.[/font]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='The13thMan'][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I personally hate it when people try to end or sum up an argument by simply stating that it's a difference of opinions. I know it's a difference of opinions, i know it very well, that's why we argue. If it was anything other than opinion (fact) there would be no arguments.

Difference of opinion is no mere thing. I'm trying to convince someone else to see my side of things and make them come over to the dark side. I know that it rarely ever works. I actually enjoy arguing. So sue me. =P Actually, i prefer to call it debating. It seems less negative.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]I personally hate it when I state what I think and people insist on continuing the debate when it's clear I have no intention of changing my stance. ^_~ I don't mind arguing and debating to a certain extent, but when that argument starts to go in circles a bit, I lose interest.[quote name='The13thMan;792355][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]And i think that she actually did misunderstand a number of things i said. What's wrong with me thinking that and stating it? I admit that there's a possibility that she did not mistake and it's i that is mistaken, that is i've mistaken as to whether she's mistaken. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]That's a bit of the circular deal I was talking about actually. [QUOTE=The13thMan'][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I also disagree with what you said regarding what i said being pointless about Beth simply agreeing with other members of the OtakuBoards. My point was that you need to think on your own. Don't be such a sheeple, basically. I didn't accuse her of it, only warned her of it. This is also not to say she needed to be warned of it (how exhausting).

I'm sorry if ask too many questions and am repetitive! God!! :animecry:
[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]What you did was first, ask me if I was going by what others said and I explained that I went by what the actual people said. Your counter if you will, was nothing more than a warning to not simply state what others think after I just stated that I don't? That's not a continuation of the debate that's being insulting and ignoring my clarification that I do think on my own. It doesn't make the debate any clearer, it comes across as you not believing what I already told you, I don't need the speech of it's okay to agree with others if you have the same opinion, but not if you're just doing it to agree. Especially since I already told you I don't do that. I live in Utah, a state that's so Republican that it's painful and yet I did not vote for Bush. I prefer to do things based on forming my own opinion instead of following others. So instead of following up with that...

Why not ask what it is about their speech that had me thinking they were idiots instead of pointlessly continuing the bit about thinking for yourself when I already said that I do. I'll give an example of why I think Bollinger is an idiot, he told the President of Iran that he exhibits all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator. And my thought is why not call him out on just what these signs are? After all he is democratically elected by the people no less. It was in my opinion a rude statment that did nothing to further the discussion at all. It made Bollinger look like an idiot.

Is my opinion of them harsh? Not in my eyes. Both of these men are in a position of power, different forms of power but still, one of influence. If that means they can't be a bit more polite or more direct with their conduct and discussions then I find that idiotic and stupid. Honestly, it looked more like a stupid, I can be rude to you so there deal instead of someone truly questioning the president of Iran.[/FONT][/COLOR]