Page 1 of 4
Posted on May 27 at 3:45 a.m.
You believe what about them? They aren't even related. Here is where we stand Doversharp: Don't hurt people. Don't put your hands on them. If you cheat in class, the professor still doesn't get to put their hands on you and if they do I hope that any student vigorously defends themselves.Back to the trigger warning stuff, as you don't care about the anecdotal veterans on campus, there are a whole lot more students who have experienced a violent and traumatic event given this recent tragedy. I hope you consider their feelings, the rest of the world is moron.
On Speech Is Free, Sometimes
Posted on May 22 at 5:28 p.m.
Oh ya... blew it out of the water. Right into the "broad-based" range of 30% including staff (union and non-union,) faculty, graduate, undergrad, and post-doc.-Undergrads (the majority and who the concern regarding syllabi etc. is focused on) 23% - Less than half of the faculty even bothered. You hardly helped your position with that. I'm glad you're done with your other b.s though. I'm happy to chase red herrings all day; it slows down the aging process for me. I was dying inside reading the other inane commentary. Good thing the reagents haven't made any decrees preventing us from defending guilty fools because a lot of people might get "justifiably" assaulted by anyone drawing a paycheck if they had.
Posted on May 20 at 4:17 p.m.
Well that is what this is about Doversharp, warning students. Oh please, broad-based statistical analysis.... the campus climate survey had something like 20% participation (I'm not confident that number isn't far too high.) They offer iPads to students to participate. You aren't getting any reliable statistics on this. Even if you could, you are suggesting the associated students find funding for that "broad -based analysis" and a means to convince the student population who didn't decide to fund the recent Student Affairs request. Anecdotes certainly do cut it, they're all you're going to get. Not only are anecdotes going to cut it, they are the only thing that will. Individuals standing up and sharing their various experiences are exactly what cause things to change at UCSB. Raise a ruckus, get a result. Ask nicely with the numbers and statistics, get blown off. I encourage you to ask the Black Student Union how things get done on campus. -A disclaimer on a syllabus is not too much to ask of our faculty. -Your point about the Bible? Do you have to read the Bible Doversharp? Or any literature? Do you often find that you are stimulated as easily by the Bible as you are by a movie? You are implying that since there are rapes in the Bible we are good to go for screening them on campus.. In a weird way it seems you have more in common with the Shorts than would make you comfortable.
Posted on May 19 at 6:51 p.m.
Come on.. you all aren't mouth-breathers. The balance was tipped into erasing battery because the CHILDREN broke campus rules? You've got to be kidding. Come off it.
On the PTSD subject; we are all very well aware of the epidemic of sexual assaults at UCSB. I hope you are also aware of the silly shock tactics many of these professors engage in. Care to speculate how many rape-ish scenes have been shown on campus for one lesson or another? Your opinions are that the victim of a sexual assault can't have the courtesy of a heads up on the syllabus that a professor is going to show something like that, simply for the value they glean in shocking the audience?
Ken speaks about Vietnam and then disregards PTSD casually because people enjoy horror movies. Never mind your position is frankly disgusting, but you're well aware that there are veterans on campus right Ken? What harm is there in a schedule that says, on X date we are watching Restrepo, to which the veteran who lived it decides they'll spare themselves the heartache or blood pressure spike?
I don't agree with people getting over-the-top handouts, or being excused from tests etc. But Dover and Ken, you need to check yourselves, what the hell is wrong with you? Do not defend the institution when their position is untenable, you have to relent at some point.
Posted on May 15 at 6:29 p.m.
Yes, you've said you think she had the right to scratch somebody for not allowing an elevator to close. That totally washes....
-Police are trained and allowed to apply force to citizens in defense of policy and law... gardeners, professors, administrators, Subway staff, etc. ARE NOT. If in your crazy world they are then you can expect a hell of a law suit against the UC for not properly training their employees in the use of force. I'd love to see the professor's POST graduation paperwork.
-You are dodging simply because you've realized how tenuous that defense of her is.
-There is no entity within the UC system that gets to decree that battery is acceptable. Ever. Your attempts at re-framing the situation are sad, you can't paint her a hero for scratching a child no matter how justified you feel the scratches were.
-When you say the shorts are responsible for their injuries, that is akin to saying a woman is responsible for the black eye her husband gave her for the things she said to him. That sentiment is unequivocally wrong.
-Feminists do not harm little girls who have been misled by their parents. Adults do not harm children because they disagree with them. Professionals do not embarrass their institutions. Intelligent people do not engage in this type of blatant straw grasping.
-0 gray area.
Posted on May 15 at 12:28 a.m.
@Doversharp "When Miller-Young confiscated the contraband from the Shorts, the Shorts freely chose to resist. The responsibility for the scratches they received rests primarily with the Shorts, who violated Regents Regulations and chose to resist the enforcement of the Regents Regulations."
-So.... what level of force is appropriate to use when "enforcing" the Regeant's decrees? How much force is acceptable when stealing a sign? I'm assuming now that you've enlightened everyone to the absolute authority of the regeants and the freedom granted to the professors, janitors, groundskeepers, and administrators, to exercise force upon anyone in violation of the code which supersedes the law of the state or country. I'll also assume that the University has done their due diligence and given the professors instruction on just how and when to apply force to someone in violation of their law. Finally, I'm going to assume that you aren't the type to get on a police officer's case when they apply force to make sure the actual laws are followed, nor are you the type of person to shame a victim.
To sum up your defense of that moron: Offal.
Posted on May 12 at 6:10 p.m.
All the argument about signs is ridiculous. It is ridiculous that anyone is holding, UC Regeant's "law?" over the constitution. That aside, why and how can anyone defend an adult putting their hands on a child who isn't theirs? Please reevaluate if you are seriously considering answering that question with something along the lines of, "It was a couple scratches" or "she hardly touched her."
There is no ambiguity to this; if you put your hands on someone and they do not want to be touched you are committing a crime. If Doversharp is honestly going to take the plunge and say the reagents have granted the authority to violate our persons to any employee, I should reevaluate how long I will be on this campus.
If you pat someone's ass in the sports game, make someone uncomfortable with your looks or touches... you are wrong. These kids are claiming it not only did she not want to be touched but that they were physically damaged by the professor.
Don't be the hypocrite that demotes their concern regarding the sanctity of their own bodies. It is embarrassing and filthy.
Posted on May 2 at 7:02 p.m.
^ this guy.... So all those other PhDs have been duped and drank the cool aid. They ignore their own evidence and are all in it for the grant money. The odds that they're all dirtbags aren't in your favor noscams, you weirdo.
On Frack Not
Posted on May 2 at 6:56 p.m.
So when is the court date? When do we find out if she goes to jail?
Posted on March 30 at 8:54 p.m.
I feel like the author nailed it.
-Not relevant to the argument but-@Sealion: "I won't be cooling the rhetoric given how cool the totalitarian ice already is at UCSB and in most of SB's indoctrinated institutions."
I enjoyed that. Well written.
On A Voltaire Moment for Liberals