• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

Hercules56 said:
Now back to the OP.
Click to expand...

Great!

Upchurch said:
BUT, let's do a quick sanity check here.

What we're talking about is a school policy meant to prevent harassment of minority students, faculty, and visitors on campus. It is, in no way, absolutist and distinguishes between accidental misgendering and malicious harassment. It should be obvious, but they are writing it out to avoid an Air Buddy* situation.

The one, single, solitary use of the word "violence" has a clear context and plenty of people have provided appropriate and widely used definitions for non-physical violence. At this point, suggesting that CU Boulder meant otherwise is merely stubbornness or bad-faith arguments.

It does not stifle academic discussion about preferred pronouns, since those can be had in the abstract without misgendering anyone. So, the OP can still take their Gender Studies courses and not worry about expressing their opinions about preferred pronouns getting them kicked out of school. (Getting kicked out for failing courses, like Gender Studies, is a separate matter.)




* Where the movie happens because there is no explicit rule that a dog can't play basketball.
Click to expand...

What is the concern?
 
Upchurch said:
Great!

​

What is the concern?
Click to expand...

The common understanding of the term violence, includes physical acts of assault. Hence the phrases "non-violent protest" and "non-violent resistance" mean resistance and protest without physical confrontation. I don't think it's proper to accuse someone of violence when they do not engage in physical attacks or threaten physical attacks. Based on the commonly understood and accepted meaning of violence.
 
Hercules56 said:
The common understanding of the term violence, includes physical acts of assault. Hence the phrases "non-violent protest" and "non-violent resistance" mean resistance and protest without physical confrontation. I don't think it's proper to accuse someone of violence when they do not engage in physical attacks or threaten physical attacks. Based on the commonly understood and accepted meaning of violence.
Click to expand...

Where did you study Etymology?
 
Upchurch said:
But not all violence is an assault. It's a straw man.
Click to expand...

Hercules56 said:
And yet we have the phrases non-violent resistance and nonviolent protest, which both mean acts without physical altercation.
Click to expand...

You have lost this argument. There can be physical contact that is non violent and violent conduct that is non physical. If you are still struggling, get a child to explain it to you rather than than simply rephrasing your ignorance.
 
Hercules56 said:
The common understanding of the term ...[snip] Based on the commonly understood... [snip]
Click to expand...

As an aside, I would consider this an "argument from common sense" which, in my own words, roughly means "This is something I believe is true, but have not made the effort to examine or verify. I take it as axiomatic".

Whenever I see the phrase "common sense", of which the above is a variation, I point out the red flag of logical fallacy and move on.

Before I submitted this post, I googled. It turns out that Wikipedia identifies Argument from Common Sense as a form of an Argument from incredulityWP, which makes sense to me, even though I hadn't thought of it in those terms.
 
Upchurch said:
As an aside, I would consider this an "argument from common sense" which, in my own words, roughly means "This is something I believe is true, but have not made the effort to examine or verify. I take it as axiomatic".

Whenever I see the phrase "common sense", of which the above is a variation, I point out the red flag of logical fallacy and move on.

Before I submitted this post, I googled. It turns out that Wikipedia identifies Argument from Common Sense as a form of an Argument from incredulityWP, which makes sense to me, even though I hadn't thought of it in those terms.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that its arguments from "common knowledge" that are worse.

Its "common knowledge" that violence only means physical contact... wrong.

Its "common knowledge" that until very recently no one in the USA was ever criminally prosecuted or convicted for speech barring very narrow circumstances (like divulging classified national secrets).... wrong.

Its "common knowledge" that the founding fathers were free speech absolutists.... wrong.
 
Last edited:
sarge said:
Stop.
Right.
There.

You have spent pages arguing that words can never visit violence. You have been shown using your own source (OED) that the definition of violence may include mere use of words. Now you have been shown conclusively that the principle carries the full weight of law everywhere in the US.

Personal integrity requires you to admit your errors if you wish to participate meaningfully in this discussion going forward. No more weasel words. Something like “I was wrong about what may constitute violence, but I still oppose the policy because….” would work. I can think of several places you could start:

I oppose the policy on first amendment grounds
I oppose the policy on religious grounds
I oppose the policy on practical grounds
Click to expand...

Hercules56 said:
Sigh. I have a basic understanding of the first amendment. The New Mexico statute appears to violate that.

Now back to the OP.
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed my post. Care to salvage your integrity?
 
Upchurch said:
As an aside, I would consider this an "argument from common sense" which, in my own words, roughly means "This is something I believe is true, but have not made the effort to examine or verify. I take it as axiomatic".



Whenever I see the phrase "common sense", of which the above is a variation, I point out the red flag of logical fallacy and move on.



Before I submitted this post, I googled. It turns out that Wikipedia identifies Argument from Common Sense as a form of an Argument from incredulityWP, which makes sense to me, even though I hadn't thought of it in those terms.
Click to expand...
Yes, often with a hefty dose of Appeal to Tradition.
 
Hercules56 said:
I nor my integrity, are the subject of this discussion..
Click to expand...

Well, I hope you don't think the subject of this discussion is to convince people that CU Boulder was asserting that using the wrong pronouns is physical violence against people.

If so, what is your play here? Making the claim that violence is always physical over and over again is not going to convince anyone who can read the English language over a junior high school level, especially not after the multitude of examples and definitions that all of us, including yourself, have provided.

So, what are you trying to accomplish in this thread, really?
 
Upchurch said:
Well, I hope you don't think the subject of this discussion is to convince people that CU Boulder was asserting that using the wrong pronouns is physical violence against people.

If so, what is your play here? Making the claim that violence is always physical over and over again is not going to convince anyone who can read the English language over a junior high school level, especially not after the multitude of examples and definitions that all of us, including yourself, have provided.

So, what are you trying to accomplish in this thread, really?
Click to expand...

What about the hypothesis that if simple rudeness can be seen as criminal violence, we should expect to see mainstream media reports and court cases about people who have committed the violent crime of being rude?

If using someone's non-preferred pronouns can be seen as an act of violence, then so can a lot of other mean words and phrases. We should be seeing a lot of allegations of violent crime, a lot of criminal charges being brought and going to trial, for calling people bad names.

Do we see that?

Would that even be desirable?

Is that how we want the next generation of our society to think about being insulted? That perhaps they're the victim of a violent crime?
 
theprestige said:
What about the hypothesis that if simple rudeness can be seen as criminal violence,
Click to expand...
That premise does not appear to be part of CU Boulder's statement or an argument that anyone is making. As Hercules56 appears to be very particular about the thread sticking to the topic of the OP, that's probably off-topic.
 
Upchurch said:
That premise does not appear to be part of CU Boulder's statement or an argument that anyone is making. As Hercules56 appears to be very particular about the thread sticking to the topic of the OP, that's probably off-topic.
Click to expand...

Its a shame the good folks at UC Boulder were not asked to elaborate on their policy. I shall inquire.
 
Upchurch said:
That premise does not appear to be part of CU Boulder's statement or an argument that anyone is making. As Hercules56 appears to be very particular about the thread sticking to the topic of the OP, that's probably off-topic.
Click to expand...

"Can be seen as an act of violence" is right there in the text. There's the premise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom