4) And from the same article you guys were happy to quote, the pertinent point:

A liberal group, Progress Missouri, has also circulated a video showing the lawmaker stating multiple times while in office that "academic decisions should be made by academics ... not by politicians."

As long as he agrees with them, yeah?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:3) Maybe the results will show that Missouri's more restrictive laws lead to fewer abortions. Would you not want that to be reported?

A decent academic adviser would not permit "propaganda" to be a thesis.

Have you read the thesis?

If you really believe the outcome of the study is in doubt, perhaps you'd care to make a wager? If there was ever a rigged "study" this is it.

Not really. You will declare it "propaganda" regardless.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:3) Maybe the results will show that Missouri's more restrictive laws lead to fewer abortions. Would you not want that to be reported?

A decent academic adviser would not permit "propaganda" to be a thesis.

Have you read the thesis?

Meh, maybe I should have taken the time to edit my post a bit more. I was responding to several ideas from you, including this:

So we should shut down all academic studies which might be "propaganda"? Either you want free academia or you do not.

"Academia" does not equal "propaganda."

If you really believe the outcome of the study is in doubt, perhaps you'd care to make a wager? If there was ever a rigged "study" this is it.

Not really. You will declare it "propaganda" regardless.

Well, gee, with a PP executive overseeing it, its outcome is really an unknown, isn't it?

QED. You haven't read it, have you?

In fact, has anyone read it? You are calling it "propaganda" based on assumptions.

danivon wrote:QED. You haven't read it, have you?

In fact, has anyone read it? You are calling it "propaganda" based on assumptions.

I will send you $1000, no strings attached, if it presents a negative picture of abortion and PP.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:QED. You haven't read it, have you?

In fact, has anyone read it? You are calling it "propaganda" based on assumptions.

I will send you $1000, no strings attached, if it presents a negative picture of abortion and PP.

Whatever, kidda.

So it is either "propaganda" or negative about abortion and PP?

If only there were some possible middle ground.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:QED. You haven't read it, have you?

In fact, has anyone read it? You are calling it "propaganda" based on assumptions.

I will send you $1000, no strings attached, if it presents a negative picture of abortion and PP.

Whatever, kidda.

So it is either "propaganda" or negative about abortion and PP?

If only there were some possible middle ground.

Prove that it won't be propaganda, make $1000.

Put up or shut up.

Don't be such a knob.

Neither of us can prove how this study will be written up because it hasn't finished yet. And I have no intention of playing your silly game. The point is that a politician is trying to interfere with an academic study. Which is no less a breach of what universities are supposed to be about than when a speaker is banned lest they cause offence.

I also note that prominent SDA university Pacific Union College stopped an invitation for Ryan Bell (a former SDA pastor, recently turned atheist). http://spectrummagazine.org/article/201 ... on-college

Seems it is a general fashion, not just a liberal thing.

danivon wrote:Don't be such a knob.

Neither of us can prove how this study will be written up because it hasn't finished yet. And I have no intention of playing your silly game.

Oh stop playing innocent.

You wrote: "Have you read the thesis?" That was no less "knobbish" or "silly" than anything I wrote.

However, what I've said is based on reasonable inferences. The adviser on the project works for PP. So, it would seem fairly "knobbish" to believe the conclusion of the study will be unfavorable to PP or the adviser would simply step aside from that position and have the student find a new adviser.

The point is that a politician is trying to interfere with an academic study. Which is no less a breach of what universities are supposed to be about than when a speaker is banned lest they cause offence.

He's actually making a point. He believes public money is being misused. He could be wrong. If he is, I'm sure he'll lose at some point. However, that's not a 1st Amendment issue. The student is free to say whatever she wishes.

I also note that prominent SDA university Pacific Union College stopped an invitation for Ryan Bell (a former SDA pastor, recently turned atheist). http://spectrummagazine.org/article/201 ... on-college

Seems it is a general fashion, not just a liberal thing.

Horse feathers. The ration would run extremely high against you in terms of conservatives/liberals being disinvited.

Horse feathers. The ration would run extremely high against you in terms of conservatives/liberals being disinvited.

I think Steve is right on this point, although ultimately I'm not sure how much difference that really makes.The vast majority of students are far too busy getting drunk/stoned/laid to pay any attention to the guest speakers laid on by the weirdo activists.

Academia is an odd environment.

Sassenach wrote:

Horse feathers. The ration would run extremely high against you in terms of conservatives/liberals being disinvited.

I think Steve is right on this point, although ultimately I'm not sure how much difference that really makes.The vast majority of students are far too busy getting drunk/stoned/laid to pay any attention to the guest speakers laid on by the weirdo activists.

Academia is an odd environment.

*I meant "ratio."

You are right that it's a minority of the students who care about such things, but it is "the squeaky wheel that gets the grease." Plus, in many situations, the faculty (which inevitably tilt heavily left) also gets involved.

It's always been that way though. I was actually a very odd student in that I was a conservative at the time and involved in low level student politics (so doubly weird in fact). The whole time I was involved in that stuff our entire time was spent debating whether the student bar should be renamed after some Amazon jungle campaigner that nobody had ever heard of or trying to ban Nescafe from the shop in the student union building (both of these motions were passed btw, not that anybody paid the slightest bit of attention). It generated a huge amount of passion amongst the lefty activists who dominated student politics and seemed like a big deal at the time, but it wasn't hard to establish that nobody cared outside of the tiny self-appointed clique who were driving it. I suspect the same applies to the current wave of protests in American universities.

Apropos of not very much btw, it's interesting to note that of all of the people I knew who were even vaguely involved in student politics back then, the only one who actually went on to make a successful career in politics was a Tory. She's called Tracey Crouch and she's currently an MP and Minister for Sport in the current government. Needless to say she and I spent most of our time getting drunk in the bar while the more serious-minded of our colleagues were busy passing motions to set the world to rights...

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Don't be such a knob.

Neither of us can prove how this study will be written up because it hasn't finished yet. And I have no intention of playing your silly game.

Oh stop playing innocent.

You wrote: "Have you read the thesis?" That was no less "knobbish" or "silly" than anything I wrote.

It is quite simple. Unless you've looked at the material, you are just "inferring". You assert it is propaganda but won't even be clear that you have not read it.

However, what I've said is based on reasonable inferences. The adviser on the project works for PP. So, it would seem fairly "knobbish" to believe the conclusion of the study will be unfavorable to PP or the adviser would simply step aside from that position and have the student find a new adviser.

Again, you jump from two extremes - either it will be propaganda to promote PP or be unfavourable. What if it is neutral? What if it just takes the data and analyses the impact of new policies on abortion rates?

Do you have evidence that works produced under the same supervisor are biased?

The point is that a politician is trying to interfere with an academic study. Which is no less a breach of what universities are supposed to be about than when a speaker is banned lest they cause offence.

He's actually making a point. He believes public money is being misused. He could be wrong. If he is, I'm sure he'll lose at some point. However, that's not a 1st Amendment issue. The student is free to say whatever she wishes.

He is doing more than just making a point. He is demanding that they turn over the materials to him, and stop the study.

quote]I also note that prominent SDA university Pacific Union College stopped an invitation for Ryan Bell (a former SDA pastor, recently turned atheist). http://spectrummagazine.org/article/201 ... on-college

Seems it is a general fashion, not just a liberal thing.

Horse feathers. The ration would run extremely high against you in terms of conservatives/liberals being disinvited.[/quote]I said nothing about the ratio. Just that all sides can be threatened enough by opposing ideas to want to suppress them.

When I brought up my other example (Cardiff University and Germaine Green), that was of the "left" or at least the supporters of trans- rights trying to suppress something they dislike.

As Sass points out, most students don't get involved in politics, and those who do tend to be more left wing - which has been the case for generations.

The new "thing" seems to be to ban expressions of opposing views. Which is not good in an academic or a political sense.

Awesome post! Best ever!

Bunch of questions, no answers.

Echo chamber.

Totally worth it.

Free Speech..and the Internet.
CloudFlare has been accused of being used by ISIS to defend ISIS websites from hacking.. By Anonymous. (Even though Anonymous also uses Cloudflare) .

the company’s chief executive Matthew Prince published a blogpost laying out its view on free speech on its network.
Prince wrote: “A website is speech. It is not a bomb. There is no imminent danger it creates and no provider has an affirmative obligation to monitor and make determinations about the theoretically harmful nature of speech a site may contain …
“If we were to receive a valid court order that compelled us to not provide service to a customer then we would comply with that court order. We have never received a request to terminate the site in question from any law enforcement authority, let alone a valid order from a court.

”

“Even if we were hosting sites for Isis, it wouldn’t be of any use to us … I should imagine those kinds of people pay with stolen credit cards and so that’s a negative for us.”

Kind of a difficult business model... Your customers are those desperate to elude scrutiny of any kind.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... lping-isis