PUA, Roosh V, unwelcome in Toronto

Post Reply New Topic

Again, examples?

Even if I wanted to control your words, how would I go about doing that? I'm arguing with you, which means rebutting things that you say that I believe to be wrong, that's sort of the point here. What do you expect, that I'm supposed to internalize your beliefs and learn from them? You haven't made nearly a strong enough case for that, and I doubt anyone ever could on this issue.

Also, have you missed the part of the thread where fugu has spent an inordinate amount of time attempting to put support for Roosh's beliefs in my mouth, or are you only interested in criticizing the person who's disagreeing with you?

Not at all. I don't expect you to change your view on this issue. But it's more interesting to discuss the ideas than it is to get lost in semantics.


That's Fugu's fight. I don't think your position makes you a rape apologist.

Also, I have found that learning comes from the most unexpected sources.

I already have. feel free to continue dodging while accusing me of it. I've always been a fan of tragic irony in progress.do tell how else people would express their opposition to an obviously horrible person entering the country if not via legal instrument? interpretive dance in the streets perhaps? I know, they can get on forums and whine about free speech and thoughtcrime!insults. what fun, it's almost like you've no legs to stand on and have to resort to schoolground antics.

Fugu, you're like a guy who thinks the rooks move diagonally in chess and that he's got his opponent in check, while ignoring the fact that his own king died 3 turn ago; get back in your clown car and stop wasting my time.

that's pretty rich coming from a guy who thinks that banning a touring public speaker is somehow thoughtcrime and yet isn't aware of how viral ideas can be.
for example here's an article(offtopic admittedly) on how two men were inspired to beat a homeless man to death after listening to Donald Trump about illegal aliens.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/20/ ... c-man.html

speech doesn't exist in a vacuum, and though I applaud your defense of free speech, this is a really stupid hill to die on.

Dox is a very clever, witty and intelligent man and I have to say I agree with what he says about freedom of speech and the legal ruling for crying fire in a crowded theater. Dox is a wise sage and I think it would behoove us to listen to his counsel.

What one has to do is challenge Roosh's ideas and question him not ban him. Roosh is definitely a scumbag but to ask a gov't to ban him is against freedom of speech.

Dox is a man who understands the perils of limiting free speech as do I. To limit speech is to restrict thought and to restrict thought is to restrict growth and understanding that could make mankind better. By allowing a platform for Roosh, we can learn from Roosh and what not to do. In that way, we as mankind can eliminate or improve upon current ideas to help create a vigorous, intellectual, and freedom loving society.

Do we really need a public forum to rehash rape. Challenge his ideas? It is not okay to rape women even if you're on private property. That's it. End of discussion. Are we going to hold a public forum to see if it's okay to beat up old men. Some things don't need to be debated.

It is against the american implementation, true. However Canada's constitution differs from the US's version in that it's somewhat more restrictive, even though it doesn't look like the restrictions were exercised in this case

So, who decides what should be debated and what should not be and what would be the criteria used? How do they objectively decide on the criteria?

I don't think that government should be deciding what is discussed and debated and what is not discussed and debated?

On the other hand, one does not have the right to free speech when it comes to a private establishment or a private web site. The owner can set the policies and the rules and decide what is allowed and not allowed including cursing. If you want Roosh V out of Canada than encourage others to boycott the venues he's at. For example, if he is at a Hilton, than explain to others who Roosh V is and what he is all about citing sources from his material and encourage others to boycott Hilton if they host him.

Me, on the other hand I think the guy ought to be debated, shown exactly where his logic is off and in fact make him prove his claims with double blind studies and statistics. If you do not agree with this, can you explain why? Thank you!

It is dicey when the government gets involved rather than letting the public court decide such matters. But rape is against the law. So I can see why they might be interested. Again, if the debate were about, say, "should it be legal to cut of the penis of an adulterer?" Aren't we beyond debating things that are a priori.

What logic??? It's not okay to rape. What's to debate?

Smoking pot is against the law in many places, many people think it shouldn't be; does that mean the government is allowed to quash that speech as well?



If his argument is so easy to defeat, why do you need the state to suppress it for you? Do you think your fellow citizens are in any danger of being persuaded by these ideas?

More pointedly, if you support barring Roosh from the country, do you also support barring immigrants whos traditional cultures may hold and promote views that are similar to or even more reprehensible than those of Roosh? Say, Muslims from certain parts of the world?

I think Scott Alexander says it much better than me:



Under my system, the best ideas win, under your system, it's whoever can muster up the most outrage to silence those they disagree with; is that really what you want?

that's pretty rich coming from a guy who thinks that banning a touring public speaker is somehow thoughtcrime and yet isn't aware of how viral ideas can be. [/quote]

I'm pragmatic, the consequences of unrestricted speech are less bad than those of restricting speech based on sentiment, popularity, or morality, as can be easily seen by even a cursory study of history, or current events if one pays attention to the commonwealth countries.

Yes, I do.


Actually I would support such a ban. Unconditional cultural acceptance degrades the host.


best ideas vs. blusterous outrage
hmmmm ....

I don't think anyone is going to listen to either of us regarding our systems. And I am at heart a pragmatist. So yes, some men will be influenced if they are told in a public forum that it is okay to rape a woman on private property. My faith is not as great as yours.

For your consideration:

These women poured their drinks onto Roosh V. What do you guys think about this?

Unfortunate but not surprising.

Personally, I think it is wrong to assault people. On the other hand, I could understand why they would. They see Roosh V the exact same way I would see Jack Mcclellan.

https://www.google.com/#q=jack+mcclellan

I think we do need to try to keep to the rule of law as much as possible and not the rule of men thereby letting our emotions sway us.