At 3/22/15 08:54 PM, Sensationalism wrote:

At 3/22/15 07:18 PM, Cordyceps wrote: @sensationalism

Do you really think that people should be coddled if they aren't functional enough to participate in a university environment?

Nope, never said I did.

I believe that PTSD is real and there is nothing wrong with providing a safe place for people with it to go if they are wanting to attend a discussion about something that could potentially trigger it.

But that is the stupid part. Like, tell me where is the logic in attending a discussion about something that you KNOW you feel uncomfortable, or in your words TRIGGERED, and then running out when they mention THE ONE THING that "triggers" you and its the entire point of the debate. I mean, if youre going to get triggered and run to the safe room, you are basically missing the discussion, also known as KILLING THE ENTIRE POINT of attending said discussion.

At 3/22/15 09:22 PM, Joestar wrote:

At 3/22/15 08:54 PM, Sensationalism wrote: I believe that PTSD is real and there is nothing wrong with providing a safe place for people with it to go if they are wanting to attend a discussion about something that could potentially trigger it.

But that is the stupid part. Like, tell me where is the logic in attending a discussion about something that you KNOW you feel uncomfortable, or in your words TRIGGERED, and then running out when they mention THE ONE THING that "triggers" you and its the entire point of the debate. I mean, if youre going to get triggered and run to the safe room, you are basically missing the discussion, also known as KILLING THE ENTIRE POINT of attending said discussion.

Of course it defeats the entire point of the debate. You're encouraging people to leave the discussion when the main topic is brought up at all, especially by those who hold an opposing viewpoint.

The debate is useless if everyone spends the entire time in the puppy room.

How can this thread be real if the pages arn't?

everyone has his own freedom of speech and i don't see any valid reason why students should not be allowed to express their opinions on more sensitive matters, such as sexual abuse. the purpose of having discussions on these issues is to stimulate students' thoughts by facilitating the exchange of ideas, and this should be encouraged. they did not intend to stir up sad memories of certain individuals.

it is not wise to take the freedom of speech away from the majority just because of these individuals. besides, while it is unfortunate that some students may get upset whenever these issues are brought up, the victims need to learn to cope with it.

Preferred this thread when it was just people calling eachothers' dads stupid and weak

His dad is stupid and weak, though. He has an idiot dad

At 3/22/15 12:36 PM, Timmy wrote:

At 3/22/15 12:26 PM, supergandhi64 wrote: i did not read it out loud as usual you are wrong and stupid

--supergandhi64

The entire last page of your post history is 90% filled with you posting random one-liners in this thread basically calling someone an idiot over and over again.

Knock it off.

exactly what a fucking idiot

At 5/30/16 07:16 PM, BonemanCharles wrote: articles like that make me glad I didnt pull out a loan and put myself and my famliy into debt for college.

Yeah. You're not missing out when you decide not to go to an ultra-liberal college like the one in the OP.

Trigger warning? Really Bit did we really need a warning?

At 3/22/15 07:18 PM, Cordyceps wrote: @sensationalism

Do you really think that people should be coddled if they aren't functional enough to participate in a university environment?

I think the trouble of a university environment is PRECISELY that people are being coddled if they can't function. That's not what life is, that's not what the workplace is, and that's certainly not what a university should be. Even if not all universities do this, an increasing number of them do support this kind of behaviour, and quite frankly, it's not on.

I mean, the theoretical strong woman will have had to face debates, maybe actual PTSD from previous memories of physical, mental and emotional abuse, and then some.

I'm going to receive a mental health diagnosis in less than two weeks; a lot of people do suspect I actually HAVE PTSD, but not for the reasons in the article @Bit linked. Those of you who know my story will know I've been through far worse.

Mental disorders (or excuses thereof) are being thrown around too easily. There are people who go through it for real, granted, and even the slightest, most irrational thing can throw them off -- but for something like this, there is a root. There is a first cause for this disorder, so to speak -- an event, or a sequence of events. Without that root cause to justify it, can we say the PTSD is real? Or was it something conjured up to grant the speaker immunity?

Feminazis tend to throw that around all too often just so that they can shield themselves from dissenting opinions and people showing them the truth of the matter -- that they (and their opinions) are not superior to the other side's opinions. That's not the way a debate should go. If you're having a debate, the whole idea is that your points are going to be scrutinised and ripped apart by the other side, and vice versa.