No. Because your premise is that Tartak lied, and no amount of empirical evidence would make you rethink your premise.Because we are each expressing our opinions? That sounds like victory to me because that was all I was claiming.
You don't have empirical evidence that she was purposely assaulted and my premise isn't that she lied, it's that she's mistaken (opinions aren't true or false). She could very well feel she was assaulted but it certainly doesn't look that way from the video to me.
Taking over the campus is already a purposeful assault.
Because we are each expressing our opinions? That sounds like victory to me because that was all I was claiming.
You feel free to retreat to a more sensible position accordingly.
Bear in mind that the liberal you are talking to, and many others like him, spend countless hours wringing their hands over bigotry toward blacks, and then do everything they can to deny, downplay, or shrug off virulent antisemitism taking place on the campuses of Stanford, Yale, Harvard, MIT, Columbia, CUNY, NYU, and others.
No it isn't you Snowflake. It's not assault when other people protest.
Sure. We don't know the extent of her injury (at least I don't) but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here.
That's what I'm assuming until you prove otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty is the legal standard of this country.
No they haven't. They've been a purposeful protest. Hyperbole and histrionics won't get you far.
That's funny considering my cousins Jewish husband graduated from Columbia Law School a few years ago. He didnt express any of this fear to me. He loved his time at Columbia and is a staunch progressive.
They claimed the assault was confirmed by video. A claim of objectivity. And then they had to retreat to admitting its still nothing more than opinion.Where was the retreat? You just have to feel superior, must be to make up for the failures you have in real life.
The US Supreme Court has addressed the issue of illegal protests in various cases throughout history.
Jewish Yale student stabbed in eye with Palestinian flag during rowdy protest: ‘Mob behavior’
A Jewish student at Yale University says a protester jabbed her in the eye with a Palestinian flag during a rowdy anti-Israel protest on campus Saturday evening and got away with it.www.yahoo.com
A Jewish girl was assaulted with the end of a Palestinian flag as it was used to poke her in the eye with.
No idea who it was because these people wear those ridiculous Antifa type scarfs to hide behind.
But violence and injuries were bound to happen at universities around the country that refuse to stop these protests.
It will just get worse. In fact, the parent of this student should sue Yale for allowing these sort of hate parades to continue.
These are not "Protests". They are traitors rioting on behalf of Terrorists. She was attacked by Hamas lovers.Jewish Yale student stabbed in eye with Palestinian flag during rowdy protest: ‘Mob behavior’
A Jewish student at Yale University says a protester jabbed her in the eye with a Palestinian flag during a rowdy anti-Israel protest on campus Saturday evening and got away with it.
A Jewish girl was assaulted with the end of a Palestinian flag as it was used to poke her in the eye with.
No idea who it was because these people wear those ridiculous Antifa type scarfs to hide behind.
But violence and injuries were bound to happen at universities around the country that refuse to stop these protests.
It will just get worse. In fact, the parent of this student should sue Yale for allowing these sort of hate parades to continue.
You are free to sing gas the Jews, but Universities have their own laws on student conduct in terms of what behavoir gets you expelled.The US Supreme Court has addressed the issue of illegal protests in various cases throughout history.
The Court has consistently upheld the constitutional right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment.
However, the Court has also recognized that there are limitations to these rights, such as when protests turn violent or obstruct public safety.
In the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that speech advocating illegal actions is protected under the First Amendment unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
It's important to note that while the right to protest is protected under the US Constitution, laws and regulations may vary by state and locality regarding the time, place, and manner of protests. Protesting illegally, such as through violence, trespassing, or other criminal behavior, can lead to arrests and legal consequences.
Overall, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the importance of protecting free speech and peaceful assembly while also recognizing the need to balance these rights with maintaining public order and safety.
Listening to one-sided only? Any pieces of evidence? You believe that student? The Murdoch family's Fox news? No surprise! lol.
Edit : Rupert Murdoch's daughter, Elisabeth Murdoch, is married to a Jewish man and has raised her children in the Jewish faith, indicating a personal connection to the Jewish community.
They agreed to disagree based on our subjective perspectives. A retreat from their original claim that the assault was objectively confirmed and damn right I'm going to teach my grandson to shit on and point and laugh at frail white culture. Are you going to teach yours to be a servile Simp in the face of our unmitigated disrespect? That would figure for a culture of cuckolds.No... the poster you replied that to said they'd agree to disagree, they admitted no such thing. Again, you have reading comprehension issues. Do you teach your grandson to call people all of these immature names, what a role model you are.
They agreed to disagree based on our subjective perspectives. A retreat from their original claim that the assault was objectively confirmed and damn right I'm going to teach my grandson to shit on and point and laugh at frail white culture. Are you going to teach yours to be a servile Simp in the face of our unmitigated disrespect? That would figure for a culture of cuckolds.
Well I can see how it might not seem that way to a frail fucktard like yourself but if you really think that you're right, objectively, you don't concede and agree to disagree. You make your case and let the evidence stand for itself.
Okay... Are your soft ass emotions supposed to mean anything to me?
Well that's stupid. I'll teach my grandson that respect is earned and he's under no obligation to respect frail fucktards.
Well I can see how it might not seem that way to a frail fucktard like yourself but if you really think that you're right, objectively, you don't concede and agree to disagree. You make your case and let the evidence stand for itself.
Okay... Are your soft ass emotions supposed to mean anything to me?
Well that's stupid. I'll teach my grandson that respect is earned and he's under no obligation to respect frail fucktards.
Cultural barrier maybe. If right I'm not agreeing to disagree about anything, you're simply wrong.
Then why are you expressing them to me?
I know your idea of maturity is as subjective as mine. The difference is you probably do imagine your subjective feelings translates to some objective truth, whereas I understand that my opinion isn't objectively inferior or superior to yours, just different.
“Trust fund” might be a stretch, but definitely the entitled children of the liberal elite.
