Very special snowflakes: Pence's scheduled speech makes Notre Dame students "feel unsafe"

Maybe they shouldn't be.

Why not?

If by attaining you mean making less, being less entrepreneurial, refusing to relocate for opportunities, being less successful at relationships and generally unable to handle a descenting view then, yes, but otherwise no. Hell, even when they find jobs they often do poorly at them and are generally know to be lazy, to have high absenteeism, and to be clock watchers who typically leave early. Then they wonder why they don't get raises or promotions.

Seriously, name the metric and they have done worse, accomplished less, earned less. The only metric I can think of where they have done better is with college degrees but as this thread shows many of them didn't learn a whole lot.

Dissenting.

I'm not sure any of those are accurate beyond your own wishful thinking. THe last couple are totally baseless. I can well ask by what metric you're gauging "success" by in relationships or "handling" opposing views? Most I know aren't interested in creating nuclear families and frankly, are more likely to counter dissent rather than cave to it. Not that either of our unsubstantiated opinions outweighs the other's...

fact is, they have every right to protest and/or revoke the stage that they've paid for. If that makes Mike Pence and you sad, tough shit. The VP has no right to a coerced and captive audience.

Yes. Absolutely.

No. They don't own the stage. Notre Dame owns the stage...and Notre Dame has the right to invite whoever Notre Dame wants to invite onto Notre Dame's stage.

#getoffmylawn How old are you again?

Right, so did most people. It was Pence who made it about changing people's sexuality, and had since been unable to say what he meant.

Well, as absolutely everybody who has read the source knows and has been pointed out to you several times over, it is the former.

I think there is a lot to learn from some millennials, actually. My nephew is in his mid-late twenties now, and is about to check the last continent off his list. I think he's been to more countries than I could name. He has no house, no car, probably 3 shirts. I'm sure so many people would take one look at him and dismiss him as a lazy, dirty (he actually is a bit stinky ) punk kid, but he makes his own money. Travel blog, nature photography.....takes room & board jobs wherever he finds them. Herded goats in Peru and stayed in a barn, worked on a cruise ship, etc. He's resourceful. And brave. And so free. Some millennials are pretty neat people.

If you say so.

I'd tend to disagree in that as clients they have purchased a stake/voice in the content of their ceremony. I'd also suspect that this sort of thing has rarely, if ever, come up in the past and thus the qualities of "ownership" haven't ever been settled, only presumed.

But at the end of the day, these students paid for a package of a certain quality. They feel that the VP, let alone the uninvited PotUS aren't worth the money they've paid. If enough of them also feel this way, why should they be forced to accept an inferior product?

I agree some of them are interesting. I am just taking issue with the claim that they are some how doing better than Boomers or Gen X'ers when clearly they are attaining less on average.

Yes.

Because for major universities in the United States, student tuition and fees doesn't make up a majority of the university revenue stream.

But isn't that like saying a customer at a restaurant has the right to force the owner to stop serving certain items on the menu?

They shouldn't be forced to do anything. If they can pressure or convince the administration to uninvite Pence, then that's fine....but they don't have any right to uninvite him themselves.

A "special" right? No, just the expectation that a normal person participating on a discussion board would actually be interested in having a discussion. If you’re incapable of discussion, you’re nothing but a speed bump.

Who exactly do you think you are? You have no right to demand an apology from anyone here. Not that you actually want one. You just want to avoid any questions that make you uncomfortable. Unless and until you say differently, I’ll accept Post #99 as an interpretation of your intent.

Snowflake.

On that you are completely incorrect. I do want an apology. From you and from everyone here who has ever insulted me, ridiculed me, mocked me or said anything demeaning about me, my family, my town, my state, my church or my profession without provocation from me first.

The way I see it, we could set up an entire forum with nothing but the apologies people here owe me and keep it open for several years with hundreds of apologies per day and never even scratch the surface of what I'm due.

I don't think your restaurant analogy works here. When it comes to colleges, the alumni, faculty, and current student population have invested their time and money into not just the business of learning, but into the community itself. While they're attending college, they're like shareholders. Each person may have only one share, but it is theirs to decide best to use.

To use the restaurant analogy, if you have a cooking school, those cooks-in-training (and cooks who have graduated) have a right to object to your hiring a cannibal to lend his expertise toward their education. They have invested themselves, financially, physically, and emotionally, into your enterprise. You cannot simply ride roughshod over them without risking the viability of your business. If they reject your cannibal's presence, he needs to go.

Maybe Spaceturkey can explain what he meant by that...maybe I'm just reading into it what I feel. I read it to mean they have attained a certain level of freedom from traditional boundaries. And really, it's their only hope. The system is kinda rigged against them. I do see the special snowflake syndrome and it is obnoxious, don't get me wrong. I just also see where it comes from, and I don't think it's solely a result of the trophies for everyone environment.

I think it is a byproduct of families only having one child. When all of a families emotional, social investment is tied up in one person, any kind of failure or harm suffered by that person is utterly unthinkable.

I've read the Chinese have a similar problem thanks to the one child policy. They have only childs married to other only childs who then have one child of their own. Often a son. IIRC the Chinese have dubbed these pampered young men (who have the undivided attention of two parents and four grandparents) as "little princes"

I come to wordforge garamet for the same reasons I first came to the TrekBBS in 1998.

To discuss the future of Star Trek. Looking up "Future of Trek" is what led me to that forum in 1998.

I have little interest in changing my social/political views.

And still unable to answer the question.

Then you should limit your posts to Media Central instead of playing the martyr in the Red Room. I have no interest in changing your social/political views. I just want to know if there's any rationale behind them other than "because Jesus [even though I've never read the Bible all the way through]." You're not convincing me.

What makes you think I've never read the Bible all the way through?

And would that give my positions more legitimacy in your eyes.

Please don't take this offensively Garamet, but you seem to make a rather large amounts of assumptions about my background and beliefs that are without foundation. If you want I can provide examples.

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

Fine.

My answer to your question is that I'm a Christian and a servant of God with documentation to prove that.

Question answered.

Your turn.

Without risking the viability of the business...sure. But having leverage <> have any right to uninvite a speaker that the administration invited anymore than a student has the right to fire a professor that they don't like.

There are approximately 2.2 billion Christians on Earth. Only a fraction of them actively proselytize and, to my knowledge, none of them follow the Gospel According to Dayton. You haven’t answered the question of what makes you feel you have a right to dictate to the lives of others, either personally or via legislation.

Asked and not answered.

And you've proven me right yet again. You won't accept my answer no matter what I say .

You asked a question I answered it. You put no preconditions on my answer.

Thus, any obligation I had to answer you has been filled.

Looks like we finally identified the snowflake referenced in the thread title.

This: "My answer to your question is that I'm a Christian and a servant of God with documentation to prove that" does not answer this: "...explain what gives you the right to tell other people how to live."

Unless you're claiming the documentation authorizes you to dictate to other people’s lives. If so, you’ll need to quote the part of your documentation that says so.

Otherwise, we still come back to “I have a right to tell other people how to live because Jesus.”

Not very convincing. I doubt you even believe it yourself.