AggieCVQ said:

---

Still have not answered the one question I have. It's really not a hard one. You can type multiple paragraphs but apparently not a simple yes or no to whether all muslims should be deported.

---

Says the person who can type multiple paragraphs but apparently doesn't know the difference between "act" and "rhetoric". You don't want to address questions aimed at you, but demand answers from others on things they have nothing to do with.

Rhetoric, your speech, speech is a verb and a verb is an ACTION.

And once more yes or no, should they all be deported?

BadMoonRisin said:

---

AggieCVQ said:

---

You still never answered my question. Do you think all Muslims should be deported?

---

Stop being weird. No one is saying what you are claiming.

---

He wants to insinuate that everyone on here believes that, when 99.9% of us have said no such things or had anything to do with it. Nothing we say is going to change his mindset of making this board the subject of controversy more than the shameful actions of those students. Classic deflection.

now imagine the same posters whining about these poor idiotic harassers-

and let's make the ones being harassed christians standing in front of a "christ is king" sign

or let's imagine the ones getting harassed were Muslims in front of a "freedom for Iran" sign.

there is literally not one single intelligent American

who would believe that if Muslims were being harassed the mainstream media would be quite about it

Deport all illegals, visa over stayers, and highly restrict visa issuances and immigration applications from any muslim country. Assuming SCOTUS rules against the birthright citizenship EO start a constitutional amendment to include it, along with native born requirements for Federal elective office. America is not quite ready to deport muslims en masse but I could see that day coming if Democrats keep playing with fire.

I believe I saw him at the Samford game wearing a Palestinian shirt and a week later the same thing at the tu game.

AggieCVQ said:

---

Rhetoric, your speech, speech is a verb and a verb is an ACTION.

And once more yes or no, should they all be deported?

---

Yes. Please. America would be a better place. Give me an example of Islam benefiting our country.

You happy?

Me saying that =/= harassing a fellow student. One side showed decorum and values we support at A&M, the other did not.

Wes97 said:

---

His activity was out of line. He deserves some sort of punishment.

But he wasn't just randomly accosting students wearing a star of david or yarmulke on campus. They set up a booth in the msc in order to generate discussion. You do that and you open yourself up to people "discussing" things with you that might have the opposite viewpoint. You can't set up a booth like that and demand that only people that agree with your viewpoint are allowed to come over there.

And again because I know that it is coming again from the disingenuous crowd…. this guy took it WAY too far.

---

This is like saying that a woman dressed too proactively and should have known better before she was sexually assaulted.

Here is the issue. This guy felt like he was "safe" to make his harassment. TAMU cannot allow a perception of harassment is OK. And this guy is t someone you can pull to the side and say "dude, not cool don't do it again". He is radicalized and will seize the next opportunity. TAMU needs to be firm in this stance and expel.

Wes97 said:

---

His activity was out of line. He deserves some sort of punishment.

But he wasn't just randomly accosting students wearing a star of david or yarmulke on campus. They set up a booth in the msc in order to generate discussion. You do that and you open yourself up to people "discussing" things with you that might have the opposite viewpoint. You can't set up a booth like that and demand that only people that agree with your viewpoint are allowed to come over there.

And again because I know that it is coming again from the disingenuous crowd…. this guy took it WAY too far.

---

You're engaging in victim-blaming.

Sid Farkas said:

---

Quote:

---

rules against the verbal accosting

---

This sounds a lot like leftist complaints that certain speech equates to violence. I'm not falling for it. Let them speak. They are making complete asses of themselves.

---

Sure, let them speak. Let them grab a megaphone and head out to Rudder fountain and crow away - just don't do that nonsense inside the MSC at a booth.

A_Gang_Ag_06 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Good luck getting a Howdy out of any students today, including CTs.

---

It's that whole generation of "men". I was trying to get dressed the other day at the gym and two of them were having a conversation behind me. They ended almost every sentence with "bro." Basically the 90's valley girl equivalent of "like." They wonder why they're unemployable.

---

I'm a hs teacher and EVERYTHING is bro. Even girls talk to each other saying bro. Bro haunts me in my sleep.

[You can make your point without being disrespectful to others -- Staff]

PatriotAg02 said:

---

A_Gang_Ag_06 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Good luck getting a Howdy out of any students today, including CTs.

---

It's that whole generation of "men". I was trying to get dressed the other day at the gym and two of them were having a conversation behind me. They ended almost every sentence with "bro." Basically the 90's valley girl equivalent of "like." They wonder why they're unemployable.

---

I'm a hs teacher and EVERYTHING is bro. Even girls talk to each other saying bro. Bro haunts me in my sleep.

---

You gotta give it back to them. Call them 'bro' every chance you get. If they think you're adopting their lingo, they'll change it.

Backyard Gator said:

---

PatriotAg02 said:

---

A_Gang_Ag_06 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Good luck getting a Howdy out of any students today, including CTs.

---

It's that whole generation of "men". I was trying to get dressed the other day at the gym and two of them were having a conversation behind me. They ended almost every sentence with "bro." Basically the 90's valley girl equivalent of "like." They wonder why they're unemployable.

---

I'm a hs teacher and EVERYTHING is bro. Even girls talk to each other saying bro. Bro haunts me in my sleep.

---

You gotta give it back to them. Call them 'bro' every chance you get. If they think you're adopting their lingo, they'll change it.

---

Oh I do. Make fun of them all the time. Sometimes I just greet them at the door with just a 'bro'.

PatriotAg02 said:

---

Backyard Gator said:

---

PatriotAg02 said:

---

A_Gang_Ag_06 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Good luck getting a Howdy out of any students today, including CTs.

---

It's that whole generation of "men". I was trying to get dressed the other day at the gym and two of them were having a conversation behind me. They ended almost every sentence with "bro." Basically the 90's valley girl equivalent of "like." They wonder why they're unemployable.

---

I'm a hs teacher and EVERYTHING is bro. Even girls talk to each other saying bro. Bro haunts me in my sleep.

---

You gotta give it back to them. Call them 'bro' every chance you get. If they think you're adopting their lingo, they'll change it.

---

Oh I do. Make fun of them all the time. Sometimes I just greet them at the door with just a 'bro'.

---

Full bro core!!!

Whether the students should be expelled is part of the investigation. They should be severely reprimanded at a minimum. But had this been a table during pride month or black history month and those students were called Fa**ots or the N word, what do you think the reaction or punishment would be? You can't have a double standard based on the protected group.

I thought there was a post about this not being assault.

Assault isn't touching someone, it's making someone feel threatened or unsafe.

Edit: I thought that I saw a post that said it wasn't assault because he didn't touch him. My point is that physical contact isn't required for assault.

Stupe said:

---

I thought there was a post about this not being assault.

Assault isn't touching someone, it's making someone feel threatened or unsafe.

---

No conservative scholar anywhere has accepted that definition. That is complete leftist nonsense. Kind of like so-called "hate speech." Just a quick google search shows:

Assault is legally defined as an intentional act that causes another person to reasonably apprehend imminent harmful or offensive contact, or as an unlawful attempt with the present ability to commit such a violent injury. While traditional common law distinguishes it from battery (which requires actual physical contact), many modern jurisdictions treat the terms together or define assault broadly to include the threat itself, meaning no physical injury or contact is required to constitute the offense.
Key elements of the definition include:

• Intent: The act must be intentional rather than accidental, though the motive (e.g., a joke or malice) is generally immaterial.
• Reasonable Apprehension: The victim must believe that harmful or offensive contact is about to happen immediately, based on the offender's apparent ability to carry it out.
• Imminence: The threatened harm must be certain or likely to occur very soon; spoken words alone do not qualify unless accompanied by an act that creates immediate fear.
• Harmful or Offensive Contact: The contact threatened must be one that a reasonable person would find capable of causing harm or violating social standards of acceptable touching.

Verbal threats alone generally do not constitute assault under common law. The traditional legal principle, known as the "mere words" doctrine, holds that for an act to be considered assault, the words must be accompanied by a physical act or gesture that demonstrates a present ability to carry out the threat, such as raising a fist, brandishing a weapon, or making a threatening movement.

The core requirement for assault is that the victim experiences a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. Words by themselves, no matter how offensive or threatening, are usually not enough to create this immediate fear of physical harm. For example, shouting "I'm going to get you!" from across the street is typically not assault.

Aglaw97 said:

---

Whether the students should be expelled is part of the investigation. They should be severely reprimanded at a minimum. But had this been a table during pride month or black history month and those students were called Fa**ots or the N word, what do you think the reaction or punishment would be? You can't have a double standard based on the protected group.

---

That is a fair take. This guy "attacking" Israel is fair game but the whole "stinky" line (and while not as bad as the things you list) it was still way over the line. That and while he has free speech rights, he does not have the right to trample on their free speech rights too. Which he did.

Not assault just a stupid idiot being a stupid idiot. Hopefully A&M takes out the trash. If it was a white guy saying that to a BLM table the liberal meltdown would be insane.

https://student-rules.tamu.edu/rule24/

AggieCVQ said:

---

Rhetoric, your speech, speech is a verb and a verb is an ACTION.

And once more yes or no, should they all be deported?

---

This isn't hard. Posting something on a message board is different than verbally harassing a fellow student. If you post that you believe that all Muslims should be deported, you won't be expelled. If you go up to the Muslim Student Organization at their table in the MSC and yell that in their faces while calling them names, you should be. Got it?

Wes97 said:

---

Stupe said:

---

I thought there was a post about this not being assault.

Assault isn't touching someone, it's making someone feel threatened or unsafe.

---

No conservative scholar anywhere has accepted that definition. That is complete leftist nonsense. Kind of like so-called "hate speech." Just a quick google search shows:

Assault is legally defined as an intentional act that causes another person to reasonably apprehend imminent harmful or offensive contact, or as an unlawful attempt with the present ability to commit such a violent injury. While traditional common law distinguishes it from battery (which requires actual physical contact), many modern jurisdictions treat the terms together or define assault broadly to include the threat itself, meaning no physical injury or contact is required to constitute the offense.
Key elements of the definition include:

• Intent: The act must be intentional rather than accidental, though the motive (e.g., a joke or malice) is generally immaterial.
• Reasonable Apprehension: The victim must believe that harmful or offensive contact is about to happen immediately, based on the offender's apparent ability to carry it out.
• Imminence: The threatened harm must be certain or likely to occur very soon; spoken words alone do not qualify unless accompanied by an act that creates immediate fear.
• Harmful or Offensive Contact: The contact threatened must be one that a reasonable person would find capable of causing harm or violating social standards of acceptable touching.

Verbal threats alone generally do not constitute assault under common law. The traditional legal principle, known as the "mere words" doctrine, holds that for an act to be considered assault, the words must be accompanied by a physical act or gesture that demonstrates a present ability to carry out the threat, such as raising a fist, brandishing a weapon, or making a threatening movement.

The core requirement for assault is that the victim experiences a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. Words by themselves, no matter how offensive or threatening, are usually not enough to create this immediate fear of physical harm. For example, shouting "I'm going to get you!" from across the street is typically not assault.

---

Not to derail, but how are insanely loud whistles, bullhorns, and sirens in peoples' faces and ears not assault?

Annoying as hell (and depending on the circumstances could easily be disturbing the peace) does not make it assault.

Conservatives need to be careful and not just lazily fall into the leftist traps on this stuff just because they do it.

Speech is not violence. And there is no such thing as hate speech.

Wes97 said:

---

Annoying as hell (and depending on the circumstances could easily be disturbing the peace) does not make it assault.

Conservatives need to be careful and not just lazily fall into the leftist traps on this stuff just because they do it.

Speech is not violence. And there is no such thing as hate speech.

---

Damaging someone's hearing sure seems like assault. With my hearing aids some of what ICE has to put up with would deafen me

If someone is doing that loud enough to damage hearing they are already probably breaking the law in multiple ways. We don't have to act like liberals and overcharge everything that annoys us.

Or we could just start charging every heavy metal band with assault too. Fine by me.

MelvinUdall said:

---

Wes97 said:

---

His activity was out of line. He deserves some sort of punishment.

But he wasn't just randomly accosting students wearing a star of david or yarmulke on campus. They set up a booth in the msc in order to generate discussion. You do that and you open yourself up to people "discussing" things with you that might have the opposite viewpoint. You can't set up a booth like that and demand that only people that agree with your viewpoint are allowed to come over there.

And again because I know that it is coming again from the disingenuous crowd…. this guy took it WAY too far.

---

This is like saying that a woman dressed too proactively and should have known better before she was sexually assaulted.

---

"What was she wearing at the time?" </Chappelle voice>

Nvmd

Wes97 said:

---

If someone is doing that loud enough to damage hearing they are already probably breaking the law in multiple ways. We don't have to act like liberals and overcharge everything that annoys us.

Or we could just start charging every heavy metal band with assault too. Fine by me.

---

Does the concept of "intent" and "voluntary exposure" mean anything here?

B-1 83 said:

---

Wes97 said:

---

If someone is doing that loud enough to damage hearing they are already probably breaking the law in multiple ways. We don't have to act like liberals and overcharge everything that annoys us.

Or we could just start charging every heavy metal band with assault too. Fine by me.

---

Does the concept of "intent" and "voluntary exposure" mean anything here?

---

I don't think you have a good argument here if you are arguing that yelling at someone is assault. I watched the video and no, I don't consider it assault. I think you would be better served arguing the "harassment" angle.

Not close to assault. Just an idiot doing idiotic things. He will most likely be failure in life. He will also most likely blame everyone else for being a failure.