Bridgewater State Univ Student, Attacked For Gay Marriage Ed

Bridgewater State Univ Student, Attacked For Gay Marriage Editorial

A Massachusetts university is planning a rally after a student journalist was attacked on campus for writing a pro-gay marriage editorial.

As the Patriot Ledger is reporting, Destinie Mogg-Barkalow was allegedly approached by a man and a woman who appeared to be fellow students in a parking lot at Bridgewater State University last week. After the pair asked Mogg-Barkalow, who is openly gay, if she wrote the pro-marriage equality article which appeared in The Comment, the university's student newspaper, the woman punched her in the face, leaving a bruise.

Mogg-Barkalow's Feb. 15 opinion piece, titled "Prop 8 generates more hate," appeared a week after a federal appeals court declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. In her piece, the 20-year-old Mogg-Barkalow -- who is reportedly a junior and an assistant editor for the paper’s opinion section -- called out Prop 8 supporters as intolerant and bigoted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/2 ... gay-voices

Ah, those fun-loving sociopathic compassionate-conservatives just can't seem to deal with opposing views without resorting to violence. Imagine my surprise....

It's never been my experience that calling someone a bigot and intolerant endears them to me. It generally tends to make them angry instead. Perhaps had she chosen to be more tolerant of opinions which differed from hers in her op-ed instead of resorting to calling them names they might not have become so angry at her that they punched her in response to being called bigots?

Yeah, I guess she didn't get the memo that said if you call a conservative bigot a "bigot", then somehow they have permission to smash your face and commit assault.

But you would know that, wouldn't you?

This country protects free speech PS.....it does not protect the right to commit violence against someone you disagree with. Blaming the victim is just so wrong.....do you also blame women who get raped?

If you call a black person the n word and they haul off and hit you in the face, would you be surprised? When you use words to inflame passion and passions are inflamed, do you really have anyone other than yourself to blame? Especially, one would think, one from the group claiming to be seeking an atmosphere of civil discourse and toned down rhetoric for the expressed purpose of preventing passions from being inflamed?

Fighting words lead to fights - what more need be said? If you are interested in a discussion and not a fight, which it is quite obvious to any observer that neither yourself nor this op-ed author are, then discuss instead of using hateful language aimed primarily at inflaming passions and causing a fight. Seems pretty simple to me.

And, of course, you are suggesting that writing an article in a newspaper is the same as a face-to-face conversation.

Hopefully, Obama will slap the sh*t out of Santorum the next time he sees him.

LadyJazzer wrote: Ah, those fun-loving sociopathic compassionate-conservatives just can't seem to deal with opposing views without resorting to violence. Imagine my surprise....

Where was the political persuasion of the offending person mentioned in the article. Or did you just make that up?

archer wrote: This country protects free speech PS.....it does not protect the right to commit violence against someone you disagree with. Blaming the victim is just so wrong.....do you also blame women who get raped?

Do you always seek to attack the person instead of what it is they are saying?

Calling a black person the "n" word is also speech, isn't it? Why is one fighting word not seen as something which reasonably leads to violence while the other is accepted as such? If name calling is never an excuse for violence, then name calling is never an excuse for violence regardless of who it is and what name they are being called - but that isn't the way things are looked at now, is it. If you assault someone with your words it is quite ridiculous to presume that they will not assault you physically. It is quite a predictable response when you look at the history of the human species and sometimes it is done with the intention of eliciting that exact response. Insult a man's wife, or sister, or any female relation by using a derisive term that starts with "c" and you are likely to get a knuckle sandwich for your trouble. It is actually the expected response under such circumstances whether you do it face-to-face or write a nasty email.

I have a right, a duty, to throw of a despotic government. That doesn't mean that there won't potentially be a price to pay if I exercise that right, does it?

Really? That's your argument?

"Your honor, he called me a name, so I hit him."

All I'm saying is that I'm not surprised the inflammatory language the author used led to a physical altercation. I didn't say it was right, what I said is why is anyone surprised? Isn't this precisely what the left predicted would happen if the discourse wasn't civil? Isn't this precisely what former Speaker Pelosi was afraid of happening if the rhetoric wasn't toned down? Calling those that disagree with your opinion a bigot simply because they disagree with your opinion isn't exactly the way to go about keeping passions from becoming inflamed now, is it?