The idea that people's feelings should come first (especially before truth/understanding of reality) is not uncomfortable, but a dangerous, misleading, childish posture.
University is for adults, not toddlers.
University is for adults, not toddlers.
No one is arguing for this.
As soon as you claim they are, they scurry away claiming that's not what they mean, but as soon as you say "OK then" and move on, they turn right around and it's all about their feelings again. It is very much a part of the modern PC platform that if someone "feels" assaulted, they are, and you must believe them or you are blaming the victim. This is why accusations are as good as conviction in places where PC reigns supreme, because the fact of accusation is itself proof of feeling, and that's it, case closed.
Don't fall for this transparent rhetorical ploy. Arguments that only appear transiently to dismiss one point, then disappear into the ether immediately after, are not arguments, just rhetoric. (This is a general point that applies in many places, actually.)
Along with some NYT coverage on this general topic: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/11/02/when-a-gener...
This issue of students complaining about trigger warnings and the need for safe spaces certainly seems to be increasingly prevalent, but that could just be due to the media giving it more attention.
Are you saying you believe that another person can only be near you because you give them implicit permission to? And that at any time, and for any reason, you could remove that permission?
Where did you get that idea?
"The Freedom of Speech," the legal right defined by the constitution only applies to the government because the constitution only applies to the government.
There's a whole world outside US: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Stud 2: When it hurts me!
Stud 1: When it's offensive to me!
https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/3s5wz2/yale_adminis...
This argument is basically "You belong to social group X. You cannot opt out." Then followed by "because to social group X, you have to behave in Y way. Because that's how X people behave."
Depending on the surrounding culture, with that argument you can justify: why men have to wear ties, why young men should be sent to war, why women should wear burkha, etc. Anything conservative goes.
I'm not disagreeing with your actual point. I'm just trying to point out that your argument is bad.
Oh really, so university students are able to consume alcohol, right?
edit:
noun: adult;
- a person who is fully grown or developed.
- a person who has reached the age of majority.
edit 2:
"Longitudinal neuroimaging studies demonstrate that the adolescent brain continues to mature well into the 20s. This has prompted intense interest in linking neuromaturation to maturity of judgment."
The dominant American culture is not one with a single consistently-applied rite of passage to adulthood. Over about a decade, people go though multiple transitions (age of majority, voting age, drinking age---heck, a lot of people even recognize the age at which rental car companies stop applying a "You're probably a dangerous driver" surcharge, at 25 years old).
Meant adult as a contrast to toddlers (whom feelings and sense of security we do care about, for good reasons) and as a status that you target, grow into and nurture, especially more at the university (and hopefully after as well).
Unless your post means to say we should probably drop the drinking age. I'd agree it's pinned higher than maturity curve of youths, and personally find the illegality to encourage a debauched form of underage drinking. But I don't really see how that's here or there.
re, your edit: Are you saying that by some developmental model 17 year olds should not be asked to rise to the standards of behaviour expected of adults? Please elaborate.
The article on age of majority makes it clear that it is a distinct concept from age of license, which can cover things like buying alcohol and running for elected office. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority
Honestly, your edit seems to put the nail into the coffin of your entire point.