"Anti-Bully" Advocate Bullies Christian Teens

[level.eleven]

so if they had come back at him that would have been discourteous? even though he was being a complete douche bag?

they did walk out, and he fell into name calling...... did i mention he was a douche bag?

my friend with all do respect it seems as if you are letting your emotions get in the way of your logic

jake

Yes, it would be discourteous to shout down a lecturer. This is common sense for civilized discourse and academic presentation. A variant of the heckler's veto, if you will. The forum isn't a Fox News split screen scream party. Cut his mic! If you want to walk out, great! Don't fancy yourself a journalist, however, and join the ranks of the professionally offended at the first whiff of your opinions being challenged.

 

[strahd71]

Yes, it would be discourteous to shout down a lecturer. This is common sense for civilized discourse and academic presentation. A variant of the heckler's veto, if you will. The forum isn't a Fox News split screen scream party. Cut his mic! If you want to walk out, great! Don't fancy yourself a journalist, however, and join the ranks of the professionally offended at the first whiff of your opinions being challenged.

i would agree if this guy was civilized............

jake

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Yes, he took on the bible's stance and how it breeds bullying against gays. Is his point invalid or am I imagining the WBC? There was no soft pedal there. Only people looking to be offended. Again, don't use the bible as a tool, or justification, for the mistreatment of others and the topic would have never been part of the presentation.

Asserting that the Bible's stance on homosexuality breeds bullying is as absurd as saying School Sports breeds bullying. Because one person or another cites the Bible as a reason to oppose homosexuality doesn't necessarily mean the Bible is the instigator of the bullying anymore than because some "jocks" bully kids who are different that school sports are to blame for it. Of course, if your definition of "bullying" in this case means "disagreeing with the proposition that homosexuality is wrong and saying so openly" . . . then perhaps you need to revisit your definition of Freedom of Speech.

 

[CarmelHP]

Yes, he took on the bible's stance and how it breeds bullying against gays. Is his point invalid or am I imagining the WBC? There was no soft pedal there. Only people looking to be offended. Again, don't use the bible as a tool, or justification, for the mistreatment of others and the topic would have never been part of the presentation.

So, those teens in attendance were "us(ing) the bible as a tool, or justification, for the mistreatment of other" because they didn't stay to be abused? You know this how? And who are you or the supposed "anti-bullying" expert to make that judgment and exact punishment absent any other evidence?

 

[Roadie]

I don't use them as a tool or justification to discriminate against women, homosexuals, or inhabitants of other lands. You are correct in likening them to the works of Lenin or Marx. All worthy of ridicule as enemies of freedom.

You use your own "beliefs" as a "s a tool or justification to discriminate against" those who profess a faith or belief in a Higher Power. The Founders clearly supported individual rights to believe, and some of them themselves believed be they Christian, Deist, etc, so were they too "enemies of freedom."?

 

[level.eleven]

Asserting that the Bible's stance on homosexuality breeds bullying is as absurd as saying School Sports breeds bullying. Because one person or another cites the Bible as a reason to oppose homosexuality doesn't necessarily mean the Bible is the instigator of the bullying anymore than because some "jocks" bully kids who are different that school sports are to blame for it. Of course, if your definition of "bullying" in this case means "disagreeing with the proposition that homosexuality is wrong and saying so openly" . . . then perhaps you need to revisit your definition of Freedom of Speech.

No, you are wrong. The bible is used as justification for action, correct? It is righteous, correct? The word of god. I don't need to provide evidence of Abrahamic texts being used to abuse women, homosexuals, and other people for thousands of years. That information is readily available. Quit building strawmen and address the fact that monotheism is used as a means of and justification of, oppression. Your jock example is no different than the religious argument. A group of people who feel morally superior to weaker foes with an unpopular position. Don't use your bible as a justification for the second class status of homosexuals and this discussion doesn't exist.

Bringing freedom of speech into this discussion is childish. No one was oppressed by a government official.

 

[Roadie]

Yes, he took on the bible's stance and how it breeds bullying against gays. Is his point invalid or am I imagining the WBC? There was no soft pedal there. Only people looking to be offended. Again, don't use the bible as a tool, or justification, for the mistreatment of others and the topic would have never been part of the presentation.

You say that because WBC waves a Bible, then anyone who uses a Bible is a hate-spewing ignoramus. By that logic, I could make the argument that you are a felon, since felons have possessed and used guns, and you presumable possess and use guns, therefore you are a felon.

Seriously, those particular individuals are a collective waste of space who may read the Bible but apparently reject most everything it teaches other than a cherry-picked list of 'thou shall nots' while signally failing to follow it themselves. In that regard, they really do remind me of the feds (only the feds use on us and ignore for themselves the law rather than scripture).

Exactly. Judging all on the actions of a few is INCREDIBLY hypocritical for a gun owner, as that is exactly the misguided judgement we live every day.

 

[level.eleven]

So, those teens in attendance were "us(ing) the bible as a tool, or justification, for the mistreatment of other" because they didn't stay to be abused? You know this how? And who are you or the supposed "anti-bullying" expert to make that judgment and exact punishment absent any other evidence?

Oy vey! Words in my mouth...absent evidence. That was a good chuckle.

I have no idea if those in attendance used god as a reason to persecute others. Neither do you. Instead, what actually happened, was an individual gave a speech on bullying. Part of that presentation included how people use the word of god to discriminate against others. In this case, bullying you because you are a fag and god says fags are bad.

 

[strahd71]

Oy vey! Words in my mouth...absent evidence. That was a good chuckle.

I have no idea if those in attendance used god as a reason to persecute others. Neither do you. Instead, what actually happened, was an individual gave a speech on bullying. Part of that presentation included how people use the word of god to discriminate against others. In this case, bullying you because you are a fag and god says fags are bad.

wow it just didnt read that way to me......

jake

 

[level.eleven]

Exactly. Judging all on the actions of a few is INCREDIBLY hypocritical for a gun owner, as that is exactly the misguided judgement we live every day.

How many positions does the bible allow? Should we praise all of Leviticus, or only portions?

 

[level.eleven]

I am dumbfounded by the fact that people don't think the bible can be used to persecute others. Heck, even the girl in the article apparently has never read the text.

“I was thinking, ‘This is not going a good direction at all,’ Then he started going off about the Bible. He said somehow the Bible was pro-slavery. I’m really shy. I’m not really someone to, like, stir up anything. But all of a sudden I just blurted out, ‘That’s bull!’ ”

Say what?

 

[Roadie]

How many positions does the bible allow? Should we praise all of Leviticus, or only portions?

Practicing a wee bit of misdirection there, thus avoiding the point, aren't we?

The answer to that would involve a discussion involving Theology and Doctrine, which would move this thread into verboten territory, but I am sure you already know that..

 

[Roadie]

I am dumbfounded by the fact that people don't think the bible can be used to persecute others. Heck, even the girl in the article apparently has never read the text.

“I was thinking, ‘This is not going a good direction at all,’ Then he started going off about the Bible. He said somehow the Bible was pro-slavery. I’m really shy. I’m not really someone to, like, stir up anything. But all of a sudden I just blurted out, ‘That’s bull!’ ”

Say what?

Now you are twisting words again. Nobody here said that they "don't think the bible can be used to persecute others". That isn't the point being raised here, but again, I am sure you already knew that..

 

[Whosyer]

How many positions does the bible allow? Should we praise all of Leviticus, or only portions?

I'm no Bible expert, but....you say that Leviticus states that "fags are bad", I'll take your word for it. I've heard my Mom say that somewhere in that book, is something akin to "hate the sin, not the sinner". So, how many positions is that?

 

[level.eleven]

Practicing a wee bit of misdirection there, thus avoiding the point, aren't we?

The answer to that would involve a discussion involving Theology and Doctrine, which would move this thread into verboten territory, but I am sure you already know that..

Exactly, that is the ultimate irony of this thread. At some point in the past, someone was "offended". Of course, that doesn't preclude scripture in sigs and gruesome avatars of human blood sacrifice .

 

[Roadie]

Bottom line here is simple. An adage probably as old as written history itself.
"Two wrongs don't make a right"

You can't encourage others to be tolerant, while being intolerant yourself. That is hypocrisy at it's basest form.

 

[Roadie]

Exactly, that is the ultimate irony of this thread. At some point in the past, someone was "offended".

Except that it was the non-religious that were being offended, if I understand correctly..

 

[CarmelHP]

Oy vey! Words in my mouth...absent evidence. That was a good chuckle.

You mean...the words that you wrote? How is that, putting "words in [your] mouth?"

 

[Roadie]

I am dumbfounded by the fact that people don't think the bible can be used to persecute others. Heck, even the girl in the article apparently has never read the text.

(snip)

I am dumbfounded that you think it was OK for Mr Savage to "teach" tolerance, by being intolerant.

I am dumbfounded that you think it is OK for you to be intolerant, in the name of tolerance.

 

[level.eleven]

Except that it was the non-religious that were being offended, if I understand correctly..

I assumed it was the opposite. Perhaps I made an inaccurate assumption. I feel handcuffed at times, I will grant you that.