not really, as there there is a substantial difference in scope and severity.
Part of the "stopping", is getting the message out AT CHURCHES for kids to STOP USING BIBLICAL VERSES as an excuse for HARASSMENT.who gives a ****? what matters is what actually causes bullying and what can be done to stop it.
Then we're both in agreement that your comparison was bull****.
Dan Savage has every single constitutional right to tell Christian nutbags off.
Christian nutbags and homophobic jerkoffs don't have a right to physically and emotional harass gay kids to the point where they want to commit suicide.
The only thing I could decipher was the last line, and as I pointed out already, both sides used the Bible to justify their positions, the pro slavery Southerners used direct quotes, the Abolitionists had to use interpretations of verse since there is no outright condemning of slavery in the Bible.The speaker you and a couple others so defend went much further than saying here was an opportunity to continue that tradition of social justice and spiritual egalitarianism, he said it had no such tradition to begin with. Instead We are expected to merely ignore words, just as others had done, because the Book had gotten everything else "wrong." He said it was a "proslavery" book with no nuance, no acknowledgement of the past liberal and Christian movements which drove the abolitionist movement forward.
Are you arguing that harassment is protected speech?do the religious folks also have free speech rights?.. or is it like bullying to you, only protected for one side of an issue?
do the religious folks also have free speech rights?
Unless you have a quote showing he condemns ALL of the Bible, you have no point, since that was your point.
No, I am not being dishonest, I am presenting the logic, I will do it again. A claim of hypocrisy comes from conflicting positions held by a person. The assumption is that a christian holds the views of acceptance and love of people....and that homosexuals should be condemned. To get to a position that a christian DOES hold to the acceptance and love view, is a position that the Bible does teach that. If Savage holds that view, then it follows that Savage does believe that the Bible teaches that. Savage would want christians to follow that teaching and not hold to the conflicting view of condemning gays.
Ergo, Savage does not condemn ALL of the Bible.
Anytime you want to prove your claim, I will be all eyes.
Have you all forgotten American history?
The number one reason people came to America and settled in the first place, was to escape religious persecution. What took place in that High School was state sponsored religious hate speech. It was no more acceptable than it would have been for someone to give a speech attacking homosexuals and their lifestyle.
What's really sad about this, is 90% of those on the left who don't take issue with this, would have raised hell if that guy would have attacked Islam instead of Christianity.
What do you think I have to defend against, your not being able to produce a quote from Savage that condemns the entire Bible?You don't like the response. I can understand that since you can't defend against it.
I never claimed he said it, twice now I have told you that is the logic of calling a christian a hypocrite when they hold the conflicting views of "love everyone" and "condemn homosexuals".This is YOUR interpretation, not what he said.
Um, the ball is still in your court, you have yet to show that Savage condemns the ENTIRE BIBLE.Anytime you want to address my actual claim, I will be all eyes.
Part of the "stopping", is getting the message out AT CHURCHES for kids to STOP USING BIBLICAL VERSES as an excuse for HARASSMENT.
If you are truly interested in ending it, you would see the point of Savages argument.
What do you think I have to defend against, your not being able to produce a quote from Savage that condemns the entire Bible?
LOL.
I never claimed he said it, twice now I have told you that is the logic of calling a christian a hypocrite when they hold the conflicting views of "love everyone" and "condemn homosexuals".
Um, the ball is still in your court, you have yet to show that Savage condemns the ENTIRE BIBLE.
Somewhere, sometime, someone told you that all of what Savage has written, spoken, produced....was contained in that 3 minute video clip.Now, if Savage had said THAT, I'd be applauding him. That's what NEEDED to be said. But he didn't. He, instead, incited folks who are religious by attacking them. As I've been saying... VERY poor presentation.
Sure, the burden is on me now to produce your proof that Savage condemns the entire Bible.Keep dancing. The comments were there. You refuse to address them.
Ah, now we are getting somewhere....since Savage did not say that he condemns the entire Bible, you therefore can assume he does....since he criticizes parts of it. With the assumption that you saw all of his presentation.Then, once again, you are addressing an argument that I never made. I don't care what YOUR interpretation is. I care how Savage presented his position. He didn't say it, therefore, his presentation sucked.
Again, you expect me to find your argument. I won't, and if you don't know what it is any longer, I suggest you give it up.Ummm... ball is in YOUR court. That's not what this section of the post is about.
Somewhere, sometime, someone told you that all of what Savage has written, spoken, produced....was contained in that 3 minute video clip.
Check out the "It Gets Better" series.....for a start.
Now, if Savage had said THAT, I'd be applauding him. That's what NEEDED to be said. But he didn't. He, instead, incited folks who are religious by attacking them. As I've been saying... VERY poor presentation.
Sure, the burden is on me now to produce your proof that Savage condemns the entire Bible.
Wow.
Ah, now we are getting somewhere....since Savage did not say that he condemns the entire Bible, you therefore can assume he does....since he criticizes parts of it. With the assumption that you saw all of his presentation.
Interesting.
What I laid out, the logic, was to address your argument. The fact that you still can't address the logic other than dismissing it without reason, speaks volumes.
Again, you expect me to find your argument. I won't, and if you don't know what it is any longer, I suggest you give it up.
Sure, the burden is on me now to produce your proof that Savage condemns the entire Bible.
As I expected, since you cannot show that he condemns the entire Bible, you would try to walk away from your previous claims:Once again, I never said that. You asked for what Savage said. I posted it. You've chosen not to address it.
There is the problem with your argument, the assumption that he is condemning all of the Bible, all of christianity. He is not.That is not a problem with my argument. He clearly was condemning the bible by calling it "BS". I don't know if he condemns all of Christianity, but his presentation gave that impression. If he wants to be heard, that's a poor way to do it.
I don't need to re-read anything, I know what you have said, all you do is avoid proving what you claim.You're still doing it. Try to reread my post and address what I'm saying, not what you want me to have said. This seems to be the entire repertoire of your debate tactics.
LOL...you have been doing nothing but repeating yourself for a good 4 or 5 pages....without saying a damn thing!I expect you to pay attention and to address what I'm saying and not what you want me to say. You refuse to do this, so I'm not going to repeat myself.
Again, for the hard of reading, that is not the entire presentation, it was a clip of the presentation, it is not his entire body of work, you are taking one minute of video out of context and believing that it is his total view of the Bible.We aren't talking about what Savage may have written. We are talking about the video. You're DOING it again.
why would i tell you that?... I didn't claim physical harassment is free speech... keep your strawmen in check, please.Of course they do. What they don't have the right to do is deny gays rights, physically and emotionally harass them etc. However, that's not what Dan Savage is speaking about though. He highlighted the hypocrisy in denying people equal legal recognition because of the bible, while at the same time ignoring other dogmatic passages. Why don't you try and keep up instead of making bull**** comparisons.
Actually, before you do that, please tell us all how physically harassing somebody counts as "free speech".
you asked me once if I was making the comparison, and what did i tell you?.... I said "not really" and told you what i was doing.... so in your zest to be an internet tough guy, I would suggest you try harder at being honest.Why don't you try and keep up instead of making bull**** comparisons
As I expected, since you cannot show that he condemns the entire Bible, you would try to walk away from your previous claims:
Generally, I don't continue conversing with someone who makes a claim, can't provide proof for the claim, then walks back from the original claim....but since you are a mod, I am going to make a special exception since you, as a mod, should be held to a higher standard. You are not an honest person, you do not back your claims with proof, you avoid direct debate, you obscure and divert with deception.
Now, just for you, I am going to show you a bit more of what Savage thinks of the Bible:
I don't need to re-read anything, I know what you have said, all you do is avoid proving what you claim.
LOL...you have been doing nothing but repeating yourself for a good 4 or 5 pages....without saying a damn thing!
Again, for the hard of reading, that is not the entire presentation, it was a clip of the presentation, it is not his entire body of work, you are taking one minute of video out of context and believing that it is his total view of the Bible.
It isn't, you should know better.
I have been addressing this main point since it began, it has been you who has not provided anything to prove what you claim, you have been basing your claim on a tiny clip, making and holding to a false assumption even when logic and more proof is provided to you.I didn't walk away from anything. You have chosen to not address what I said. It is you who is walking away.
My style is showing that you made a claim, cannot back it up....and then I provide proof that your assumption is WRONG....and you still can't accept your error.This continues your style. Not addressing what is actually said or being addressed. I am uninterested in Savage's position on religion or the bible. I am interested in the OP... what he said at that conference. THAT is what we are addressing. Your lack of honesty here is becoming more and more apparent.
Of course you do. You are addressing what you want me to have said and are ignoring what I am actually saying. This seems to be your style.
Got it, when you see something out of context, an incomplete presentation of what a speaker says....and even when further vids are shown to you to expand your understanding of the speaker....it doesn't matter, you will hold to that out of context clip as the total truth.....even though you have to assume what the speaker meant since he NEVER SAID WHAT YOU BELIEVE.I've been correcting you... since you are not addressing what I am talking about and are bringing in red herrings in order to further do this. The issue here is what Savage said at the conference and the impact that had. Not what YOU think his beliefs are... or not even what he has stated his beliefs are at other venues. Now, I'm sure you would rather bring those things up, because if you actually had to address his poor presentation at the conference in question, you wouldn't have much of a position. So, every time you straw man or bring up something not relevant, I'll just point it out and again say that you are doing nothing but straw manning. I can keep it up for a long time. Might be a good idea for you to start addressing what is being said.
and then I provide proof that your assumption is WRONG
No bud, the issue has become your inability to understand that you made an assumption (that Savage condemns the entire Bible) that was wrong, and in the face of evidence showing that you are wrong, continue to hold to that assumption.Irrelevant. Bring up all the red herrings you want. The issue is what he presented in the video and it's impact.
the issue has become your inability to understand that you made an assumption (that Savage condemns the entire Bible) that was wrong, and in the face of evidence showing that you are wrong, continue to hold to that assumption.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?