- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,348
- Reaction score
- 10,647
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I'm sorry.....he did not say: "He clearly was condemning the bible by calling it "BS"."?You keep providing "proof" against the assumption you keep wrongly attributing to him.
You are indeed throwing a red herring or a strawman...
"He clearly was condemning the bible by calling it "BS"."?
you made an assumption (that Savage condemns the entire Bible)
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.
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.
unbelievable!
LOL...I just quoted you, and you can't even acknowledge your own words, what YOU said.
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.
This is so pointless, I have never seen someone who has this much determination to hold to a falsehood in the face of overwhelming evidence otherwise.
I'll repost it again, chronological order:But that's just it. He never made this assumption. You are either dishonest or have a problem with logic and clarity.
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.
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.
No, the assumption Cap made was that Savage believes the entire Bible is bs, he stated that clearly, never denying it.is quite different than:
Seem the problem is logic and/or clarity.
..i..Have you been drinking or smoking pot? Sometimes those chemicals can cause this sort of confusion.
I'll repost it again, chronological order:
CC allegedly said:He clearly was condemning the bible by calling it "BS".
He did not say ALL of the Bible is bs....
I'll repost it again, chronological order:
And you see, what is worse is that Savage did not say "The Bible is bs", Savage said that "we can learn to ignore the bs in the Bible about gay people, the same way that we ignore the bs about shellfish, slavery......"
He did not say ALL of the Bible is bs....and again, I provided further clips showing his admiration for parts of the Bible.
Still, the Cap won't accept it, he will hold to his assumptions, no matter how wrong they turn out to be.
You have lost the debate since you are not addressing the subject and have gone into personal commentary.You have been presenting straw men and red herrings from the beginning... and you don't like being called on it. Yet, instead of actually addressing what is being said, you STILL do it.Your style is not addressing the issue and focusing on what you wanted people to say. You've been doing it all throughout the thread. THAT'S actually what got my attention in this thread. Your dishonest debating. Always irritates me.More dishonesty. You quoted my words to try to make your point... which you failed to do.Do you EVER address what someone says, or do you just like to make stuff up?I don't think I have encountered a debater as dishonest as you in a LONG time. Even above, all you did was make an argument around what you WANTED me to say, not what I said. You make assumptions rather than address comments. Completely dishonest and illogical. If you want to continue, that's fine... I can just keep pointing it out, a rather easy exercise since you do it so often. Your choice.
Again, you are basing your entire argument on a small clip where you got what he said wrong, while making false assumptions.Did you read my entire quote or just focus on what you wanted me to have said? He condemned the bible by calling it "BS". He did so in the video, indicating several things that were "BS". His inability to add no "buts" or alternative views presents his position pretty clearly, as do his comments towards those who left. I THEN went on to say that his presentation sucked... and I said this in a variety of ways throughout this thread. Now, you have straw manned throughout this thread, refusing to address the focus which has been his presentation. You have also brought up irrelevant facts to the focus of the discussion which is HIS PRESENTATION IN THE VIDEO. Now, I know you don't want to focus on that, since you would then need to address things honestly, but that's the focus here. You can either address it, or not.
And you are not reading anything that CC has said since, he is still holding to his false assumption that Savage DID say the entire Bible is bs (Savage did not say that), based on what was in that small clip. Savage did not say what CC thought he said....at all.Neither did CC!!! That's your problem here... You are inferring that from his statement I guess, but he does not ever SAY IT.
This is the last time I try to address this clear logic problem.
Oh I liked that little ascii art..
You have lost the debate since you are not addressing the subject and have gone into personal commentary.
Again, you made an assumption, a clearly false assumption since he never said what you thought he said (he never said the Bible was bs, only parts of it). Even when I show you that the clip was out of context, that he did not say what you thought he said, when I show other clips where he says what he likes about the Bible....it does not matter, you will hold to your original incorrect assumption.
Again, you are basing your entire argument on a small clip where you got what he said wrong, while making false assumptions.
And you are not reading anything that CC has said since, he is still holding to his false assumption that Savage DID say the entire Bible is bs (Savage did not say that), based on what was in that small clip. Savage did not say what CC thought he said....at all.
No, you are still wrong, he never said the Bible was bs, he said parts of it were, you assumed incorrectly that he said all of it was bs.I got what he said right and what he has said other times is irrelevant to the topic.
He clearly was condemning the bible by calling it "BS".
why would i tell you that?... I didn't claim physical harassment is free speech...
me personally, i'm not anti-bullying.. not to the extent that i'm "supposed " to be,anyways... I prize freedom of expression over someones nonexistent right to not be offended.
keep your strawmen in check, please.
would it not be emotional harassment in the case of what savage does?
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.
Question: When a Christian does something good like give to charity or volunteer at a homeless shelter and they base their actions on a particular understanding of the Bible, do you think their beliefs influenced their actions or was it just a "good person thing"?
Really?
Savage isn't addressing a few ugly kids calling a gay kid a faggot. He's addressing kids being tormented and brutalized to the point where they want to commit suicide. THAT IS NOT COVERED BY "FREE SPEECH".
This from the guy making bull**** comparisons, backtracking and then making the same comparison again less than 3 posts later is rich.
No. It would not. He's not getting in these kids faces, following them home, harassing them through facebook, beating the living **** out of them, etc. He called out an editorialized group of nutbags to the acclaim of people in crowd.
You're so dishonest in your comparison it's almost laughable that you have the balls to deny you're comparing the two.
I will defer to Captain Courtesys Expertise on suicide...He states clearly that bullying does not lead to suicide there are millions that are bullied that DO not commit suicide and its other factors that bring them to commit suicide...its not being called a faggot....fat kids get tortured just as much as homosexuals do today and ID BET ON THAT....kids that wear glass's are FOUR EYED...some girls are tortured day in an day out and are straight..
Are you going to blame Christians for all that bullying...lets get this right ok...gays are called faggots and other slurs and bullied NOT BECAUSE OF ANY RELIGION the lionshare of the time...its because they are different than the majority...and like all KIDS that different there are some kids that will harrangue them....its not just gays that are victims...to be honest its just because the incessantly never stfu about anything is what makes them BELIEVE they are the only ones being bullied.
The guy was doing exactly what he was "supposedly" talking against. When some of the Christian children walked out he called the "pansys". Thus he was his on prime example of what not to be/do . . . . . cut and dried.
That was the whole point of the article and the thread...but some just cannot bring themselves to admit when one of their own is WRONG and thats been the problem with this entire thread and why its gone on so long.
so, folks who think they should have the right to harrass, offend, and attack gay students because the Bible has homophobic passages, got upset that someone didn't agree with their enabling of bigotry?
That was the whole point of the article and the thread...but some just cannot bring themselves to admit when one of their own is WRONG and thats been the problem with this entire thread and why its gone on so long.
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?