- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,380
- Reaction score
- 10,655
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Except....a religious book is NOT a personal characteristic.......whereas....a sexual orientation IS. They are not the same thing, you are equating them, it is a false comparison.(1) I think you err in this comparison. Not everyone believes in the concept of sexual orientation, and not everyone believes the Bible is just a book. To be fair I'll say that gay kids find their gayness to be important to them, but you must also acknowledge that those religious kids find their religion to be rather important to them as well.
Again, you are equating something you are born with to something you read. It is a false equivalence. It makes for a poor conversation since they are not in the same league.(2) I believe you have tunnel vision, seeing this issue from a rather secula/liberal pov. If that it the way you wish to measure things, I don't think that's what makes a good discussion.
Maybe they got called a "name" after they wimped out, it is hard to be offended when you have walked away.....which is different from being cornered and bullied, beat up, and whatnot.Maybe everyone shouldn't call others names. It's possible for a Traditional Christian and a Secular Atheist to have a respectful conversation.
yes... by extension of what i said the radical Christians are not logical and attempting to emotionally harm other people...
as in... Christians that believe they carry out divine authority by using their personal favorite excerpts of holy texts to further their own egos without actually gaining any knowledge...
and the gays are merely trying to exist...
sooo... put the Christians in jail for all i care... they can parametrize some means to spread a punishment to them for instigating suicide in others through their invalid religious beliefs...
Except....a religious book is NOT a personal characteristic.......whereas....a sexual orientation IS. They are not the same thing, you are equating them, it is a false comparison.
Again, you are equating something you are born with to something you read. It is a false equivalence. It makes for a poor conversation since they are not in the same league.
Maybe they got called a "name" after they wimped out, it is hard to be offended when you have walked away.....which is different from being cornered and bullied, beat up, and whatnot.
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.
Again with the false comparisons, criticizing the Bible is NOT the same as being bullied and beat up because you are gay.I'm not interesting in getting into a new debate with you that would derail this thread. Sexual orientation may or may not exist. The same for religion. Whatever the case, whether real or perceived, it is important to the people involved. It is unfair to say homosexual students have the right to be offended, while religious students cannot. I think that's wrong.
Again with the false comparisons, criticizing the Bible is NOT the same as being bullied and beat up because you are gay.
that is a fact that is lost on quite a few folks here.... but then again, many of them accept, condone, and practice bigotry, so .. meh... whatchagonnado?Bullying and walking out are different things.
I am sure there are Christian victims of bullying as well.
In a professional discussion name-calling shouldn't happen. Dan Savage could very well have gotten his message across without being nasty.
A wimp...because someone criticized parts of a book......and I am a journalist student? Yep, I'm a wimp.....and shouldn't be a journalist.
Again...."pansy" and criticism of the Bible is "nasty"....in the context of gays being bullied, beaten up?Bullying and walking out are different things.
I am sure there are Christian victims of bullying as well.
In a professional discussion name-calling shouldn't happen. Dan Savage could very well have gotten his message across without being nasty.
that is a fact that is lost on quite a few folks here.... but then again, many of them accept, condone, and practice bigotry, so .. meh... whatchagonnado?
So your argument is that Savage was calling the journalist student that walked out over his criticism of the Bible...."queers"?If you're genuinely unaware that "pansy" is a gay slur, then you have some catching up to do. For context: ALEC legislator uses ‘Occupy pansy’ slur against activist | The Raw Story
This matters. Why? Well, I wonder then if women who stand up for themselves should be considered "dykes." You see what I mean?
Yeah, because it's just a number generating agenda. Condition people by creating appeals to emotion and authority, then let peer pressure do all the work. After that sinks in, any opposing opinion is automatically written off as stupid.The anti bully is bullying ?
Why does it always have to come down to balls? Why is insulting another man's "manliness" the ultimate insult?
Again...."pansy" and criticism of the Bible is "nasty"....in the context of gays being bullied, beaten up?
Whatever, the unbalanced sensitivity is strange.
We are not talking about gays being "offended", you have lost all sense of context.I did not say that.
I am not talking about being beaten up, but about walking out from being offended.
We are not talking about gays being "offended".
Again, you totally lost the context......a comparison of the students and .....WHAT?This comparison isn't about gays being beaten up, but about students being offended and walking out.
He criticized the Bible, he said we can reject those portions of the Bible that is BS. You keep losing sight of the facts.These Christian students were offended by the way Savage misrepresented their Christian beliefs. So, they walked out civilly.
Again, the false comparison comes back again, you just can't stop yourself. Criticizing the Bible is not equal to attacking a persons orientation......and most gays I know would not walk, they would challenge.If the shoe were on the other foot and homosexual students walked out from a Traditional Christian's rude comments I'd support their choice to leave civilly as well.
Did I say that? No, I did not.You can't say it's alright for homosexual students to walk out after being offended, yet castigate Christian students for doing the same thing.
Again...."pansy" and criticism of the Bible is "nasty"....in the context of gays being bullied, beaten up?
Whatever, the unbalanced sensitivity is strange.
the more poignant question is why he feels the need to insult in the first place...
wake said:You can't say it's alright for homosexual students to walk out after being offended, yet castigate Christian students for doing the same thing.
You are creating a hypothetical situation and putting words into my mouth. This is the most dishonest form of debate known.I was talking about Christian students being offended and walking out, and compared that to gay students walking out for being offended by comments made from a rude Traditional-Christian orator.
In that vein, yes, we are talking about gay students being offended.
Why shouldn't Christian students be able to walk out when offended, and you insult them for doing so, yet do nothing when the shoe is on the other foot?
So your argument is that Savage was calling the journalist student that walked out over his criticism of the Bible...."queers"?
I always enjoy it when people ignore the context and believe there is only one definition of a word.
This is exactly what I see the people in the video walking out as. I see no significant distinction between walking out of a speech against racism and walking out of a speech against homophobic attitudes. It's the same thing with different targets.Afterthought: this somewhat reminds me of when my Dad decided to preach a sermon against racism when I was 15 - Some church members actually walked out. Two, I remember quite clealry, came over to our house after church that afternoon angry - ready to rip my Dad a new asshole only to discover I was the only one at home. . . and wasn't going to tolerate my Dad being run into the ground for any reason by anyone.
Spit it out...what am I "concealing"....so obviously?I always enjoy it when someone dissembles...and so obviously too.
(1) a comparison of the students and
(2) He criticized the Bible, he said we can reject those portions of the Bible that is BS.
(3) Criticizing the Bible is not equal to attacking a persons orientation......and most gays I know would not walk, they would challenge.
(4) Did I say that? No, I did not.
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?