Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses/Mocks Christian Teens at National Event (dangers, document, bill)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's ok to bully people if you are a Lefty. After all, it's ALL they know how to do.
Remembering back and dealing with our liberal leftist court system..spending 5 years assisting my younger brother...all I saw...were left wing bullies...lawyers..judges...social workers...and other so - called experts..It was clear that the lefties are not the typical ones we are used too...They all made a great living out of bullying..all under the guise of social benevolence..It used to be that the left were poor socialists...not so anymore- the left are rich socialists..who prey on the poor and common person...go figure.
Criticizing "Christian" hypocrisy, is not an anti-Christian speech. Aren't you people tired of your faux persecution complex yet? It's pretty pathetic.
It's not about persecution, but about fairness. He's cherry-picking the bible to attack it just as much as those who use it to justify their pre-existing bigotry. How can you be blind to the blatant double-standard that allows hateful things to be said about Christians without fear of repercussion while other religions and groups are off limits? He specifically called out those who left the auditorium; they didn't boo, they didn't scream, they calmly and quietly filed out while his profanity and hateful words were met with applause and cheers by those who probably consider themselves to be open-minded and tolerant.
Criticize or insult Christians and you're given awards. Do the same with other religions, gays or minorities and you're removed from the airwaves, subjected to boycotts, and branded as a hatemonger by bloggers and left-wing pundits.
Nah. As I said earlier, the term "bullying" implies that one is doing something specifically to be cruel.
If anything, anti-homosexual BS in the bible is the bully. It has been causing trouble (e.g., death) for centuries now. And because of something trivial (like someone wearing Wal-Mart brand clothing) and possibly inborn (like having big ears). This man attacked said anti-homosexual BS in retaliation, self-defense.
I'm sorry that a number of bystanders who have been siding with the bully (forementioned anti-homosexual BS) were upset to see their friend finally getting what he deserved. But maybe they should've put a stop to the bullying themselves, before the previously wimpy kid had to stand up and pop him one? Just saying...
Which he was doing. If you can honestly say that he was NOT trying to be cruel, you libs really are off your rockers. And I don't believe INTENT is needed to be accused of being a bully. You might want to look that up.
Again, to be clear - if I call someone an ugly (fill in the term), can't it be said I'm just being truthful. You really couldn't prove I'd done it to be cruel, now, could you?
How can you be blind to the blatant double-standard that allows hateful things to be said about Christians without fear of repercussion while other religions and groups are off limits? He specifically called out those who left the auditorium; they didn't boo, they didn't scream, they calmly and quietly filed out while his profanity and hateful words were met with applause and cheers by those who probably consider themselves to be open-minded and tolerant.
He did. And he then apologized for doing so:
On "Bull****" and "Pansy-Assed" | Slog "I would like to apologize for describing that walk out as a pansy-assed move. I wasn't calling the handful of students who left pansies (2800+ students, most of them Christian, stayed and listened), just the walk-out itself. But that's a distinction without a difference—kinda like when religious conservatives tells their gay friends that they "love the sinner, hate the sin." They're often shocked when their gay friends get upset because, hey, they were making a distinction between the person (lovable!) and the person's actions (not so much!). But gay people feel insulted by "love the sinner, hate the sin" because it is insulting. Likewise, my use of "pansy-assed" was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it."
Bullying is wrong. Homosexuality is wrong and condemed in the Bible. Christians realize that
practicing homosexuals will not go to Heaven. We are trying to save homosexuals from going
to Hell. That is not bullying. It is not hating, it is actually loving. It is like stopping someone
from going into the path of a speeding car, where death is imminent.
That is my belief. I also believe there is no sex in Heaven. We will all be in spirit form.
The homosexual must ask himself, "Is the temporary gratification of the flesh worth all the penalty and losses I must suffer?
The father of two of the students who walked out of this disgusting presentation has spoken out and has some interesting things to say:
"The attitude of the conference coordinators was as disturbing as Dan Savage's,"... "They reportedly said that as journalists the kids should have been able to sit there and take it all in. They felt the only thing that they had failed at was to not clearly tell the attending schools about Dan Savage. If they had to warn the schools, why would they let him speak?"
"In addition, Naman says, some of Savage's remarks were sexual in nature, and inappropriate for an audience of high school students.""He made lewd references to his mate in Speedos--something about having to be pried off of him to come to the session. In any context, speaking to highschoolers of any sexual type, that is flat out wrong. My 16-year-old daughter was there."
"This puke felt at ease enough to speak like that in front of a little girl. What a pig."
On "Bull****" and "Pansy-Assed" | Slog "I would like to apologize for describing that walk out as a pansy-assed move. I wasn't calling the handful of students who left pansies (2800+ students, most of them Christian, stayed and listened), just the walk-out itself. But that's a distinction without a difference—kinda like when religious conservatives tells their gay friends that they "love the sinner, hate the sin." They're often shocked when their gay friends get upset because, hey, they were making a distinction between the person (lovable!) and the person's actions (not so much!). But gay people feel insulted by "love the sinner, hate the sin" because it is insulting. Likewise, my use of "pansy-assed" was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it."
He did NOT apologize. In true Lib-fashion, he attempted to "explain" himself. He's apologizing for his choice of words, not his true intent. Kind of like the steaming pile of dog crap from the EPA that apologized for his poor choice of the word "crucify", but never apologized for the sentiment behind his story.
The more the Left rallies behind these radical haters, the more they are seen for the true racist, sexist, intolerant hypocrites they are.
Before you go further in your blind defense of this hater, you might want to read up on his past choice of words.
He did NOT apologize. In true Lib-fashion, he attempted to "explain" himself. He's apologizing for his choice of words, not his true intent. Kind of like the steaming pile of dog crap from the EPA that apologized for his poor choice of the word "crucify", but never apologized for the sentiment behind his story.
The more the Left rallies behind these radical haters, the more they are seen for the true racist, sexist, intolerant hypocrites they are.
Before you go further in your blind defense of this hater, you might want to read up on his past choice of words.
My defense isn't blind. I am familiar with his "controversial" language and that some people might be offended by his columns, which is their prerogative. I don't think he should apologize for calling out hypocrisy by a subset of people; I think he should apologize for the manner in which he did it to that audience (which he has). I'm not sure what you think his true intent was, but I suspect we disagree about that.
I know it is easier to paint this as an all-or-none issue. The trouble with that is that it leaves no room for reality because the two polar opposite positions are too busy screaming about the other side being wrong.
The very point he was making? That if we can ignore so much of what else is written in the Christian Bible, we can ignore what it says about homosexuality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise
Which he was doing. If you can honestly say that he was NOT trying to be cruel, you libs really are off your rockers.
One, I'm sure very few people would consider me a liberal. And two, no, if he were trying to be cruel, he would've said plenty more about Christians in general and those who walked out on him (He had the support of a still-rather large crowd, after all). Bullies don't just stop insulting/attacking when they have a group of people cheering them on; they only kick it up a notch!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise
And I don't believe INTENT is needed to be accused of being a bully. You might want to look that up.
Well, nothing is needed to be accused. But people do not generally call someone else a bully if their offenses are in retaliation and of much less severity than those of the original offender's, which these were (and I told you how).
I really don't care to get sucked into a non-debate over whether he was being a bully or bully-like, however, so I will leave you with the last word on that. I think eastwesteastagain made one of the greater points when they said that repetition is an essential aspect of the definition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The very point he was making? That if we can ignore so much of what else is written in the Christian Bible, we can ignore what it says about homosexuality?
