• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens[W:165; 667]

Matt Foley said:
Why would you quote something you don't believe in? Do you see those on the right running around saying that if you care so much about the poor you wouldn't be making energy so expensive? Huh?!!
Click to expand...

OMG, did he actually use a central concept and justification of a political belief to criticize said belief? OH NOEZ!
 
CriticalThought said:
Kin selection is only shown for eastern populations. You should read people's links mac before you post. The eastern studies came after the western studies. Families in the west live too far apart.
Click to expand...

So, modern cultural conventions now have an impact on evolution....retroactively?
 
mac said:
So, modern cultural conventions now have an impact on evolution....retroactively?
Click to expand...

No. Eastern cultures are more representative of human tribal origins. Western culture has drifted from that as technology has made it easier for families to live further apart. As a result the subtle evolutionary trends are not seen as easily in western cultures as they are in eastern cultures.
 
CriticalThought said:
No. Eastern cultures are more representative of human tribal origins. Western culture has drifted from that as technology has made it easier for families to live further apart. As a result the subtle evolutionary trends are not seen as easily in western cultures as they are in eastern cultures.
Click to expand...

Then why isn't this effect seen in western tribal communities...such as Native American (north and south) tribes, Garifuna, and rural communities where large numbers of family still live in close proximity?
 
mac said:
Then why isn't this effect seen in western tribal communities...such as Native American (north and south) tribes, Garifuna, and rural communities where large numbers of family still live in close proximity?
Click to expand...

It is seen in those tribal communities. Hence why I suggest you study it more. Look into "Two-Spirit" people.

Two-Spirit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Final paragraph from the article I originally linked to for this debate about the "gay uncle" hypothesis. (side note: readers should understand the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory" as used in a scientific context before commenting)

Potential Evolutionary Role for Same-Sex Attraction

Do these findings have any meaning outside of Samoa? Yes and no. Samoan culture is very different from most Western cultures. Samoan culture is very localized, and centered on tight-knit extended families, whereas Western societies tend to be highly individualistic and homophobic. Families are also much more geographically dispersed in Western cultures, diminishing the role that bachelor uncles can play in the extended family, even if they choose to. But in this sense, the researchers say, Samoa's communitarian culture may be more -- not less -- representative of the environment in which male same-sex sexuality evolved eons ago. In that sense, it's not the bachelor uncle who is poorly adapted to the world, but rather the modern Western world that has evolved into an unwelcoming place.
Click to expand...

Please note that the scientist's take on the matter being discussed does not make absolutist statements. Scientists will almost always inject qualifications into their claims, unlike the True Believer who 'knows' the Truth.
 
CriticalThought said:
It is seen in those tribal communities. Hence why I suggest you study it more. Look into "Two-Spirit" people.

Two-Spirit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Neither this or the fa'afafine indicate a "natural" occurrance of these people...for example the fa'afafine are most often selected at a young age by families with low numbers of females and intentionally raised as women to perform female duties. This is nothing more than a matter of external conditioning constructed by society for specific purposes. Therefore a human construct, not evidence of evolution.
 
mac said:
Neither this or the fa'afafine indicate a "natural" occurrance of these people...for example the fa'afafine are most often selected at a young age by families with low numbers of females and intentionally raised as women to perform female duties. This is nothing more than a matter of external conditioning constructed by society for specific purposes. Therefore a human construct, not evidence of evolution.
Click to expand...

Mac, what do you care about evolution? You believe the world was invented by a religious deity in a span of a week.

As for what this is and is not evidence for, it is a matter of perception. To borrow a little from your post modernism.
 
CriticalThought said:
Mac, what do you care about evolution? You believe the world was invented by a religious deity in a span of a week.
Click to expand...

My religious beliefs do not exclude evolution, and I do indeed believe evolution to exist. It's my opinion that the two are not mutually exclusive. Way to be dismissive though.

As for what this is and is not evidence for, it is a matter of perception. To borrow a little from your post modernism.
Click to expand...

I agree, and thanks again for attempting to dismiss your way out of a failing argument.
 
mac said:
My religious beliefs do not exclude evolution, and I do indeed believe evolution to exist. It's my opinion that the two are not mutually exclusive. Way to be dismissive though.
Click to expand...

So...you can take the liberty of believing that evolution is not contrary to the Bible, but if someone suggests that how people translate the word in the New Testament that people interpret as "homosexual" is wrong that is too much and is just justifying sin. Peh.

I agree, and thanks again for attempting to dismiss your way out of a failing argument.
Click to expand...

What? You want me to prove that the way you interpret evidence is different than the way I interpret evidence?
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
So...you can take the liberty of believing that evolution is not contrary to the Bible, but if someone suggests that how people translate the word in the New Testament that people interpret as "homosexual" is wrong that is too much and is just justifying sin. Peh.
Click to expand...

Where do you get these prejudices? Unless you want me to assume you are an exact replicant of every other homosexual I've met, I'd suggest that you not assume I am an exact replicant of every other Christian you've met.

What? You want me to prove that the way you interpret evidence is different than the way I interpret evidence?
Click to expand...

You mean the way you choose to ignore that which doesn't fit your paradigm?
 
mac said:
Where do you get these prejudices? Unless you want me to assume you are an exact replicant of every other homosexual I've met, I'd suggest that you not assume I am an exact replicant of every other Christian you've met.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

You mean the way you choose to ignore that which doesn't fit your paradigm?
Click to expand...

We wouldn't have paradigms if we didn't ignore something. The human mind is built to categorize and discern.
 
CriticalThought said:
Fair enough.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

We wouldn't have paradigms if we didn't ignore something. The human mind is built to categorize and discern.
Click to expand...

And we wouldn't be human without an ability to adjust our paradigms based on new evidence. We have that ability, too, just sometimes not the will to realize it.
 
Wow... All these days and all these posts later, and the left is still trying to justify their defense of hate speech.
 
Grim17 said:
Wow... All these days and all these posts later, and the left is still trying to justify their defense of hate speech.
Click to expand...



So what was the final decision? Was the "journalist speaker" a bully or was he given a pass for call the school kids "pansed ass"?
 
Grim17 said:
Wow... All these days and all these posts later, and the left is still trying to justify their defense of hate speech.
Click to expand...

FIRST: the "left" probably doesn't see the words, speech, of Dan Savage as "hate speech" - so how can the "left" be seen as justifying it.

SECOND: Please give a "conservative" explanation of how it views the words as "hate speech" that in any way compares to the words of those who attack gays and lesbians.
 
Billy the Kid said:
So what was the final decision? Was the "journalist speaker" a bully or was he given a pass for call the school kids "pansed ass"?
Click to expand...

The word used was "pansy" not "pansed"

also, as posted earlier but here it is again
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
 
Somerville said:
The word used was "pansy" not "pansed"

also, as posted earlier but here it is again
[QUOTE]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.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]


Thanks for the pansy correction.


You see, I'm one of those folks that has a really hard time with the "after the dust up apology". IMO, this guy is an example of the "Horse Thief Theory". He's not sorry he said what he said, he's sorry he got caught, so to speak, and it might have an adverse effect on his " future speaking engagements". JMO
 
Savage's apology was just a bit more truthful than those "IF I offended anyone" so-called apologies we see so often. He admitted he was wrong unlike the righteous types with their "IF" qualification of their follow-up statements
 
Thanks for the pansy correction.


You see, I'm one of those folks that has a really hard time with the "after the dust up apology". IMO, this guy is an example of the "Horse Thief Theory". He's not sorry he said what he said, he's sorry he got caught, so to speak, and it might have an adverse effect on his " future speaking engagements". JMO
Click to expand...

No, I think he is sorry for the word choice, but instead of listening to a discussion of how some Christians use the Bible to inflict violence upon young people, they chose the weak thing to do - act indignant and walk out. That is a sign of weakness.

It's the same as a child pulling the "la la la...I can't hear you" thing.

It's weak, impetuous, and childish and too many Americans of too many stripes behave this way now.

Literally, what it's saying is this:

"I'm a Christian, so I can call you awful names because I have a Bible in my hand."

"Well, you offend me and you hurt people with your words."

"How dare you insult me and my religion!"

You want to criticize gays? Go ahead. It's your right. But you can't do that and then get all pissy when someone comes back at you. Should Savage have used the word pansy ass? No. But should he have called them out? Yes. He should've. If you can dish out criticism, but can't take it, you're weak and childish.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
No, I think he is sorry for the word choice, but instead of listening to a discussion of how some Christians use the Bible to inflict violence upon young people, they chose the weak thing to do - act indignant and walk out. That is a sign of weakness.

It's the same as a child pulling the "la la la...I can't hear you" thing.

It's weak, impetuous, and childish and too many Americans of too many stripes behave this way now.

Literally, what it's saying is this:

"I'm a Christian, so I can call you awful names because I have a Bible in my hand."

"Well, you offend me and you hurt people with your words."

"How dare you insult me and my religion!"

You want to criticize gays? Go ahead. It's your right. But you can't do that and then get all pissy when someone comes back at you. Should Savage have used the word pansy ass? No. But should he have called them out? Yes. He should've. If you can dish out criticism, but can't take it, you're weak and childish.
Click to expand...

Know what..your post is absurd, ridiculous and so disengenous its laughable...and it has NOTHING do with the context in which savage conducted himself....
 
FilmFestGuy said:
No, I think he is sorry for the word choice, but instead of listening to a discussion of how some Christians use the Bible to inflict violence upon young people, they chose the weak thing to do - act indignant and walk out. That is a sign of weakness.

It's the same as a child pulling the "la la la...I can't hear you" thing.

It's weak, impetuous, and childish and too many Americans of too many stripes behave this way now.

Literally, what it's saying is this:

"I'm a Christian, so I can call you awful names because I have a Bible in my hand."

"Well, you offend me and you hurt people with your words."

"How dare you insult me and my religion!"

You want to criticize gays? Go ahead. It's your right. But you can't do that and then get all pissy when someone comes back at you. Should Savage have used the word pansy ass? No. But should he have called them out? Yes. He should've. If you can dish out criticism, but can't take it, you're weak and childish.
Click to expand...



So in the OP where was it in the article the kids said "la la la...I can't hear you" thing". I thought the article said the kids got up and walked out without comment. I must have missed that part.

So your saying, if someone was doing the same to you, mocking something you believed in and you weren't told "before" attending you were going to be singled out, you'd have sat there with an open mind and listen intently?

Your a much bigger person than I am.
 
Billy the Kid said:
So in the OP where was it in the article the kids said "la la la...I can't hear you" thing". I thought the article said the kids got up and walked out without comment. I must have missed that part.

So your saying, if someone was doing the same to you, mocking something you believed in and you weren't told "before" attending you were going to be singled out, you'd have sat there with an open mind and listen intently?

Your a much bigger person than I am.
Click to expand...

I went to a friend's wedding where the Catholic priest decided to use the sermon to degrade gays and their relationships as being fraudulent. I didn't leave because I didn't want to make a scene at a friend's wedding. I did, however, scowl at the priest every time I saw him at the reception.

This seems to be a new thing for some Christians - to take offense at nearly every criticism of their faith. Again, they can say, "I think you're evil and going to hell", but when challenged, they simply walk away. "I don't want to hear your reasons that I should reconsider my actions!" is essentially what they said.

It is sad that there are kids killing themselves and people who claim to be Christian would prefer to not hear how they might be playing a role in that. It essentially means they'd rather kids die than listen to anything that might be critical of their actions.

And he didn't call all Christians "pansy assed"; that comment came after they'd already begun to walk out. Again, it's a really poor word choice, but why should they be allowed to pass judgment upon others but run away when judgment returns their way? It's arrogance. It says, "I can judge you because this book lets me, but I won't DARE let you judge me."

The "la la la" thing is an analogy.
 
lpast said:
Know what..your post is absurd, ridiculous and so disengenous its laughable...and it has NOTHING do with the context in which savage conducted himself....
Click to expand...

If you had any clue as to what is what, he does know what, and you demonstrate an egregious lack of such knowledge. FFG is entirely correct in what he said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom