• 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]

not really, as there there is a substantial difference in scope and severity.

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.
 
who gives a ****? what matters is what actually causes bullying and what can be done to stop it.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

do the religious folks also have free speech rights?.. or is it like bullying to you, only protected for one side of an issue?
 
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.
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.
 
do the religious folks also have free speech rights?.. or is it like bullying to you, only protected for one side of an issue?
Are you arguing that harassment is protected speech?
(hint: it is not)

Or are you trying to argue that calling someone a hypocrite is bullying?
 
Last edited:
do the religious folks also have free speech rights?

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".
 
Last edited:
Unless you have a quote showing he condemns ALL of the Bible, you have no point, since that was your point.

You don't like the response. I can understand that since you can't defend against it.

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.

This is YOUR interpretation, not what he said.


Anytime you want to prove your claim, I will be all eyes.

Anytime you want to address my actual 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.

And of course Grim has make his typical partisan hack statement. Read the thread, Grim. The folks who are against what Savaage said are on BOTH sides of the political spectrum.
 
You don't like the response. I can understand that since you can't defend against it.
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.



This is YOUR interpretation, not what he said.
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".




Anytime you want to address my actual claim, I will be all eyes.
Um, the ball is still in your court, you have yet to show that Savage condemns the ENTIRE BIBLE.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

Keep dancing. The comments were there. You refuse to address them.



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".

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.

Um, the ball is still in your court, you have yet to show that Savage condemns the ENTIRE BIBLE.

Ummm... ball is in YOUR court. That's not what this section of the post is about.
 
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.
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.
 
Keep dancing. The comments were there. You refuse to address them.
Sure, the burden is on me now to produce your proof that Savage condemns the entire Bible.

Wow.





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.
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.



Ummm... ball is in YOUR court. That's not what this section of the post is about.
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.
 
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.

We aren't talking about what Savage may have written. We are talking about the video. You're DOING it again.
 
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.

This. Exactly this.
 
Sure, the burden is on me now to produce your proof that Savage condemns the entire Bible.

Wow.

Once again, I never said that. You asked for what Savage said. I posted it. You've chosen not to address it.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Sure, the burden is on me now to produce your proof that Savage condemns the entire Bible.
Once again, I never said that. You asked for what Savage said. I posted it. You've chosen not to address it.
As I expected, since you cannot show that he condemns the entire Bible, you would try to walk away from your previous claims:

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.

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:





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.
I don't need to re-read anything, I know what you have said, all you do is avoid proving what you claim.



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.
LOL...you have been doing nothing but repeating yourself for a good 4 or 5 pages....without saying a damn thing!
 
We aren't talking about what Savage may have written. We are talking about the video. You're DOING it again.
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.
 
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".
why would i tell you that?... I didn't claim physical harassment is free speech... keep your strawmen in check, please.

would it not be emotional harassment in the case of what savage does?.. if not, why?... I would imagine calling folks names and berating them and their beliefs is certainly a form of emotional harassment, and I really don't see how one could logically disagree.
Savage could have made his argument without tuning into a bully.... but he chose not to... this is the behavior you defend


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.
I don't care , really, if gays are offended at the beliefs and speech of the religious or anti-gays.. and I don't care if the religious or anti-gay folks get offended by the gays... but unlike you and others, I can at least say i'm consistent.
when it reaches levels of harassment or physical bullying, i'm still consistent... it's bad no matter who is doing it or why.... the rationale employed could be noble and honorable, but the behavior is still unacceptable.


Why don't you try and keep up instead of making bull**** comparisons
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.
you can ignore that suggestion if you like, though... it's your reputation ,afterall.
 
As I expected, since you cannot show that he condemns the entire Bible, you would try to walk away from your previous claims:

I didn't walk away from anything. You have chosen to not address what I said. It is you who is walking away.



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:



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.



I don't need to re-read anything, I know what you have said, all you do is avoid proving what you claim.

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.

LOL...you have been doing nothing but repeating yourself for a good 4 or 5 pages....without saying a damn thing!

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.
 
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.

Irrelevant. Bring up all the red herrings you want. The issue is what he presented in the video and it's impact.
 
I didn't walk away from anything. You have chosen to not address what I said. It is you who is walking away.
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.





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.
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!





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.

LOL...I just quoted you, and you can't even acknowledge your own words, what YOU said.



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.
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.
 
Last edited:
Irrelevant. Bring up all the red herrings you want. The issue is what he presented in the video and it's impact.
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.
 
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.

But that's just it. He never made this assumption. You are either dishonest or have a problem with logic and clarity.
 
Back
Top Bottom