• 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]

Gimmesometruth said:
Uh..when did I say "I am a budding journalist" or anything of the sort?

If you can't back your implying that the symposium did not know what they were getting, that is fine with me.
Click to expand...

You're such a little game-player. I haven't implied anything about anything. I don't need to "back" anything--I posted the links to the the convention and to the program and commented on these. Your bad if you're unfamiliar with what I've posted.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted posts #473 and 525? So you aren't a budding journo yourself? Apologies if I have misread, but you did seem to acknowledge when you said, "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."

And that's right; you shouldn't be if you can't pass Journo 101 and don't understand that your job is not to spin your opinion but, rather, to report on the story. Actually, I kinda hope you're only a theorist. I'd like to know that the upcoming journos know how to root out and also report on facts without interjecting their own editorial opinon, which is the job of...you know...op/eds.
 
Thrilla said:
you are incorrect..... when you tell people what to do, you are trying to dictate to them.
Click to expand...
If you are critical of the Bible, you are telling them what to do? If you say "you are a hypocrite if you use parts of the Bible against homosexuals", you are dictating?

things like " ignore parts of the bible".. or " don't use the bible for < insert purpose>".... those are not criticism or critiques.
Click to expand...
Wow, that is quite the stretch, it is "dictating" when you stop someone from doing harm when they use scripture as an excuse for doing harm.

Really.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
As I said, your original definition was incomplete.

Again, using one description of an action taken by a group against a group, is not bullying. Being critical of the Bible is not bullying.
Click to expand...

his definition is fine.... it's your spin that is a problem here.
 
Thrilla said:
I don't get why people are in disagreement over this simple thing.... bullying does not have to be recurring to be bullying ( harassment, however, does have to be recurring)

it's sort of understandable though.. folks don't want to admit that they are approving of bullying, when they are, in fact, approving of bullying.
Click to expand...

They don't want to admit that a homosexual can be a bully and that Christians can be a target...:shrug:
 
Gimmesometruth said:
As I said, your original definition was incomplete.

Again, using one description of an action taken by a group against a group, is not bullying. Being critical of the Bible is not bullying.
Click to expand...

He wasn't just critical of the Bible....you could have played that card had he not specifically insulted the children that walked out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying

Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior manifested by the use of force or coercion to affect others, particularly [not exclusively] when the behavior is habitual and involves an imbalance of power. It can include verbal harassment, physical assault or coercion and may be directed repeatedly towards particular victims, perhaps on grounds of race, religion, gender, sexuality, or ability.[2][3] The "imbalance of power" may be social power and/or physical power. The victim of bullying is sometimes referred to as a "target".
 
Last edited:
mac said:
They don't want to admit that a homosexual can be a bully and that Christians can be a target...:shrug:
Click to expand...
Really? I don't think Savage was a bully, but I don't think homosexuality is a superpower that prevents gay people from being capable of bullying. I also don't think Christians have superpowers that prevent them from being the targets of bullying. Where do you come up with this stuff?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
If you are critical of the Bible, you are telling them what to do? If you say "you are a hypocrite if you use parts of the Bible against homosexuals", you are dictating?
Click to expand...
no, that not dictating.. that would be a personal attack.

when someone tells you to engage, or to not engage, in a certain behavior or action... they are dictating to you... like " go get me a beer" or " ignore the bible" or " don't use the bible as a social or sexuality guide"
a criticism or critique may follow , or even precede, those mandates, .. but that doesn't detract from the mandate itself.
Wow, that is quite the stretch, it is "dictating" when you stop someone from doing harm when they use scripture as an excuse for doing harm.

Really.
Click to expand...
you example is not clear enough to discern.... it may be dictating, it may be a suggestion, it may be indirect advice..... i'd have to see the wording to determine what it is.

please, don't whine about stretching... your semantics games stretch enough as it is.
 
nota bene said:
You're such a little game-player. I haven't implied anything about anything. I don't need to "back" anything--I posted the links to the the convention and to the program and commented on these. Your bad if you're unfamiliar with what I've posted.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted posts #473 and 525? So you aren't a budding journo yourself? Apologies if I have misread, but you did seem to acknowledge when you said, "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."

And that's right; you shouldn't be if you can't pass Journo 101 and don't understand that your job is not to spin your opinion but, rather, to report on the story. Actually, I kinda hope you're only a theorist. I'd like to know that the upcoming journos know how to root out and also report on facts without interjecting their own editorial opinon, which is the job of...you know...op/eds.
Click to expand...
You totally lost track of this conversation between us, it started at post 690, where you were making your "suggestions" on pre-screening and what the topic was. His topic was " alternative media, social media and creating a movement against bullying."
Part of the movement against bullying, from his perspective, includes the use of the Bible in the persecution of homosexual teens, some of which have committed suicide IN PART as a result of said bullying.

I'm still waiting for you to show where I made any claims about being or becoming a journalist.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Really? I don't think Savage was a bully, but I don't think homosexuality is a superpower that prevents gay people from being capable of bullying. I also don't think Christians have superpowers that prevent them from being the targets of bullying. Where do you come up with this stuff?
Click to expand...

I pull it out of my ass....or maybe it is evidenced by the repeated denials of the mere mention of the fact that a homosexual can be a bully. I mean, we all know that they (homosexuals) are not real people and therefore not capable of the same mistakes that the rest of us are, right?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Really? I don't think Savage was a bully, but I don't think homosexuality is a superpower that prevents gay people from being capable of bullying. I also don't think Christians have superpowers that prevent them from being the targets of bullying. Where do you come up with this stuff?
Click to expand...

Savage clearly has the position of power in that room... he was the speaker. ( the bully pulpit)
using his position of power, he insults , berates, and some might say intimidates, this group of kids who are Christians.... he might have been fine sticking to beating up the bible, but he also decides to call the kids who left names.... it is not a stretch at all to say he was bullying... hell, he even had an explicit agenda to go along with his attacks ( to get the kids to ignore the parts of the bible about homosexuality)

he was being a bully... not as bad as some bullies are... no where near as bad as some of the heinous bullies.... but he was still being a bully.


as far as i'm concerned, anyone can be a bully, and anyone can be a victim... no one , and no group, is excluded from either
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Straw, straw and more straw, no one has made those claims, nor is that what the poster said.
Click to expand...

Shooo lol..I told you yesterday no more interactions shall I have with a troll...
 
Thrilla said:
no, that not dictating.. that would be a personal attack.

when someone tells you to engage, or to not engage, in a certain behavior or action... they are dictating to you... like " go get me a beer" or " ignore the bible" or " don't use the bible as a social or sexuality guide"
a criticism or critique may follow , or even precede, those mandates, .. but that doesn't detract from the mandate itself.
Click to expand...
Uh, the statement was "we can learn to ignore the BS in the Bible about homosexuality, like we ignore the BS about shellfish, slavery...."

That again is hardly a "mandate" or "dictate"



you example is not clear enough to discern.... it may be dictating, it may be a suggestion, it may be indirect advice..... i'd have to see the wording to determine what it is.

please, don't whine about stretching... your semantics games stretch enough as it is.
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't a matter of words, it was a matter of stopping someone ACTING OUT in a negative manner while using the Bible as an excuse.

You can either directly deal with what was said by Savage or the posters here, or you can keep imagining what the issue is......but choose one...please.
 
Thrilla said:
Savage clearly has the position of power in that room... he was the speaker. ( the bully pulpit)
using his position of power, he insults , berates, and some might say intimidates, this group of kids who are Christians.... he might have been fine sticking to beating up the bible, but he also decides to call the kids who left names.... it is not a stretch at all to say he was bullying... hell, he even had an explicit agenda to go along with his attacks ( to get the kids to ignore the parts of the bible about homosexuality)

he was being a bully... not as bad as some bullies are... no where near as bad as some of the heinous bullies.... but he was still being a bully.


as far as i'm concerned, anyone can be a bully, and anyone can be a victim... no one , and no group, is excluded from either
Click to expand...


They all know savage was wrong and the bully.....everyone in the thread knows it....:)
 
mac said:
He wasn't just critical of the Bible....you could have played that card had he not specifically insulted the children that walked out.

Bullying - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior manifested by the use of force or coercion to affect others, particularly when the behavior is habitual and involves an imbalance of power. It can include verbal harassment, physical assault or coercion and may be directed repeatedly towards particular victims, perhaps on grounds of race, religion, gender, sexuality, or ability. The "imbalance of power" may be social power and/or physical power. The victim of bullying is sometimes referred to as a "target".
Click to expand...
Fixed your editing, and again I'll repost the bit further on....


Bullying is an act of repeated aggressive behavior in order to intentionally hurt another person, physically or mentally. Bullying is characterized by an individual behaving in a certain way to gain power over another person.[16]
Norwegian researcher Dan Olweus defines bullying as when a person is
"exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons." He defines negative action as "when a person intentionally inflicts injury or discomfort upon another person, through physical contact, through words or in other ways".
Click to expand...

Again, one remark towards a groups action is not "bullying"....it is stretching.

Criticizing parts of the Bible is not "bullying".
 
CriticalThought said:
Sometimes it is harder to be kind than it is to be right.
Click to expand...
To bad that Savage is both mean and wrong :mrgreen:
ThePlayDrive said:
It depends on what "turning the tables" means.
Click to expand...
It would mean someone saying the opposite message with the same vulgarity and hateful undertones. For instance, some Christian guy saying we need to ignore the bull**** of this world that pushes sexual immorality and whatnot.
 
Thrilla said:
Savage clearly has the position of power in that room... he was the speaker. ( the bully pulpit)
using his position of power, he insults , berates, and some might say intimidates, this group of kids who are Christians.... he might have been fine sticking to beating up the bible, but he also decides to call the kids who left names.... it is not a stretch at all to say he was bullying... hell, he even had an explicit agenda to go along with his attacks ( to get the kids to ignore the parts of the bible about homosexuality)

he was being a bully... not as bad as some bullies are... no where near as bad as some of the heinous bullies.... but he was still being a bully.


as far as i'm concerned, anyone can be a bully, and anyone can be a victim... no one , and no group, is excluded from either
Click to expand...
This term was coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to the White House as a "bully pulpit," by which he meant a terrific platform from which to advocate an agenda. Roosevelt famously used the word bully as an adjective meaning "superb" or "wonderful" (a more common expression in his time than it is today).
Its meaning in this sense is only distantly related to the modern form of "bully", which means "harasser of the weak". The word is related to the Dutch boel, meaning lover, and is also found in the German word Nebenbuhler, meaning a rival for a lady's affection. In English usage around 1700, "bully" came to be similar to "pimp," which gives us the connotation of a ruffian or harasser.[1]
Due to the archaic nature of the adjective "bully" and the religious symbolism of the word pulpit (the elevated platform used by a preacher), this phrase is now often used as a pejorative. This misinterpretation implies intimidation and, possibly, an abuse of authority. An example of this contemporary usage would be the sentence: "He uses his job as a bully pulpit, regaling his subordinates with his political opinions as part of their morning meetings."
 
digsbe said:
To bad that Savage is both mean and wrong :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

The average Christian doesn't know a damn thing about the Bible. That isn't just my opinion. That is verifiable with studies. Not to mention I ask people all the time in which books of the Bible are the condemnations of homosexuality and 9 times out of 10 they can't name one.

Savage and I are different. He thinks Christians who cite the Bible to condemn homosexuality but ignore the other parts are hypocrites. I think they are just stupid or ill informed.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
It would mean someone saying the opposite message with the same vulgarity and hateful undertones. For instance, some Christian guy saying we need to ignore the bull**** of this world that pushes sexual immorality and whatnot.
Click to expand...
Nope, I definitely wouldn't support that because I disagree with that opinion. Although, I still wouldn't consider the person who said it to be a bully. Now, if "turning the tables" had meant some Christian guy saying, "we need to ignore the bull**** of those who call themselves open-minded and then close their minds to understanding our morality," then I wouldn't have a problem with it because just as Savage is pointing out inconsistencies in belief, that Christian guy would be too.
 
digsbe said:
To bad that Savage is both mean and wrong

It would mean someone saying the opposite message with the same vulgarity and hateful undertones. For instance, some Christian guy saying we need to ignore the bull**** of this world that pushes sexual immorality and whatnot.
Click to expand...


Kinda like this....and whatnot?



 
CriticalThought said:
Not to mention I ask people all the time in which books of the Bible are the condemnations of homosexuality and 9 times out of 10 they can't name one.
Click to expand...

Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Corinthians, Genesis. Corinthians 6:9-10 speaks of sexual immorality in general, Deuteronomy and Leviticus speak specifically of homosexual acts, Genesis is iffy, because Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the peoples actions towards the Lords messengers, and not specifically because of homosexuality.
 
CriticalThought said:
The average Christian doesn't know a damn thing about the Bible. That isn't just my opinion. That is verifiable with studies. Not to mention I ask people all the time in which books of the Bible are the condemnations of homosexuality and 9 times out of 10 they can't name one.

Savage and I are different. He thinks Christians who cite the Bible to condemn homosexuality but ignore the other parts are hypocrites. I think they are just stupid or ill informed.
Click to expand...

What studies?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Fixed your editing, and again I'll repost the bit further on....
Click to expand...

I didn't edit...I added an explanation. That's what the [] means.

Again, one remark towards a groups action is not "bullying"....it is stretching.

Criticizing parts of the Bible is not "bullying".
Click to expand...

So, despite all evidence to the contrary...you are going to say that an action must be repeated against a specific individual before it can be considered bullying? How many times must it be repeated? Once? Twice?
 
mac said:
What studies?
Click to expand...




I was wondering the same thing - "study . . . what study". But I'm positive someone, somewhere will find a study from where ever to condemn these kids for walking out on the bully. :2razz:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom