Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens

[Kathryn]

I guess it's a good thing he didn't give a speech denouncing Christians.

The fact of the matter is that he offered up the same criticism against Biblical literalists that have been offered up time and again. That a small number of people left compared to the majority who stayed, who statistically were predominantly Christian, just shows me that this whole controversy is manufactured. Calling out literalists for cherry-picking the Bible, especially over issues involving homosexuals, is nothing new. This particular guy happened to use the world ******** three times in specifically referring to those parts of the Bible. And that is to be construed as an attack on Christendom.

What's even worse is that this is a small bit from the entire speech. Where's the rest of the speech? What was it's content? Were the students who walked out all from that one school? If so, why?

But now people are linking one man's speech, for which he already apologized for, to make a connection between anti-bullying and anti-religious sentiment.

Manufactured controversy has achieved it's goal.

Don't blame this brouhaha on other people when it was clearly the intentionally inflammatory words of Savage that created this maelstrom.

The whole fiasco could have easily been avoided - all he had to do was keep his personal agenda in check a bit and not speak so inappropriately at a high school program.

Oh well, I'm pretty sure he's happy with the publicity. Perhaps THAT part was manufactured too - for publicity. Ever think of that? It was the first thought that came into my head.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Savage was not hired to give a speech denouncing Christianity. It was completely inappropriate for him to bring up religion at all - as well as unnecessary.

Yet, it is religion which is at the very heart of the bigotry shown to homosexuals, entirely appropriate and necessary.

If non Christians don't want Christianity's teachings and moral values crammed down their throats, they should treat others as they want to be treated and not try to cram their own moral values and opinions of Christianity down the throats of others either.

Then, what would you propose those who have Christian teachings and moral values crammed down their throats do? Will doing nothing at all stop Christians from cramming? What will stop them? I'm all for a solution to that problem.

 

[Storm]

I know fallacies, that's why I was able to identify the fallacy you provided.

I suppose every negative opinion, supported or otherwise, is a fallacy to you then.

Now, do you think you can actually contribute to the thread? Or failing that, at least support your ridiculous accusation? If not, spare the endangered pixel and quit spamming up the thread.

 

[A Troubled Man]

I suppose every negative opinion, supported or otherwise, is a fallacy to you then.

Of course not, but certainly the words you have stated thus far about Savage are fallacious, specifically the one I outlined previously.

Now, do you think you can actually contribute to the thread? Or failing that, at least support your ridiculous accusation? If not, spare the endangered pixel and quit spamming up the thread.

I did contribute, I identified a fallacious argument. Contributions to this thread shouldn't include fallacious arguments, should they?

 

[Storm]

Of course not, but certainly the words you have stated thus far about Savage are fallacious, specifically the one I outlined previously.



I did contribute, I identified a fallacious argument. Contributions to this thread shouldn't include fallacious arguments, should they?

I'll take that as a "no, I have nothing to contribute."

SAVE THE PIXELS! :shout

 

[Kathryn]

Yet, it is religion which is at the very heart of the bigotry shown to homosexuals, entirely appropriate and necessary.

So you think this speech was appropriate. Where do you draw the line? Should there be classes taught, paid for by tax dollars, which teach against Christianity and other mainstream religions? Should teachers start wearing shirts with anti-religious sayings on them? Should schools forbid students to wear a star of David or a pentagram around their neck? Should students be forbidden to bring a Koran to school? Where do you draw the line? Where does religious tolerance come into play in your book?

Then, what would you propose those who have Christian teachings and moral values crammed down their throats do? Will doing nothing at all stop Christians from cramming? What will stop them? I'm all for a solution to that problem.

Frankly, I don't believe public schools should be in the business of teaching religious doctrine, or teaching anti-religious doctrine. I think that they should support tolerance for diversity, PERIOD.

 

[gnomon]

It is sad that it seems the anti-bullying movement is being taken advantage by the anti-religious as a means to push their agenda.

This manufactured controversy has been a success.

Time to wait for the next one.

 

[Storm]

Poisoning the well:
Poisoning the well can take the form of an (explicit or implied) argument, and is considered by some philosophers a logical fallacy.[1]
A poisoned-well "argument" has the following form:
1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false, relevant or irrelevant) about person A (the target) is presented by another. (e.g., "Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail.")2. Implicit conclusion: "Therefore, any claims made by person A cannot be relied upon". A subcategory of this form is the application of an unfavorable attribute to any future opponents, in an attempt to discourage debate. (For example, "That's my stance on funding the public education system, and anyone who disagrees with me hates children.") Any person who steps forward to dispute the claim will then risk applying the tag to him or herself in the process. A poisoned-well "argument" can also be in this form:
1. Unfavorable definitions (be it true or false) which prevent disagreement (or enforce affirmative position)2. Any claims without first agreeing with above definitions are automatically dismissed.

(Wiki)
So, since my true but unfavorable information was presented in response to a question, rather than preceding, please explain how I poisoned the well.

Or, you know... just shut up about it.

 

[Me Myself]

I am sorry, but everything he said was okay.

Maybe I´ll just argue "bull **" in a school setting, but that´s all. (pansy -**** too)

He is donig anti-bullying, OF COURSE he MUST descredit pro-bullying texts. Is freaking obvious. I am sorry.

 

[A Troubled Man]

So you think this speech was appropriate. Where do you draw the line? Should there be classes taught, paid for by tax dollars, which teach against Christianity and other mainstream religions? Should teachers start wearing shirts with anti-religious sayings on them?

I wasn't aware that Savage was a teacher there and was being paid to teach against Christianity.

Do churches acquire monies from their flocks in exchange for teachings against non-belief?

Should schools forbid students to wear a star of David or a pentagram around their neck? Should students be forbidden to bring a Koran to school? Where do you draw the line? Where does religious tolerance come into play in your book?

That would depend on whether or not those very same religions will ever show tolerance to others, first. They don't.

Frankly, I don't believe public schools should be in the business of teaching religious doctrine, or teaching anti-religious doctrine. I think that they should support tolerance for diversity, PERIOD.

I too don't agree religions should teach against non-belief or should support intolerance to others, yet they do.

It would appear the theistic backyard could use some work before going out and criticizing others.

 

[A Troubled Man]

A poisoned-well "argument" has the following form:
1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false, relevant or irrelevant) about person A (the target) is presented by another. 2. Implicit conclusion: "Therefore, any claims made by person A cannot be relied upon"

So, since my true but unfavorable information was presented in response to a question, rather than preceding, please explain how I poisoned the well.

Your statement below follows that definition to a tee.

No, he's unsuitable to speak because, as I said initially, he's a mediocre shock jock.

Or, you know... just shut up about it.

Was that really necessary?

 

[Storm]

Your statement below follows that definition to a tee.

No, it really doesn't. An unfavorable opinion does not equate to a logical fallacy. I did not present the article, nor did I attempt to characterize my opponents.

Again, learn your damn fallacies. And no, the fact that you can parrot the names does not mean you understand the concepts.

Was that really necessary?

Well, let's see. You refused to explain yourself until I said it, so I'm gonna go with "yes."

 

[Kathryn]

I wasn't aware that Savage was a teacher there and was being paid to teach against Christianity.

Savage was hired to speak to a group of high school students. But you're probably right - I doubt he was hired to teach against Christianity.

That would depend on whether or not those very same religions will ever show tolerance to others, first. They don't.

So you base, and justify, your actions and attitudes on the actions and attitudes of others? Two wrongs make a right? Oh, and throw in a lot of generalizations at whole groups of individuals while you're at it?

Ask the Sunnis and Shias, or Tutsis and Hutus, or the Lancasters and Yorks, how that worked out for them.

It would appear the theistic backyard could use some work before going out and criticizing others.

It would seem you're being hypocritical yourself -you demand tolerance but are willing to not only tolerate, but support, those who show intolerance to others.

 

[Me Myself]

I am sorry, the speech wasn´t intolerant at all.

He critisized a terxt that supported violence.

Of course he had to do it, it is a fracking anti-bullying speech. It cannot get a free pass because some think the book is religious.

He denounced the specific passages that were violent, the specific believes he HAD TO target as being WRONG for this.

He did what he had to.

 

[Falvlun]

If specific religious texts are being used to support an anti-gay agenda, that often results in the bullying of homosexual peoples, then I do not understand why that religious text should be off limits to criticize and discuss.

This speaker did not drag religion into the fray; religion already placed itself there. Why is it politically incorrect to point out that religious teachings are a major force behind anti-gay sentiments?

 

[HerDotness]

If specific religious texts are being used to support an anti-gay agenda, that often results in the bullying of homosexual peoples, then I do not understand why that religious text should be off limits to criticize and discuss.

This speaker did not drag religion into the fray; religion already placed itself there.

Bears repeating...Hear! Hear!

 

[HerDotness]

People have their lingerie disoriented because a speaker at a high school isn't supposed to use language you'll hear in the hallways during class changes, that's the point.

And criticize the BIBLE????? Not to be done. Religion is Teflon-coated.

 

[Father Heathen]

"Pansy-***" might've been out of line, but some book isn't entitled to respect and tolerance, nor should it be exempt from valid criticism and scrutiny.

 

[A Troubled Man]

No, it really doesn't. An unfavorable opinion does not equate to a logical fallacy.

True, but a logical fallacy does equate a logical fallacy, which is what you provided.

Well, let's see. You refused to explain yourself until I said it, so I'm gonna go with "yes."

Then, it's obvious you wish to act childish and immature, hence I see no reason to continue discussions with you.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm guessing that no one has any issues with Savage manipulating Google in regards to Rick Santorum. I recently saw a video where he threatened to do something worse for the name Rick. You folks are OK with an "anti-bullying" crusader using bullying tactics against someone he doesn't like? What is this? It's OK to be a bully if you are bullying other bullies?

In all honesty that is as bad as when Lilithu was telling me that UU's (she knew and seemed to represent) were intolerant of intolerance.