# Dan Savage says 'Ignore the bullshit in the Bible' when discussing about gay bullying



## Kue (May 1, 2012)

*Dan Savage says 'Join the anti-baconbits FC' when speaking about gay bullying*





> Nearly a dozen of high school journalists walked out of a lecture by Dan Savage, the prominent ant-bullying advocate that pioneered the 'It Gets Better' campaign.
> 
> His comments about the relationship between anti-gay bullying and the bible sparked a walkout of Christian teens at the National High School Journalist Conference in Seattle.
> 
> ...



Gotta give it to 'em straight Mr. Savage.  Way to go, you made me proud.


----------



## hammer (May 1, 2012)

I see nothing wrong here


----------



## Hatifnatten (May 1, 2012)

Since bible is a bullshit, ignoring anything or everything in it seems like a way to go.


----------



## Roman (May 1, 2012)

I'm not christian and I would've walked out of his lecture. I find it perfectly fine to express disagreement with another pov. What Savage did wrong here is to attack the belief opposing his own rather than giving greater importance to reasons why his argument is more sound and logical in his discussion. Expressing words of hate isn't going to educate anyone about the merits of his belief. All it will do is make him look petty as he gives people from the opposite side no room for an argument or a debate which is ideally what lectures are all about. I say well done to the Christians who walked out. You recognized how weak the man was and showed him what true strength is by standing by what you believe in.


----------



## Hero of Shadows (May 1, 2012)

"Why won't you allow me to discriminate based on a 2000 year old book wa wa, that's discrimantion against my religion"


----------



## Kue (May 1, 2012)

Freedan said:


> I'm not christian and I would've walked out of his lecture. I find it perfectly fine to express disagreement with another pov. What Savage did wrong here is to attack the belief opposing his own rather than giving greater importance to reasons why his argument is more sound and logical in his discussion. Expressing words of hate isn't going to educate anyone about the merits of his belief. All it will do is make him look petty as he gives people from the opposite side no room for an argument or a debate which is ideally what lectures are all about. I say well done to the Christians who walked out. You recognized how weak the man was and showed him what true strength is by standing by what you believe in.



It takes bigger balls to keep it real.


----------



## Karsh (May 1, 2012)

See nothing wrong here.

Guess some aren't meant to be journalists, that's all.


----------



## PureWIN (May 1, 2012)

"Let's bully Christians, and their stupid 'bullshit' beliefs, into accepting our lifestyle with no questions asked." Oh, ok.


----------



## hammer (May 1, 2012)

if a theology teacher said leave your science bullshit at the door I would be fine with that too


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (May 1, 2012)

"the prominent ant-bullying advocate"


----------



## Roman (May 1, 2012)

Cold Dish said:


> It takes bigger balls to keep it real.



How does bullying the bullies makes you any different or any better than the bullies exactly?


----------



## hammer (May 1, 2012)

Freedan said:


> How does bullying the bullies makes you any different from the bullies exactly?



how is it bullying? he just stated religion is a poor reason


----------



## Kue (May 1, 2012)

Freedan said:


> How does bullying the bullies makes you any different from the bullies exactly?



Just tell me who had the bigger balls.

The man that stood up to a religion that has suppressed his people for milleniums.

Or a bunch of children that were scared to hear the truth.


----------



## Coteaz (May 1, 2012)

Freedom of speech, gotta love it.


----------



## hammer (May 1, 2012)

Cold Dish said:


> Just tell me who had the bigger balls.
> 
> The man that stood up to a religion that has suppressed his people for milleniums.
> 
> Or a bunch of children that were scared to hear the truth.



is the answer roast beef?


----------



## Roman (May 1, 2012)

Cold Dish said:


> Just tell me who had the bigger balls.
> 
> The man that stood up to a religion that has suppressed his people for milleniums.
> 
> Or a bunch of children that were scared to hear the truth.



My point isn't against the fact that Savage was telling the truth. If you read my first post, you'll realize that in fact I support his views that the bible's opinion on homosexuals is incorrect and unjustified. The problem was in the way he presented himself, attacking the bible, insulting its believers and not giving a proper argument about why it's wrong to be against homosexuality to a group of people who are against them. 

Instead of presenting the alternative point of view and inviting the journalists and students to see things from a different perspective, he resorts to insults. That doesn't give a lot of strength to his argument or beliefs if all they appear to be based on is hatred toward a pov that goes against his own.


----------



## Forces (May 1, 2012)

Cold Dish said:


> Just tell me who had the bigger balls.
> 
> The man that stood up to a religion that suppresses people for milleniums.
> 
> Or a bunch of children that were scared to hear the truth.



Fixed           .


----------



## hammer (May 1, 2012)

freedan you should think about the phrase walk a mile in his shoes.


----------



## Karsh (May 1, 2012)

That wasn't bullying 

this article just shows that the kids who walked out can't handle being journalists or being in a public forum for that matter. It might make them think twice before going after that journalist degree and then having to talk with people 24/7 that you don't agree with but you have to report on unbiased anyway. Hopefully, cause if not they'll just shit up the whole industry even worse than it already is.

Anyway, christianity IS a big part of the U.S., there is no denying that, so it's also a big part of the descriminations against gays. 
To not expect Dan Savage to call it out is pretty lulzy. He could have been more professional in his language, but honestly you have to have thin skin to not handle that. The kids who walked out shouldn't have taken up this endeavour in the first place.

boo hoo he said something negative about my religion
grow the fuck up you're not 5 anymore

call me when american tweens bully you so much because of your christianity that you literally go and hang yourself


----------



## Bishop (May 1, 2012)

I can care less about what religion it was, bu to disrespect people's faith like that is sad. It's even more sad that people are ok with it and justify his rudeness. Yes, it is free speech.


----------



## Kue (May 1, 2012)

Freedan said:


> My point isn't against the fact that Savage was telling the truth. If you read my first post, you'll realize that in fact I support his views that the bible's opinion on homosexuals is incorrect and unjustified.



I already know that.



> The problem was in the way he presented himself, attacking the bible, insulting its believers and not giving a proper argument about why it's wrong to be against homosexuality to a group of people who are against them.



He did, he expanded on how Christianity cherry picks their passages.



> Instead of presenting the alternative point of view and inviting the journalists and students to see things from a different perspective, he resorts to insults. That doesn't give a lot of strength to his argument or beliefs if all they appear to be based on is hatred toward a pov that goes against his own.



You are right, but next time, don't undermean what Savage has done there.  You have called Savage weak and admired the students that couldn't sit down to hear an alternative viewpoint regardless of how it was presented to them.  It's clear who had the courage here and who didn't.


----------



## davidpliskin (May 1, 2012)

The biggest problem with religions is their willingness to suppress, or ignore all other points of view. The very idea of a "journalist" walking out because they don't like what they hear seems to go against the very idea of journalist. There are far too many propagandist, masquerading as journalists. If they can't handle Dan Savage, then journalism isn't for them.


----------



## Griever (May 1, 2012)

Cold Dish said:


> Just tell me who had the bigger balls.
> 
> The man that stood up to a religion that has suppressed his people for milleniums.
> 
> Or a bunch of children that were scared to hear the truth.



How 'bout neither?...

The guy came off as being pretty childish to me.

Anyways, i wonder how many of the walkouts where actually christian and how many just wanted to get the hell outta there?, i always hated these fuckin' things and slipped out myself


----------



## Forces (May 1, 2012)

davidpliskin said:


> The biggest problem with religions is their willingness to suppress, or ignore all other points of view. The very idea of a "journalist" walking out because they don't like what they hear seems to go against the very idea of journalist. There are far too many propagandist, masquerading as journalists. If they can't handle Dan Savage, then journalism isn't for them.



Religions are excuses for elites to subjugate people's minds in order for them to be at the top. That's the biggest problem with religions. Oh and that they're all worthless.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 1, 2012)

Being offended by something someone says, is not the same as being bullied. 

The fact that the Christians in the audience do not know the difference between being bullied and being offended speaks volumes to the how far and removed the Christian right is from actual oppression.


----------



## Roman (May 1, 2012)

Karsh said:


> this article just shows that the kids who walked out can't handle being journalists or being in a public forum for that matter. It might make them think twice before going after that journalist degree and then having to talk with people 24/7 that you don't agree with but you have to report on unbiased anyway. Hopefully, cause if not they'll just shit up the whole industry even worse than it already is.



This article showed me Dan Savage can't make an argument without insulting people. Yes, I agree with what he said about the bible giving unjustified reasons and I've already said that multiple times. What I see as wrong here is how he made his argument. He wasn't in any way civilized about his opinions and he was hostile to his own audience. Would you sit in a forum where someone constantly insulted what you believe in and would be directly hostile to you if you made an argument against him? Because that's what Dan was doing. Attacking members of his audience for their beliefs is uncalled for if he was there to point out the flaws in their beliefs. He's never going to win anyone's respect for his own pov if he keeps calling others ignorant.



Karsh said:


> Anyway, christianity IS a big part of the U.S., there is no denying that, so it's also a big part of the descriminations against gays.
> To not expect Dan Savage to call it out is pretty lulzy. He could have been more professional in his language, but honestly you have to have thin skin to not handle that. The kids who walked out shouldn't have taken up this endeavour in the first place.



I'm not expecting Dan not to call it out. I expect him to be civilized about it.



Karsh said:


> boo hoo he said something negative about my religion
> grow the fuck up you're not 5 anymore
> 
> call me when american tweens bully you so much because of your christianity that you literally go and hang yourself



I'm not Christian. I believe that was the very first thing I said here.


----------



## Roman (May 1, 2012)

Cold Dish said:


> You are right, but next time, don't undermean what Savage has done there.  You have called Savage weak and admired the students that couldn't sit down to hear an alternative viewpoint regardless of how it was presented to them.  It's clear who had the courage here and who didn't.



Well, I'm sorry if I have trouble respecting someone who relies on insults for his arguments.


----------



## Kue (May 1, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Well, I'm sorry if I have trouble respecting someone who relies on insults for his arguments.



The issue wasn't about giving respect or your perspective on insults.  I simply wanted to challenge the notion you had about Dan Savage and the students.


----------



## Karsh (May 1, 2012)

Freedan said:


> This article showed me Dan Savage can't make an argument without insulting people. Yes, I agree with what he said about the bible giving unjustified reasons and I've already said that multiple times. What I see as wrong here is how he made his argument. He wasn't in any way civilized about his opinions and he was hostile to his own audience. Would you sit in a forum where someone constantly insulted what you believe in and would be directly hostile to you if you made an argument against him? Because that's what Dan was doing. Attacking members of his audience for their beliefs is uncalled for if he was there to point out the flaws in their beliefs. He's never going to win anyone's respect for his own pov if he keeps calling others ignorant.
> 
> I'm not expecting Dan not to call it out. I expect him to be civilized about it



He was't attacking members of the audience.
He specifically referred to the bible and how it's teachings gave kids and people in general an excuse to insult and hurt and BULLY other kids because of their sexuality and he gave good reasoning behind it.
The kids who walked out were the rude ones and he called them out on it and I don't blame him. 
What they were there for, was to report on the meeting and what he said, nothing more, nothing less. Can't handle it? Don't go.

He never said they were ignorant, he called them out for being so thin skinned they can't handle hearing something they don't agree with.

He could have used different adjectives but I don't equate that to being uncivilized because of the _whole_ context of his reasoning.
It made sense to me and it's certainly something I would expect from a gay man hearing how diseased he is day in and day out and a big part of that disgust being excused from the bible.



> I'm not Christian. I believe that was the very first thing I said here.



Did you think I was referring to you specifically?
I was hardly honing in on your post lol.

Anyway, to me this is about good journalism and that these kids can't handle being journalists.


----------



## Roman (May 1, 2012)

Cold Dish said:


> The issue wasn't about giving respect or your perspective on insults.  I simply wanted to challenge the notion you had about Dan Savage and the students.



If Savage was being respectful of his audience's individual beliefs and opinions as he pointed out the flaws in the bible yet members of the audience still walked out, then I'd have to say that it was the journalists who're weak for not being able to handle his arguments. From what I see, they couldn't handle the amount of disrespect and disdain he held toward the very people who had enough respect, be it for any given reason, to take time off of their day and listen to him speak ill of their pov. That alone already takes enormous amounts of courage because they knew they would have to listen to someone disagree with them. The disrespect he showed toward them only made things worse. I can't blame them for walking out because of this.


----------



## teddy (May 1, 2012)

He could've been more tact with his choice of words, but I agree with the overall message of his lecture.


----------



## Roman (May 1, 2012)

Karsh said:


> He wasn't attacking members of the audience.
> He specifically referred to the bible and how it's teachings gave kids and people in general an excuse to insult and hurt and BULLY other kids because of their sexuality and he gave good reasoning behind it.
> The kids who walked out were the rude ones and he called them out on it and I don't blame him.
> What they were there for, was to report on the meeting and what he said, nothing more, nothing less. Can't handle it? Don't go.
> ...



While I don't believe attacking a book by calling it bullshit should be a reason for any believer to be insulted, I can see why they would be, and Dan should've been mindful of that fact in and of itself instead of using it to justify his language. Looking at it from that perspective, you could view it as Dan bullying his audience.

Indeed, he never said they were ignorant, that was an example I used in the context of what I wrote. The point is that he called out their beliefs as ignorant and to some, that can easily translate to they being ignorant themselves. Because the writings in a book are flawed doesn't mean the individual who takes from said book is also flawed, which is a distinction Dan failed to make apparently.

I also would expect a homosexual to be angry with the amount of unjustified flack he gets from believers just for being who he is, and I don't blame him for acting on his emotions. He could've done a better job of handling them is all I'm saying.

Anyways, I do see your point, so maybe I'll look for another source of news because this might be biased toward the journalists as well.



Karsh said:


> Did you think I was referring to you specifically?
> I was hardly honing in on your post lol.
> 
> Anyway, to me this is about good journalism and that these kids can't handle being journalists.



It kinda seemed that way since the comment came right after my post


----------



## Kue (May 1, 2012)

Freedan said:


> If Savage was being respectful of his audience's individual beliefs and opinions as he pointed out the flaws in the bible yet members of the audience still walked out, then I'd have to say that it was the journalists who're weak for not being able to handle his arguments. From what I see, they couldn't handle the amount of disrespect and disdain he held toward the very people who had enough respect, be it for any given reason, to take time off of their day and listen to him speak ill of their pov. That alone already takes enormous amounts of courage because they knew they would have to listen to someone disagree with them. The disrespect he showed toward them only made things worse. I can't blame them for walking out because of this.



But isn't slavery bullshit?  Would you actually try to defend it? If slavery is bullshit in general, then the Bible's position on slavery is also bullshit.  Pretty much common sense here.  What is the biggoted part of what he said?  He wasn't talking about anyone, he criticized a book that tells people to stone homosexuals to death.  I'm sure you wouldn't have said anything if Dan Savage was talking about Mein Kampf by Hitler.


----------



## Roman (May 1, 2012)

Cold Dish said:


> But isn't slavery bullshit?  Would you actually try to defend it? If slavery is bullshit in general, then the Bible's position on slavery is also bullshit.  Pretty much common sense here.  What is the biggoted part of what he said?  He wasn't talking about anyone, he criticized a book that tells people to stone homosexuals to death.  I'm sure you wouldn't have said anything if Dan Savage was talking about Mein Kampf by Hitler.



And again, all of that is something I agree with. Slavery is bullshit, stoning homosexuals to death is bullshit (tho I should point out Jesus himself was against stoning sinners to death). I never defended the bible itself here. The only thing I'm pointing out is that Savage should've been more mindful of his audience and educate them about its flaws and why they're flaws rather than just pointing them out i.e. he should've been more tactful about it.


----------



## Ennoea (May 1, 2012)

And these idiots want to be journalists?


----------



## Kue (May 1, 2012)

Freedan said:


> And again, all of that is something I agree with. Slavery is bullshit, stoning homosexuals to death is bullshit (tho I should point out Jesus himself was against stoning sinners to death). I never defended the bible itself here. The only thing I'm pointing out is that Savage should've been more mindful of his audience and educate them about its flaws and why they're flaws rather than just pointing them out i.e. he should've been more tactful about it.



But listen.  Why is the public free to call bullshit on other texts that includes racism, misoginy, antisemitism, like Hitler's Mein Kampf and Ku Klux Klan texts, but when the Bible also possesses hate speech in itself, is immune to being called bullshit? This is nonsense, it should apply everywhere.


----------



## Roman (May 1, 2012)

Cold Dish said:


> But listen.  Why is the public free to call bullshit on other texts that includes racism, misoginy, antisemitism, like the Hitler's Mein Kampf and Ku Klux Klan texts, but when the Bible also possesses hate speech in itself, is immune to being called bullshit? This is nonsense, it should apply everywhere.



And did I say Savage shouldn't call out the flaws of the bible? Everyone's entitled to call out the flaws of anything that inherently has flaws in them. The bible has flaws, Mein Kampf has flaws, and so on, and I did say Savage was right to point them out. What I'm saying is that in his situation, he should've been more mindful of who he was with before talking about the bible no differently than he would to his friends who already agreed with him and were angry about its writings (and justifiably so). 

You also have to consider that the bible isn't severely skewed toward murder, racism and homophobia. There's plenty of writings within it which encourage kindness and giving unlike in the other texts you cited, and people such as those in his audience interpret them in their own way. Many Christians don't follow the faith out of fear, but out of inspiration. Dan seemed to have made the error that all followers believe in the bible simply because it's the word of God and they all rely on blind faith.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 1, 2012)

Freedan said:


> While I don't believe attacking a book by calling it bullshit should be a reason for any believer to be insulted, I can see why they would be, and Dan should've been mindful of that fact in and of itself instead of using it to justify his language.* Looking at it from that perspective, you could view it as Dan bullying his audience*.



Anyone who views that as bullying has clearly never actually been bullied.


----------



## Roman (May 1, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Anyone who views that as bullying has clearly never actually been bullied.



And like I said in my first sentence of the part you quoted, it shouldn't be viewed as a reason to be insulted. The fact remains that there are those who would be and anyone should be mindful of that.


----------



## Mael (May 1, 2012)

The Godboys and Godgirls need to find new professions then.  Savage is curt, yes, but guess what?  The world of journalism is cutthroat and is going to be filled with egocentric and offensive personalities.

Now put a bandage on that butt and get your ass back to learning how to thicken the skin.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 1, 2012)

Freedan said:


> And like I said in my first sentence of the part you quoted, it shouldn't be viewed as a reason to be insulted. The fact remains that there are those who would be and anyone should be mindful of that.



Ok, and if he was mindful of that and chose to say it anyway, so what?


----------



## neodragzero (May 1, 2012)

Freedan said:


> While I don't believe attacking a book by calling it bullshit


"We should ignore the bullshit in the bible."

You do know the difference here? Also, yeah, the bible is pretty much bullshit.

It's his given right to bring up the fact that using the bible to discriminate makes about as much sense as stoning children for being disobedient.


> Indeed, he never said they were ignorant, that was an example I used in the context of what I wrote. The point is that he called out their beliefs as ignorant and to some, that can easily translate to they being ignorant themselves. Because the writings in a book are flawed doesn't mean the individual who takes from said book is also flawed, which is a distinction Dan failed to make apparently.


Actually, using flawed bits of a book while at the same time ignoring certain other flawed bits, picking pieces out simply out of ignorant convenience, is still a flaw within the reader themselves as far as logical and rational thinking goes. Once again, he was commenting on individuals that use a passage from the bible to fuel discrimination against a group but at the same time aren't willing to follow said bible to the letter which means that once again it's just being used as an excuse for being a bigot. Being nice about it isn't really required when the side that keeps doing this with religion is obviously doing more damage with it than whatever Dan Savage can do by calling it out.

He could of been nicer and more calm about the whole thing but I don't really blame him with what happens in this country and others. He's definitely no Bertrand Russell.


> Anyways, I do see your point, so maybe I'll look for another source of news because this might be biased toward the journalists as well.



...I thought everyone here already figured out that the Daily Mail is suspect from time to time?


----------



## MunchKing (May 1, 2012)

Butthurt students are butthurt.



Freedan said:


> If Savage was being respectful of his audience's individual beliefs and opinions as he pointed out the flaws in the bible yet members of the audience still walked out, then I'd have to say that it was the journalists who're weak for not being able to handle his arguments.



So every time someone critiques teachings of the bible, christians get to play the 'respect my religion' card?

And that suddenly makes it okay?  They don't get called out on their bullshit because it is a matter of faith to them?



Freedan said:


> From what I see, they couldn't handle the amount of disrespect and disdain he held toward the very people who had enough respect, be it for any given reason, to take time off of their day and listen to him speak ill of their pov. *That alone already takes enormous amounts of courage* because they knew they would have to listen to someone disagree with them. The disrespect he showed toward them only made things worse. I can't blame them for walking out because of this.



1.You seem to mistake courtesy for respect.
2. The bolded part. Lol.


----------



## baconbits (May 1, 2012)

What does the bible have to do with bullying?  The man got on stage and simply attacked because he could.  Why didn't he attack the Quran or Judiasm?

The point is that this man is an idiot.  He was supposed to talk about bullying and he turned off an audience because he forgot the purpose of his speech.  All the atheists in this thread who are praising this man need to realize that what he did was childish and didn't really take any "balls".

As far as I'm concerned bullying someone for any reason is wrong, and I'm one of the more radical Christians on this forum.  I believe the bible teaches us not to bully.  So exactly what would attacking the bible do for a person like myself?


----------



## hammer (May 1, 2012)

is it me or did bacon miss a key word here


----------



## Petes12 (May 1, 2012)

Freedan said:


> I'm not christian and I would've walked out of his lecture. I find it perfectly fine to express disagreement with another pov. What Savage did wrong here is to attack the belief opposing his own rather than giving greater importance to reasons why his argument is more sound and logical in his discussion. Expressing words of hate isn't going to educate anyone about the merits of his belief. All it will do is make him look petty as he gives people from the opposite side no room for an argument or a debate which is ideally what lectures are all about. I say well done to the Christians who walked out. You recognized how weak the man was and showed him what true strength is by standing by what you believe in.



there was nothing wrong with what he did. the beliefs he attacked are bigoted bullshit. 

what, should we all go 'awww poor homophobes and racists, life is so tough for them these days'?

if your belief in the bible hinges on believing that the gays are evil, then you deserve what you get


----------



## Mael (May 1, 2012)

baconbits said:


> What does the bible have to do with bullying?  The man got on stage and simply attacked because he could.  Why didn't he attack the Quran or Judiasm?
> 
> The point is that this man is an idiot.  He was supposed to talk about bullying and he turned off an audience because he forgot the purpose of his speech.  All the atheists in this thread who are praising this man need to realize that what he did was childish and didn't really take any "balls".
> 
> As far as I'm concerned bullying someone for any reason is wrong, and I'm one of the more radical Christians on this forum.  I believe the bible teaches us not to bully.  So exactly what would attacking the bible do for a person like myself?



This is a mostly Christian nation and even up here I've heard that Leviticus/Timothy crap all too many times to apply to situations where it doesn't belong.  He didn't quote the Quran because it's not a Muslim nation, he didn't use specifically reference the Torah save for Leviticus and the fact the significant majority of religious-styled bullying isn't Jewish.  Savage is curt and a blowhard but these journalism students also need to suck it up if they're going to learn how to get ahead in journalism.  You may believe the Bible doesn't instruct to bully but again how many times have we seen the mantra of gays being the tool of Ol' Scratch out of the mouths of dime-a-dozen Protestant Evangelicals and the more hardcore Catholics?


----------



## Petes12 (May 1, 2012)

baconbits said:


> As far as I'm concerned bullying someone for any reason is wrong, and I'm one of the more radical Christians on this forum.  I believe the bible teaches us not to bully.  So exactly what would attacking the bible do for a person like myself?



He attacked a passage in the bible that teaches people hate. 

If you're any kind of real christian you should be right with him. If you're not then boohoo, grow some thicker skin?


----------



## Illairen (May 1, 2012)

That`s the way to talk to self-righteous metaphysicians


----------



## Roman (May 1, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Ok, and if he was mindful of that and chose to say it anyway, so what?



The fact that he chose to say it anyways shows that he chose not to be when he knew he could've been i.e. he didn't demonstrate mindfulness.



neodragzero said:


> "We should ignore the bullshit in the bible."
> 
> You do know the difference here? Also, yeah, the bible is pretty much bullshit.



Never disagreed with that.



neodragzero said:


> It's his given right to bring up the fact that using the bible to discriminate makes about as much sense as stoning children for being disobedient.



Never disagreed with that either.

My whole point is he should've been more tactful about it. It isn't that hard to do.



neodragzero said:


> Actually, using flawed bits of a book while at the same time ignoring certain other flawed bits, picking pieces out simply out of ignorant convenience, is still a flaw within the reader themselves as far as logical and rational thinking goes. Once again, he was commenting on individuals that use a passage from the bible to fuel discrimination against a group but at the same time aren't willing to follow said bible to the letter which means that once again it's just being used as an excuse for being a bigot. Being nice about it isn't really required when the side that keeps doing this with religion is obviously doing more damage with it than whatever Dan Savage can do by calling it out.



That makes the bible out to be completely flawed, tho.

If his argument was that it's wrong to use the bible as an excuse to justify their already existing prejudices, then I'm in even greater agreement with Savage. No one should use a book as an excuse for their own arguments. There's a difference between that and admitting that there's sound logic in the bible's claim that homosexuality is wrong (hypothetically speaking because I do know that there isn't) and that's why they agree with the bible in that regard. 

Some will say it's the reverse and that the bible is right to say it because according to them (the readers/followers), homosexuality doesn't work because a man can only reproduce with a woman (_which is a bullshit argument itself imho because I've always said that love shouldn't be limited to opposite genders, but that's not the point here_*).

My point here is that not everyone blindly follows the bible as an excuse for their beliefs, which unless I'm mistaken is what Savage is saying about its believers, which wouldn't necessarily apply to all the members of his audience, in which case it insults their intelligence, albeit indirectly. That's why I'm saying Savage should've been more tactful.

*Italicized for emphasis to clarify what my stance on that pov is



neodragzero said:


> He could of been nicer and more calm about the whole thing but I don't really blame him with what happens in this country and others. He's definitely no Bertrand Russell.



We seem to be in complete agreement then. I don't see where the impasse is.


----------



## CandleGuy (May 1, 2012)

Anyone discussing the part where he called them "pansy asses" for walking out?

Free speech, counterpointing, all that is well and good. 

If you can't see the bit of irony/hypocrisy where the "anti-bullying" advocate is calling people's belief bullshit and then saying they were being pany-ass for walking out and not taking it,then I don't know.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 1, 2012)

Freedan said:


> The fact that he chose to say it anyways shows that he chose not to be when he knew he could've been i.e. he didn't demonstrate mindfulness.



Being mindful means that you're simply aware, not that you're being courteous or respectful.  You can be perfectly mindful of the fact that you're going to piss someone off and choose to do it anyway.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 1, 2012)

baconbits said:


> What does the bible have to do with bullying?  The man got on stage and simply attacked because he could.  Why didn't he attack the Quran or Judiasm?
> 
> The point is that this man is an idiot.  He was supposed to talk about bullying and he turned off an audience because he forgot the purpose of his speech.  All the atheists in this thread who are praising this man need to realize that what he did was childish and didn't really take any "balls".
> 
> As far as I'm concerned bullying someone for any reason is wrong, and I'm one of the more radical Christians on this forum.  I believe the bible teaches us not to bully.  So exactly what would attacking the bible do for a person like myself?



Here is a great example of what he is talking about
"It accomplishes this impressive feat by allowing students, teachers, and other school employees to claim that ?a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction? justifies their harassment.
....
Democratic Leader Gretchen Whitmer accused her colleagues of creating a blueprint for consequence-free bullying. ?As passed today,? said Whitmer, ?bullying kids is okay if a student, parent, teacher or school employee can come up with a moral or religious reason for doing it.?
...
In other words, social conservatives believe that efforts to protect gays from assault, discrimination or bullying impinge on their religious freedom to express and act on their belief that homosexuality is an abomination. That?s stating it harshly, but it is the underlying belief.
"


----------



## Jin-E (May 1, 2012)

I may be wrong, but i very much doubt that the average highschool bully cares one whit about whether or not the Bible considers homosexuality to be a sin. I'd assume most of these bullies target gays because they are considered to be outside the norm and thus easier to single out and harass.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 1, 2012)

Jin-E said:


> I may be wrong, but i very much doubt that the average highschool bully cares one whit about whether or not the Bible considers homosexuality to be a sin. I'd assume most of these bullies target gays because they are considered to be outside the norm and thus easier to single out and harass.



And one of the big reasons its considered so abnormal is because of people being raised into religious teachings that tell them its an abomination.

My oldest friend is gay and when he tried to come out to his very religious mother she absolutely could not deal with it and just pretended the conversation never happened.


----------



## CandleGuy (May 1, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> Here is a great example of what he is talking about
> "It accomplishes this impressive feat by allowing students, teachers, and other school employees to claim that “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction” justifies their harassment.
> ....
> Democratic Leader Gretchen Whitmer accused her colleagues of creating a blueprint for consequence-free bullying. “As passed today,” said Whitmer, “bullying kids is okay if a student, parent, teacher or school employee can come up with a moral or religious reason for doing it.”
> ...



No one said there wouldn't be assholes. 

In the same vein assholes would use patriotism to justify harassing and persecuting immigrants.


----------



## Mael (May 1, 2012)

CandleGuy said:


> Anyone discussing the part where he called them "pansy asses" for walking out?
> 
> Free speech, counterpointing, all that is well and good.
> 
> If you can't see the bit of irony/hypocrisy where the "anti-bullying" advocate is calling people's belief bullshit and then saying they were being pany-ass for walking out and not taking it,then I don't know.





That's...that's a good point there.  That's where he is indeed crass.


----------



## neodragzero (May 1, 2012)

Freedan said:


> The fact that he chose to say it anyways shows that he chose not to be when he knew he could've been i.e. he didn't demonstrate mindfulness.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He's mindful of what's he doing. It's just not his prerogative to be nice about it. Seriously, people started walking out just because he suggested that people should ignore the bullshit in the bible about homosexuality. You seem to be confused with talking about him insulting people's religion and such when he didn't even get to that point as people walked out for him simply suggesting a part of some text should be ignored.


> Some will say it's the reverse and that the bible is right to say it because according to them (the readers/followers), homosexuality doesn't work because a man can only reproduce with a woman (_which is a bullshit argument itself imho because I've always said that love shouldn't be limited to opposite genders, but that's not the point here_*).


More that it's bullshit in the matter of how not only same sex couples are incapable of naturally giving birth to children. It's a step away from proclaiming Gingrich's actions on the matter of marriage saintly.


> My point here is that not everyone blindly follows the bible as an excuse for their beliefs, which unless I'm mistaken is what Savage is saying about its believers, which wouldn't necessarily apply to all the members of his audience, in which case it insults their intelligence, albeit indirectly. That's why I'm saying Savage should've been more tactful.


And once again, it's obvious he's not talking about all of Christendom. It's pretty obvious he's talking about a particular group of people who operate on hypocrisy and bigotry.

Also, in response to a statement just made by Baconbits about him not mentioning Islam and such, that's about as much a useful red herring as asking "why not bring up Iran" when someone talks about Obama's administration prosecuting more whistleblowers than any other US administration in history. Let's just use common sense here as far as the most likely religion in the US to support a particular form of discrimination being discussed by Dan Savage in the US.


CandleGuy said:


> Anyone discussing the part where he called them "pansy asses" for walking out?


He's already apologized and taken that back.

Once again, where exactly did he simply say that Christianity as a whole is simply bullshit? Talking bad about a flawed book is some serious bullying.

For more on this:


----------



## sadated_peon (May 1, 2012)

CandleGuy said:


> No one said there wouldn't be assholes.
> 
> In the same vein assholes would use patriotism to justify harassing and persecuting immigrants.



How does two wrongs make a right? Why is he unable to attack an opinion so preventively held that state legislators are making laws about it, because it is ALSO wrong when people harass others for other reasons!


----------



## Megaharrison (May 1, 2012)

I remember in school the "Jesus freaks" were mocked as much as the gay kids (probably moreso as our school was fairly gay friendly...). Have never heard or seen religious motivations with regards to high school gay bullying. It usually derives from the media stereotype as gays as fruity feminine flamers.


----------



## neodragzero (May 1, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> I remember in school the "Jesus freaks" were mocked as much as the gay kids (probably moreso as our school was fairly gay friendly...).


School where?


> Have never heard or seen religious motivations with regards to high school gay bullying. It usually derives from the media stereotype as gays as fruity feminine flamers.



It's a good thing statistics and studies have more to say on the issue rather than one person's limited experience.


----------



## Petes12 (May 1, 2012)

Mael said:


> That's...that's a good point there.  That's where he is indeed crass.



I don't think its a good point.

I don't really have a problem fighting fire with fire though.


----------



## Mael (May 1, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> I don't think its a good point.
> 
> I don't really have a problem fighting fire with fire though.



It's ironic.  Granted, the one thing that prevents this from blowing up in Dan's face was that the walkout kids were training to be journalists.


----------



## Jin-E (May 1, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> And one of the big reasons its considered so abnormal is because of people being raised into religious teachings that tell them its an abomination.
> 
> My oldest friend is gay and when he tried to come out to his very religious mother she absolutely could not deal with it and just pretended the conversation never happened.



Anti-gay bullying happens in my country as well, and yet the majority here is raised in a secular households where religious scriptures have no influence in child raising.

Of course in some cases, religious bigotry have a role as you point out. But i havent seen much evidence that it is the leading factor overall. 


I agree with Megaharrison idea that the main reason for bullying is the stereotypical idea that being gay is somehow an affront to masculine identity


----------



## Roman (May 1, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Being mindful means that you're simply aware, not that you're being courteous or respectful.  You can be perfectly mindful of the fact that you're going to piss someone off and choose to do it anyway.



I suppose we go by different definitions of mindfulness. In that case, my argument relies on the fact he should've acted on his awareness instead of acting not unlike the very people who bully him.



neodragzero said:


> He's mindful of what's he doing. It's just not his prerogative to be nice about it. Seriously, people started walking out just because he suggested that people should ignore the bullshit in the bible about homosexuality. You seem to be confused with talking about him insulting people's religion and such when he didn't even get to that point as people walked out for him simply suggesting a part of some text should be ignored.



He called them bullshit right when he was saying they ought to be ignored, never even explaining why that was the case. What I understood was that he was there to explain why those segments of the bible are bullshit to begin with. I agree that that's what they are, but he should've been aware that the people with him wouldn't, yet acted as if he wasn't.



neodragzero said:


> For more on this:



I'll be watching that when I get home tonight. Thanks for that ^.^


----------



## CandleGuy (May 1, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> He's already apologized and taken that back.
> 
> Once again, where exactly did he simply say that Christianity as a whole is simply bullshit? Talking bad about a flawed book is some serious bullying.
> 
> For more on this:



Granted he probably was forced to apologize like most when it comes to these media outrages. But if he was sincere then he wouldn't apologize if "there was nothing wrong here" as most dictated in the thread. 

And I didn't say he was bashing the entire religion however in the context of the terms he used to contest a specific passage and then he "insults" them on the way out, I'm surprised you don't see something amiss there. This specific instance is a bit ironic considering he's the anti-bully _spokesman_. 

It's all about this specific incident than any overall politics or ideology for me. 



sadated_peon said:


> *How does two wrongs make a right?* Why is he unable to attack an opinion so preventively held that state legislators are making laws about it, because it is ALSO wrong when people harass others for other reasons!



I'm not sure where you got that out of anything I said.


----------



## Superrazien (May 1, 2012)

When will Christians realize the truth.


----------



## Nikushimi (May 1, 2012)

See, this is a tricky one.

The Bible says gay sex is an "abomination." I certainly think it's disgusting, but that's just an opinion. I feel the same way about the music my little brother listens to and some of the food my mom eats; I don't actually hate gays.

Mr. Savage handled it pretty thoughtlessly, but he had a point: Any judgment the Bible makes about a person's moral standing based on their ascribed status is pretty much bullshit and poor justification for acts of violence/harrassment against them.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (May 1, 2012)

"It's a false prophet the bible told me so."


----------



## Draffut (May 1, 2012)

> 'I thought this would be about anti-bullying,' Rick Tuttle, the journalism adviser for Sutter Union High School in California, told Fox News.
> 
> 'It turned into a pointed attack on Christian beliefs.'



So you go to an anti-bullying seminar and when he points out one of the biggest causes of bullying you walk out?  What a fucking joke that 'journalist' is.

"I am against bullying... against me.  I better be able to still beat up those fucking ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) though!"


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 1, 2012)

Freedan said:


> I suppose we go by different definitions of mindfulness. In that case, my argument relies on the fact he should've acted on his awareness instead of acting not unlike the very people who bully him.



I'm just going by the actual definition of the word.

mindful

~ adj: keeping aware; heedful: mindful of your duties 

You can be aware that you're pissing someone off and do it anyway.

Can you explain to me though how exactly he was "bullying" anyone?  There is a significant difference between being criticized and being bullied.


----------



## Stalin (May 1, 2012)

Personally, i do think it was rude. He could presented his viewpoint without insulting the Christians. Who knows, mos of them could have just been laid-back, normal Christians.


----------



## Judas (May 1, 2012)

It seems words of truth aren't for everyone.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 1, 2012)

CandleGuy said:


> I'm not sure where you got that out of anything I said.


You were justifying biblical bullying, but saying it also applies to patriotic bullying.


----------



## Petes12 (May 1, 2012)

Stalin said:


> Personally, i do think it was rude. He could presented his viewpoint without insulting the Christians. Who knows, mos of them could have just been laid-back, normal Christians.



He only attacked the ridiculous selective fundamentalism of certain christians. 

I find it absurd that we all pretend like we have to be polite to people like that. Like reasonable people shouldn't push back against that sort of hateful crap.


----------



## CandleGuy (May 1, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> He only attacked the ridiculous selective fundamentalism of certain christians.
> 
> I find it absurd that we all pretend like we have to be polite to people like that. Like reasonable people shouldn't push back against that sort of hateful crap.



I don't know how you don't find it strange the spokesman for the anti-bullying campaign which is all about respecting someone else despite differences, was not doing that in this specific incident. 

And yes you can consider this same charge against hateful church leaders/goers. 



sadated_peon said:


> You were justifying biblical bullying, but saying it also applies to patriotic bullying.



That is amazingly false. And I still don't understand how you leap to that conclusion. 

I said there will be assholes who will _use_ any idea, platform, or source to justify harassment.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 1, 2012)

CandleGuy said:


> That is amazingly false. And I still don't understand how you leap to that conclusion.
> 
> I said there will be assholes who will _use_ any idea, platform, or source to justify harassment.



You basically said that what I said was false, then repeated what I just said. 

That assholes will use any idea, doesn't justify removing criticism.


----------



## Spock (May 1, 2012)

I hate selective-anti-bullying, people get bullied for all sorts of stuff, being bullied for being gay is not less of a big deal than being bullied for being a redhead or for being short or for having an accet or for believing in a specific religion. 

If his objective was to reach out and give a thoughtful message against bullying then he just made a hypocrite out of himself cause what he did sure as hell count as bullying Christian students.


----------



## Distance (May 1, 2012)

I think it was a case of too much passion. I can understand why the Christians left.


----------



## Petes12 (May 1, 2012)

CandleGuy said:


> I don't know how you don't find it strange the spokesman for the anti-bullying campaign which is all about respecting someone else despite differences, was not doing that in this specific incident.
> 
> And yes you can consider this same charge against hateful church leaders/goers.



Because he's attacking the bullies?

I mean, you wouldn't call someone hypocritical because they're intolerant of the KKK.





Eli said:


> I hate selective-anti-bullying, people get bullied for all sorts of stuff, being bullied for being gay is not less of a big deal than being bullied for being a redhead or for being short or for having an accet or for believing in a specific religion.



Most of the time, people who are bullied for their hair color or general geekery probably don't go home and get bullied by their parents and church too


----------



## CandleGuy (May 1, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> You basically said that what I said was false, then repeated what I just said.



I initially responded to that specific response you made to Baconbits. If I repeated the intent of your point then yes I should have taken the time for a closer reading of that overall discussion.



sadated_peon said:


> That assholes will use any idea, doesn't justify removing criticism.



My response was based solely on the article you brought in which seemed to me more of a showcase of people being asses. For example the love of the ideals of Democracy and the foundations of the Untied States cold promote patriotism and people could use patriotism as garbs to harass immigrants.  

Now I'm not saying you can't criticize the ideals of democracy/America or even find it to be an illusion. But to me there should be a difference between the root of being a patriot and the result of certain people punching a Mexican in the face for taking "our" jobs. When it gets to the punch perhaps there are more circumstances involved then the root itself. (Do I'm not saying its complete non-factor)

But frankly the discussion on this specific incident by Dan Savage has morphed into something else.


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (May 1, 2012)

Eli said:


> I hate selective-anti-bullying, people get bullied for all sorts of stuff, being bullied for being gay is not less of a big deal than being bullied for being a redhead or for being short or for having an accet or for believing in a specific religion.
> 
> If his objective was to reach out and give a thoughtful message against bullying then he just made a hypocrite out of himself cause what he did sure as hell count as bullying Christian students.



Pretty much this.

"Lol idiot Christians and their bullshit beliefs"

Free speech. Nothing wrong with it because I believe it too.

"I disagree with homosexuality"

Fucking bigot! You're intolerant of other peoples way of life!!1!111

And before anyone jumps on me, I'm not saying he said this, I'm using an example of internet logic.

I find selective anti-bullying hilarious and, while I don't think Dan necessarily "bullied" Christians here, he did show to be a hypocrite with this one. You can't go and say you're an anti-bullying advocate and then talk shit about peoples beliefs because you don't agree with them. By this logic, the KKK should be able to talk about how much thy hate "spics, ^ (use bro), Jews and chinks" without scrutiny because they also don't like them or perceive them as threats...or at least if they apologize afterwards.


----------



## lodrok (May 1, 2012)

I thought atheist were better intellectually than christians.. well, we could think stupid people is not matter of faith because atheism is another kind of belief.

When you are in a debate, you need to argue to your opponent better than him and you must nullify his arguments. If you insult him, you will lose all your chances for winning the debate.
Sadly, we see more debates like this because it gives more audience than a good discussion with respect and tolerance.


----------



## CandleGuy (May 1, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> Because he's attacking the bullies?
> 
> I mean, you wouldn't call someone hypocritical because they're intolerant of the KKK.



I'm black

And under the circumstance in the (albeit extreme) case of hanging a KKK member solely for his beliefs while preaching that we should all live in peace. 

Then yes perhaps it would be "broaching" on hypocrisy. Broaching on hypocrisy is not what anyone should be aiming for as it defeats the message.


----------



## Petes12 (May 1, 2012)

Brotha Yasuji said:


> Pretty much this.
> 
> "Lol idiot Christians and their bullshit beliefs"
> 
> ...



free speech doesn't mean free from criticism, he's perfectly allowed to criticize the bible if he wants. i went with the opposite analogy myself. it's much more like the kkk going omg dont be mean to us you're squashing our freedom of speech and right to hate minorities!


----------



## Petes12 (May 1, 2012)

CandleGuy said:


> I'm black
> 
> And under the circumstance in the (albeit extreme) case of hanging a KKK member solely for his beliefs while preaching that we should all live in peace.
> 
> Then yes it would be _broaching _on hypocrisy. Broaching on hypocrisy is not what anyone should be aiming for as it defeats the message.



I wasn't aware Savage had nailed someone to the cross.


----------



## Toxic Adyta (May 1, 2012)

While I don't really see anything wrong here, due to freedom of speech, Savage could've approached the issue in a much better way. Calling the kids ''pansy-assed'' was a dumb move and doesn't reflect very well for him. So what? Let the kids walk out and continue your speech, don't get butthurt over a bunch of people leaving and then attack them because they don't align with your own personal beliefs.


----------



## CandleGuy (May 1, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> I wasn't aware Savage had nailed someone to the cross.



Hmmm

Ok how about this if you're going to leap over the point. 

Someone is slinging mud,and there are alternatives paths but instead you choose to jump into the mud and start slinging back.

Well in the end you're covered in mud and are essentially a mudslinger. If you're fine with that well then you can't have a platform based on stopping  mudslinging.


----------



## Mael (May 1, 2012)

CandleGuy said:


> I'm black



And here I thought you were Filipino.


----------



## Nihonjin (May 1, 2012)

Freedan said:


> I'm not christian and I would've walked out of his lecture. I find it perfectly fine to express disagreement with another pov. What Savage did wrong here is to attack the belief opposing his own rather than giving greater importance to reasons why his argument is more sound and logical in his discussion.



From what I understand, he was saying that people discriminate against gays because the bible says they're an abomination. But if we're to follow everything in that book:

We'd be killing women who aren't virgins on their wedding day.
We'd be killing children who talk back to their parents.
We'd be killing people who work on the sabbath.
We would still participate in slave trading.
Etc.

Instead of using a dusty old book the justify bad treatment of other human beings, we should discard it entirely since most people (including Christians) understand that a vast majority of it is absolute bullshit. (And the rest is common sense)

It's not hateful, he's just not pulling any punches.


----------



## Toxic Adyta (May 1, 2012)

If you actually read the entirety of the Bible, we wouldn't be doing any of that. We wouldn't be the second version of the Westboro Baptist Church.

I also don't think that most Christians consider most of the Bible to be absolute bullshit either.


----------



## Petes12 (May 1, 2012)

CandleGuy said:


> Hmmm
> 
> Ok how about this if you're going to leap over the point.
> 
> ...



nazis kill millions with guns. we kill the nazis with guns. are we the same as the nazis?


----------



## Talon. (May 1, 2012)

the bible is nothing but a tool for hate and propaganda anyway.


and besides, the fire-and-brimstone christians deserve to be bullied once in a while, theyve been dishing it out for a couple thousand years. proportionate retribution, i say.


----------



## Superstars (May 1, 2012)

Just another guy trying to beat up on God and his word and use it as a scapegoat for the world's mess ups, but to no avail. What else is new here?


----------



## Toxic Adyta (May 1, 2012)

Talon. said:


> the bible is nothing but a tool for hate and propaganda anyway.
> 
> 
> and besides, the fire-and-brimstone christians deserve to be bullied once in a while, theyve been dishing it out for a couple thousand years. proportionate retribution, i say.




Because the Bible doesn't have any messages in it about love, peace, and harmony whatsoever.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (May 1, 2012)

> He compared dogmatic acceptance of anti-gay teachings equivalent to adhering to verses about slavery and eating shellfish, two issues that have been reinterpreted in modern day.
> 
> ...
> 
> 'It's funny, as someone who's on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the bible, how pansy-assed some people react when you push back.'



Yep.  His language was unnecessarily harsh but there's no disputing what he said.


----------



## Talon. (May 1, 2012)

MegamanXZOBMV said:


> Because the Bible doesn't have any messages in it about love, peace, and harmony whatsoever.



even propaganda can have a positive message in it.


----------



## lacey (May 1, 2012)

> Ignore the bullshit in the Bible



This is what I've been saying all along.


----------



## Vynjira (May 1, 2012)

I'm was reading quite a few different takes on what he said, so I went ahead and found the video of what was actually said.[YOUTUBE=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao0k9qDsOvs]Dan Savage[/YOUTUBE]I see nothing wrong with what he "actually" said.


----------



## CandleGuy (May 1, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> I'm was reading quite a few different takes on what he said, so I went ahead and found the video of what was actually said.[YOUTUBE=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao0k9qDsOvs]Dan Savage[/YOUTUBE]I see nothing wrong with what he "actually" said.



He apologized then and there

In this context it's perfectly fair.

Though there are objections to the claim of the Bible's endorsement on slavery, especially in the context of slavery as we saw it with Africans. He still makes a point on whether Christians are even subject to applying Old Testament laws to the modern socioeconomic structure. Though many ignore much of these laws anyway.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 1, 2012)

Judas said:


> It seems words of truth aren't for everyone.



Agreed. Nice username, btw...



MegamanXZOBMV said:


> If you actually read the entirety of the Bible, we wouldn't be doing any of that. We wouldn't be the second version of the Westboro Baptist Church.
> 
> I also don't think that most Christians consider most of the Bible to be absolute bullshit either.



We would be doing tons of horrible shit making Westboro look completely tame if we adhered to what the Bible demanded of people.



baconbits said:


> What does the bible have to do with bullying?  The man got on stage and simply attacked because he could.  Why didn't he attack the Quran or Judiasm?
> 
> The point is that this man is an idiot.  He was supposed to talk about bullying and he turned off an audience because he forgot the purpose of his speech.  All the atheists in this thread who are praising this man need to realize that what he did was childish and didn't really take any "balls".
> 
> As far as I'm concerned bullying someone for any reason is wrong, and I'm one of the more radical Christians on this forum.  I believe the bible teaches us not to bully.  So exactly what would attacking the bible do for a person like myself?



The Bible has plenty to do with bullying as it advocates the persecution of people who worship other gods, and live in a way that the Abrahamic god is supposed to disapprove of. 

It wasn't courageous, but it was refreshing. He was not an idiot for pointing out a clear source of many people's homophobic views in this country. The fact is, that much of homophobia stems from a religious basis, that has been handed down to many generations and for some cases to the point where the hate and fear becomes inherent in the culture the individuals were raised in. 

What you believe means nothing in the face of what the Bible actually advocates, and how many take passages literally, and/or interpret others.



hammer said:


> is it me or did bacon miss a key word here



He did. Big time.


----------



## Inuhanyou (May 1, 2012)

I consider myself a largely tolerant person.

So when people attack a belief as if everyone who follows that belief are hivemind, that doesn't sit right with me, *regardless of what belief it is*.

See Mr. Savages "i am talked shit about conservative nutjobs every day so i have a right to talk shit about people who have nothing to do with it".

In my opinion, it isn't right. Get your message out there, but in a way that fosters inclusion not division.


----------



## Roman (May 1, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> I consider myself a largely tolerant person.
> 
> So when people attack a belief as if everyone who follows that belief are hivemind, that doesn't sit right with me, *regardless of what belief it is*.
> 
> ...



I couldn't have said it better myself. I did see the video and I'm inclined to stand by what I said and even more so. Not once did he mention why the bible is wrong. He did appeal to the public to let go of the idea that homosexuality is wrong the same way they let go of the idea that slavery is right or that stoning a woman to death because she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night anymore. 

The thing is that Christians realized why those things are wrong, but many Christians don't see the lack of any issue existing with being a homosexual. All he does is proceed to bash the bible for what it says for no other reason than the fact that he doesn't agree with it.

Also, after hearing his words, my impression is that he certainly does make the assumption that Christians are all of a hivemind mentality when that's very far from the truth. Just to give you an idea, my family has a very strong Christian background: Roman Catholic from my mother's side and Byzantine Orthodox from my father's. Both my mom and dad never said to me that it's wrong or forbidden for me to be homosexual. My mom even once seriously thought I am because I was still a virgin by the time I entered university (whatever happened to the rule where one is supposed to stay that way until marriage) and would encourage me if I was. That's coming from a Roman Catholic right there.

My point here is that there are even those Christians who don't see anything wrong with homosexuality. To say that all people of a certain faith or belief are of a single mind is ignorant and an insult to their intelligence. I'd make a wager that was the real reason most people who attended that lecture left the stadium and not because he was disagreeing with the religion itself.


----------



## Toxic Adyta (May 1, 2012)

@ Talon: Sure

@ Seto Kaiba: Am I correct in assuming that you are only considering the Old Testament when you say that?


----------



## Spock (May 1, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> Most of the time, people who are bullied for their hair color or general geekery probably don't go home and get bullied by their parents and church too


Does that make bullying "geeks" less important than bullying someone who is gay?

Obviously you don't know how it feels to be bullied nor do you know parental pressure on anyone that is not gay.


----------



## Mael (May 1, 2012)

Eli said:


> Does that make bullying "geeks" less important than bullying someone who is gay?
> 
> Obviously you don't know how it feels to be bullied nor do you know parental pressure on anyone that is not gay.



I thought Spirit Day was evidence enough, Eli. 

Not to say it's not an issue in the slightest, but certainly grabs more headlines given its minority status as LGBT.


----------



## Kue (May 1, 2012)

baconbits said:


> What does the bible have to do with bullying?  The man got on stage and simply attacked because he could.  Why didn't he attack the Quran or Judiasm?
> 
> The point is that this man is an idiot.  He was supposed to talk about bullying and he turned off an audience because he forgot the purpose of his speech.  All the atheists in this thread who are praising this man need to realize that what he did was childish and didn't really take any "balls".
> 
> As far as I'm concerned bullying someone for any reason is wrong, and I'm one of the more radical Christians on this forum.  I believe the bible teaches us not to bully.  So exactly what would attacking the bible do for a person like myself?



Baconbits, if you think the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with gay bullying, then you are being delusional.  Pretty much at the level of being a holocaust denier.


----------



## Vynjira (May 1, 2012)

CandleGuy said:


> Though there are objections to the claim of the Bible's endorsement on slavery, especially in the context of slavery as we saw it with Africans.


No. The Bible specifically says you will only be punished if you beat your slave and "it" dies in a day or two. (because "it" is your property) Do not pretend it was a milder slavery, you're only showing how the Bible teaches people to sacrifice their morality.

It is not okay to own another human being. Nor is it okay to beat them as much as you want, so long as they don't die in a Day or Two. That means they could die a week later from internal bleeding, and it's okay.


----------



## Judas (May 1, 2012)

hammer said:


> is it me or did bacon miss a key word here



redherring.jpg



Seto Kaiba said:


> Agreed. Nice username, btw...



Thanks.


----------



## Toxic Adyta (May 1, 2012)

I don't see anything wrong with Biblical slavery in the sense of using it as a way for paying for something. I don't, however, agree with one being able to beat their slaves unless it's for a DAMN good reason.. and even then I wouldn't approve of anything severe. I'm just also the kind of person who believes that there exists at least some people (perhaps not the majority nowadays) who don't learn but by some of the more painful of teaching methods. To me it's about context.

The New Testament, as far as I'm aware, teaches nothing about the bullying of gays, or even of their death (not as instructional teaching or ''commandments'')

The Old Testament doesn't preach about bullying gays either. It just tells you to stone them to death.


----------



## αce (May 1, 2012)

If by ignoring the bullshit, you mean ignore the whole thing, then yes I agree.
Anyone who openly states they get their morality from Biblical texts is already on my "watch out for them" list.



> What does the bible have to do with bullying?  The man got on stage and  simply attacked because he could.  Why didn't he attack the Quran or  Judiasm?



Because it's an indisputable fact that most of the anti-gay bullying (politically and socially) comes from insane Christian fundamentalists who dominate public discourse. This isn't Saudi-Arabia. Otherwise, maybe he would've talked about Islam.


----------



## Toxic Adyta (May 1, 2012)

Jot me down, Ace.
Jot me down.


----------



## Stunna (May 1, 2012)

Hmm.

Reactions meet expectations.


----------



## Superstars (May 1, 2012)

Cold Dish said:


> Baconbits, if you think the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with gay bullying, then you are being delusional.  Pretty much at the level of being a holocaust denier.


The Bible has nothing to do with "gay bullying." The Bible specifically states those who break any government powers of authority that are placed by God have sinned [Romans]. So if anyone is going out and assualting people who practice gay that is a SIN against the Almighty.The Bible states specifically those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. And when God was King of Israel he fore-shadowed it by having such transgression destroyed in the old testament, so it will be in the next world.

Now this guy was not thinking, trying to get cheap shots on the Bible, when it has absolutely nothing to do with gay bullying. I know Plenty of Atheists [Satan worshippers] who hate gays and shun them. This guy was just trying to look for a scapegoat on gay bashing instead of pointing to the real problem and it is the fault of humans. So don't blame God for our own stupidity.


----------



## AoMythology (May 1, 2012)

MegamanXZOBMV said:


> I don't see anything wrong with Biblical slavery in the sense of using it as a way for paying for something. I don't, however, agree with one being able to beat their slaves unless it's for a DAMN good reason.. and even then I wouldn't approve of anything severe. I'm just also the kind of person who believes that there exists at least some people (perhaps not the majority nowadays) who don't learn but by some of the more painful of teaching methods. To me it's about context.



No kind of slavery should be allowed. Period. Are you saying it's okay if a couple of parents sell their offspring off to have food for a few months/years?



MegamanXZOBMV said:


> The New Testament, as far as I'm aware, teaches nothing about the bullying of gays, or even of their death (not as instructional teaching or ''commandments'')



No. The New Testament is milder. *Mostly*. It doesn't include homophobia, but it has its own... bullshit (which, of course, is interpreted as metaphorical by most Christians).



MegamanXZOBMV said:


> The Old Testament doesn't preach about bullying gays either. It just tells you to stone them to death.



LOL.  Um, you are being sarcastic, right?


----------



## Pilaf (May 1, 2012)

lodrok said:


> I thought atheist were better intellectually than christians.. well, we could think stupid people is not matter of faith because atheism is another kind of belief.
> 
> When you are in a debate, you need to argue to your opponent better than him and you must nullify his arguments. If you insult him, you will lose all your chances for winning the debate.
> Sadly, we see more debates like this because it gives more audience than a good discussion with respect and tolerance.



He did make a better point than any they could come back with. That's why they ran away like little butthurt bitches to whine about how an eighty percent majority is being persecuted.


----------



## Toxic Adyta (May 1, 2012)

AoMythology said:


> No kind of slavery should be allowed. Period. Are you saying it's okay if a couple of parents sell their offspring off to have food for a few months/years?



No, that's not the kind of slavery I'm talking about.
I don't agree with every form of slavery, not even in the Bible. But, for example, I approve of things in a similar vein as what Jacob did for Leah/Rachel. Now please don't take that as me condoning the treatment of women as property. What I mean is, If someone owed a debt, or wanted to pay for something without having anything of material value (say gold, sheep, whatever), then I see nothing wrong with them willingly becoming a servant in order to pay.





> No. The New Testament is milder. *Mostly*. It doesn't include homophobia, but it has its own... bullshit (which, of course, is interpreted as metaphorical by most Christians).



Ok.



> LOL.  Um, you are being sarcastic, right?



No, I'm not. However, if you have anything you'd like to show me about the subject I'm willing to listen. I'll be the first to admit I haven't read my Bible as thoroughly as I should.


----------



## Superstars (May 1, 2012)

AoMythology said:


> No kind of slavery should be allowed. Period. Are you saying it's okay if a couple of parents sell their offspring off to have food for a few months/years?



You have no idea what you are chatting. Slavery was a custom back then [for work; pay off debts] and God commanded all slaves to be treated fairly under his law [Lev 28:38-45]. He even demanded that slaves be released if they wanted to, at the end of every seven years called the "Year of the LORD." God delivered Israel when they were slaves under Egypt, and if a slave could go free God allowed them to go free under his rule. This is even stated in the New testament. I understand the majority here are God haters and this is an oppurtunity to try and bash him [Which absolutely does nothing to him] So please don't spread propaganda concerning the Bible.


----------



## CandleGuy (May 1, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> No. The Bible specifically says you will only be punished if you beat your slave and "it" dies in a day or two. (because "it" is your property) Do not pretend it was a milder slavery, you're only showing how the Bible teaches people to sacrifice their morality.
> 
> It is not okay to own another human being. Nor is it okay to beat them as much as you want, so long as they don't die in a Day or Two. That means they could die a week later from internal bleeding, and it's okay.



There are objections as I said. Its long as hell, and I'm not asking you to believe it, I offer the link only for consideration, if anyone cares to look at it, and because I won't be able to sufficiently sum up the article. 



But I'm not going to say are there are not things to question when it comes to the Hebrew legal system at work in the OT, or that said laws can be applied to these modern times.


----------



## Roman (May 1, 2012)

Superstars said:


> You have no idea what you are chatting. Slavery was a custom back then [for work; pay off debts] and God commanded all slaves to be treated fairly under his law [Lev 28:38-45]. He even demanded that slaves be released if they wanted to, at the end of every seven years called the "Year of the LORD." God delivered Israel when they were slaves under Egypt, and if a slave could go free God allowed them to go free under his rule. This is even stated in the New testament. I understand the majority here are God haters and this is an oppurtunity to try and bash him [*Which absolutely does nothing to him*] So please don't spread propaganda concerning the Bible.



I won't comment on the rest of this as I find it somewhat controversial in and of itself, but as far as the part I bolded goes, he has a point. What good will it do for anyone to bash a God they don't even believe in? How does it help you sleep better at night? Focus on your own beliefs before worrying about others.


----------



## Banhammer (May 1, 2012)

someone did not find the comedian funny
Agast


----------



## Vynjira (May 1, 2012)

CandleGuy said:


> There are objections as I said.


Of course people object to it because they don't want to admit their God was that cruel in light of society now frowning upon the behavior.

The problem is they use the JEW/jew "debt" slavery to misrepresent the slavery as being milder (Citing the rules for enslaving Jews). The Bible had different sets of rules for slaves that were Jewish and Slaves that were non-Jewish. Non-Jew slaves were not "debt" slaves, nor was it mild by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## CandleGuy (May 1, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> Of course people object to it because they don't want to admit their God was that cruel in light of society now frowning upon the behavior.
> 
> The problem is they use the JEW/jew "debt" slavery to misrepresent the slavery as being milder (Citing the rules for enslaving Jews). The Bible had different sets of rules for slaves that were Jewish and Slaves that were non-Jewish. Non-Jew slaves were not "debt" slaves, nor was it mild by any stretch of the imagination.



There is inherently more to it then that. The article address some of this, the fallacy of equivocation, the legal rights of slaves under Hebrew law and the Roman law, and continues to what Paul had to mention in the NT if you were already a slave, and him being against slave trading.

You can dismiss the contextual arguments if you feel it not up to your consideration, if anyone else cares the link is there, if you've got spare time.


----------



## neko-sennin (May 1, 2012)

Hero of Shadows said:


> "Why won't you allow me to discriminate based on a 2000 year old book wa wa, that's discrimantion against my religion"



Yeah, it's almost hilarious how one-sided "respect" is with the Religious Right.


----------



## Bioness (May 1, 2012)

I see no problem here.


----------



## Petes12 (May 1, 2012)

Eli said:


> Does that make bullying "geeks" less important than bullying someone who is gay?


yes



> Obviously you don't know how it feels to be bullied nor do you know parental pressure on anyone that is not gay.



pressure isnt the same as hate, i think there's a reason so many teen suicides are gay?


----------



## Descent of the Lion (May 1, 2012)

*reads thread*








Same old crap.







You idiots really need a new hobby.


----------



## Masaki (May 1, 2012)

I'm going to repeat what others said and say again "I don't see a problem here".

Seriously, I don't see an iota of evidence of him saying anything besides religion has been reinterpreted, stop using it as an excuse to bully gays.  That's all I see.


----------



## Mael (May 1, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> yes



Wow way to marginalize, dick.



> i think there's a reason so many teen suicides are gay?



I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar more suicides aren't LGBT-related.  The LGBT ones are just more newsworthy.


----------



## Doge (May 2, 2012)




----------



## Jakeirako (May 2, 2012)

*reads article* I see no problem. Yea he could of been more professional with his words but if those kids want to be journalist someday they need to grow some tough skin when it comes to hearing something negative on their religion.


----------



## Doge (May 2, 2012)

I personally don't have any issues with gay kids...heck, the local pastor here went on a lecture saying how it was wrong to say "gay" in an offensive tone.  


But when someone claims to be anti-bullying, I usually assume that they will try to be as least divisive as possible.  Mr. Savage has done just the opposite, all he's doing is turning off the people he's trying to reach and pushing bullies further into their mode of thought.

Martin Luther King Jr. never fought with violence, neither verbal nor physical.  Dan Savage needs to put a more positive tone onto his words.  Or else he's just alienating the people he's trying to change.


----------



## Doge (May 2, 2012)

Jakeirako said:


> *reads article* I see no problem. Yea he could of been more professional with his words but if those kids want to be journalist someday they need to grow some tough skin when it comes to hearing something negative on their religion.



This isn't just a negative statement on their religion.



It's coming from an anti-bullying activist.  Saying something like that about any religion is definitely not helping to fight bullying.  I would say they walked out for two reasons: 1. They may have been offended in their religious faith and 2. Feeling Mr. Savage was using a contradicting tone to his message.  

Anti-bullying is supposed to be unifying, not divisive.


----------



## Elim Rawne (May 2, 2012)

Mael said:


> I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar more suicides aren't LGBT-related.  The LGBT ones are just more newsworthy.



Prove it then.


----------



## Doge (May 2, 2012)

Elim Rawne said:


> Prove it then.




Prove how many suicides by gay teens were from bullying instead of regular depression for a separate reason.




Not everyone commits suicide for the same reasons.


----------



## Mael (May 2, 2012)

Elim Rawne said:


> Prove it then.



If we're talking pure numbers, seeing how the majority of the country doesn't fall into the LGBT category, the numbers work in the favor of the non-LGBT crowd.

In 2005, 270 kids killed themselves (according to the American Association of Suicidology), over some form of bullying (makebeatsnowbeatdowns.com).  However the majority of that number hadn't come from the LGBT demographic despite the 30-40% increase of possibility or thought of suicide.

Now attempted suicides and harassment?  That I'll concede to the LGBT crowd and research from the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

Numbers are also unknown because of the sheer lack of knowledge of motive.

But the point still stands that a suicide from nerd bullying or racial bullying is not less significant than an LGBT related.  It's just that LGBT is the hot button issue at the present moment.


----------



## Petes12 (May 2, 2012)

Mael said:


> Wow way to marginalize, dick.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar more suicides aren't LGBT-related.  The LGBT ones are just more newsworthy.



i think you're the one marginalizing tbh.

you just said yourself there's more lgbt kids, ratio-wise, committing suicide or attempting suicide. 

the sort of shit they go through, endlessly, in their hick towns where everyone is telling them they deserve to die, is way worse than the average shit a nerd deals with


----------



## Doge (May 2, 2012)

You also have to take into account the insane kids that go to our public schools.


Yeah, you know that one kid who took his pants off and tried to pee on the frog...exactly.


----------



## Doge (May 2, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> i think you're the one marginalizing tbh.



I think you both are


----------



## Mael (May 2, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> i think you're the one marginalizing tbh.



Not really.  You're basically making one suicide more significant than the other.  It's a spit in the face to kids who are bullied for other reasons like disability or race.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (May 2, 2012)

Superstars said:


> Just another guy trying to beat up on God and his word and use it as a scapegoat for the world's mess ups, but to no avail. What else is new here?



Yea I beat up god all the time.


----------



## Mael (May 2, 2012)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> Yea I beat up god all the time.



The dude lying underneath the overpass has a big beard but he's not God.


----------



## Petes12 (May 2, 2012)

very few kids commit suicide because they were made fun of for playing D&D mael. 

i think most do it because of a hostile environment not just at school but at home too. that's very common for gay kids in socially backwards parts of the country, which means it happens a lot to them. it's also one kind of attitude thats driving this huge number of attempted suicides, compared to nongay kids who have all sorts of different reasons that can't really be attacked the same way.


----------



## Mael (May 2, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> very few kids commit suicide because they were made fun of for playing D&D mael.
> 
> i think most do it because of a hostile environment not just at school but at home too. that's very common for gay kids in socially backwards parts of the country, which means it happens a lot to them. it's also one kind of attitude thats driving this huge number of attempted suicides, compared to nongay kids who have all sorts of different reasons that can't really be attacked the same way.



You'll marginalize, I'll generalize.  The issue is still the same, people given an insurmountable amount of shit that either people don't seem to care about or do anything about.  Suicides are suicides no matter how you look at it and they're not the an heroism kinds like the kid who kills himself over an iPod.  The LGBT issue is a new one but I just refuse to treat it any different than if it was race, religion, disability, or mental condition.  Like with the more common causes of suicide or with the non-LGBT suicides, there's a cavalcade of issues surrounding that as well.  Kids are fucking vicious little animals that don't get enough rearing like the dogs they act like.  The only thing that the LGBT group has is just a concentration of an issue while the other side just has a multitude of possibilities.  My point is that it doesn't make it any less significant.


----------



## Petes12 (May 2, 2012)

I never said other kids committing suicide wasn't important mael.

I said other kids getting bullied was less important. Because they generally dont also get bullied by their parents and every adult they know, etc. They're a lot less likely to try suicide. That's all


----------



## neodragzero (May 2, 2012)

Freedan said:


> I couldn't have said it better myself. I did see the video and I'm inclined to stand by what I said and even more so. Not once did he mention why the bible is wrong.


...Bringing up passages from the bible he suggests to be wrong isn't pointing how the bible is wrong on the numerous matters cover by said bible? Seriously, you're not making much sense here.


> The thing is that Christians realized why those things are wrong, but many Christians don't see the lack of any issue existing with being a homosexual. All he does is proceed to bash the bible for what it says for no other reason than the fact that he doesn't agree with it.


Rather the fact he brings up how the bible is wrong about less complicated issues and thus shouldn't be used as a source of discrimination on a complicated issue. He did more than simply suggest he simply doesn't agree with it on a just because. How exactly do you miss this?


> Also, after hearing his words, my impression is that he certainly does make the assumption that Christians are all of a hivemind mentality when that's very far from the truth.


And how exactly did you get this idea about him suggesting that Christians in general are a hive mind? He's talking about a particular group of people rather than just ever single denomination and type of person who happens to be Christian.


> Just to give you an idea, my family has a very strong Christian background: Roman Catholic from my mother's side and Byzantine Orthodox from my father's. Both my mom and dad never said to me that it's wrong or forbidden for me to be homosexual. My mom even once seriously thought I am because I was still a virgin by the time I entered university (whatever happened to the rule where one is supposed to stay that way until marriage) and would encourage me if I was. That's coming from a Roman Catholic right there.


It's great how he didn't mention your parents. It's even better when he literally goes out of his way to specify certain parts of the bible and how Leviticus isn't followed for so much of its insanity but somehow homosexuality is considered worthy enough to uphold as an issue.

It's funny how you're generalizing someone's statements, that you claim to be based on a generalization, when they explicitly have been specific about what they're talking about.


Freedan said:


> I won't comment on the rest of this as I find it somewhat controversial in and of itself, but as far as the part I bolded goes, he has a point. What good will it do for anyone to bash a God they don't even believe in? How does it help you sleep better at night? Focus on your own beliefs before worrying about others.



Once again, criticizing the bible for its nutty passages that clearly have a negative effect on society and those who simply can't accept how backwards that is does not equate to demonizing an entire group of people nor an entire religion of its whole. Somehow you've confused "ignore certain bullshit in the bible" to mean "burn bibles." Are you suggesting that the bible and God are one and the same? Because having a reasonable problem with an anthology of short stories written by different people doesn't at all come close to simply talking about an omnipotent being who likely is a better writer.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (May 2, 2012)

Mael said:


> The dude lying underneath the overpass has a big beard but he's not God.



So it's just god's son huh?


----------



## Elim Rawne (May 2, 2012)

Mael said:


> If we're talking pure numbers, seeing how the majority of the country doesn't fall into the LGBT category, the numbers work in the favor of the non-LGBT crowd.



Again, no proof, just speculation. 



> In 2005, 270 kids killed themselves (according to the American Association of Suicidology), over some form of bullying (makebeatsnowbeatdowns.com).  However the majority of that number hadn't come from the LGBT demographic despite the 30-40% increase of possibility or thought of suicide.



7 years is a long time, especially considering that more people do come out these days because it is more accepted.


> But the point still stands that a suicide from nerd bullying or racial bullying is not less significant than an LGBT related.  It's just that LGBT is the hot button issue at the present moment.



Nerd bullying ? That shouldn't be as prevalent these days. Being a geek is mainstream now ffs.


----------



## Mael (May 2, 2012)

> Nerd bullying ? That shouldn't be as prevalent these days. Being a geek is mainstream now ffs.



Still doubting this in the minds of 10-16 year olds.


----------



## Roman (May 2, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> ...Bringing up passages from the bible he suggests to be wrong isn't pointing how the bible is wrong on the numerous matters cover by said bible? Seriously, you're not making much sense here.



Read what you quoted again, and if you've read the rest of my posts, you'd know what I'm talking about. He says how the bible is wrong by saying slavery in the bible is wrong, stoning people to death is wrong, and that homosexuality is ok. But he doesn't explain why it's illogical for the bible to say it's wrong but just that it is, not minding the fact that many in the Christian crowd who believe homosexuality is wrong have their own reasons to think so. 

Superstars, for instance, once said it's wrong because the highest number of AIDS contractors are homosexuals. Others because gay couples can't have children. None of this is covered in the bible in and of itself but its readers cam to their own conclusions and Savage doesn't bother to explain why none of those are illogical arguments. Instead, he simply tells others to let go of that prejudice the same way they let go of ideas of slavery and stoning. While there's nothing wrong with that, from the pov of Christians who recognize the wrong in slavery and stoning, letting go of their idea of homosexuality is difficult when they don't see any right in it (the way they see wrong in slavery and stoning).

My point is they let go of the ideas of slavery and stoning because they know that it's wrong in this modern age, but they don't see how homosexuality is normal and thus letting go of their prejudice isn't as easy yet he demands them to let it go.



neodragzero said:


> Rather the fact he brings up how the bible is wrong about less complicated issues and thus shouldn't be used as a source of discrimination on a complicated issue. He did more than simply suggest he simply doesn't agree with it on a just because. How exactly do you miss this?



I didn't. What I'm saying is that many Christians have THEIR OWN reasons for not liking homosexuality and it's not because they bible tells them to. He's making the wrong assumption that all Christians are of a hivemind mentality which is far from the truth. It's not easy to let go of something that's bullshit when they don't see it as bullshit themselves.



neodragzero said:


> And how exactly did you get this idea about him suggesting that Christians in general are a hive mind? He's talking about a particular group of people rather than just ever single denomination and type of person who happens to be Christian.



Because he clearly states that Christians refer to the bible when explaining homosexuality is wrong. Yet in my experience every Christian I've ever spoken to gave me reasons from sources OTHER than the Bible (yes, including superstars).



neodragzero said:


> It's great how he didn't mention your parents. It's even better when he literally goes out of his way to specify certain parts of the bible and how Leviticus isn't followed for so much of its insanity but somehow homosexuality is considered worthy enough to uphold as an issue.
> 
> It's funny how you're generalizing someone's statements, that you claim to be based on a generalization, when they explicitly have been specific about what they're talking about.



It isn't enough to uphold an issue, and I never disagreed with him for pointing it out. What you need to try and wrap your head around is that Savage should've done so in such a manner that would invite them to think about what homosexuality really means instead of just calling it bullshit like the rest of the writings.



neodragzero said:


> Are you suggesting that the bible and God are one and the same? Because having a reasonable problem with an anthology of short stories written by different people doesn't at all come close to simply talking about an omnipotent being who likely is a better writer.



No, because I've said it here and in another thread that the bible, along with other scriptures, are just books that people take influence from. A medium through which people learn their own values in life. They see the right in some of its passages and they see the wrongs in them as well. They don't all follow its writings just because they're written in there. I even said in this very thread that no one should feel insulted by someone taking a stab at passages in a book.


----------



## neodragzero (May 2, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Read what you quoted again, and if you've read the rest of my posts, you'd know what I'm talking about. He says how the bible is wrong by saying slavery in the bible is wrong, stoning people to death is wrong, and that homosexuality is ok. But he doesn't explain why it's illogical for the bible to say it's wrong but just that it is, not minding the fact that many in the Christian crowd who believe homosexuality is wrong have their own reasons to think so.


So you're saying that he has to explain in the year 2012 why slavery is wrong?

And once again, he's referring to a specific group of people. When someone talks about something specifically, it's asinine to suggest they have to talk about a generality.


> Superstars, for instance, once said it's wrong because the highest number of AIDS contractors are homosexuals. Others because gay couples can't have children. None of this is covered in the bible in and of itself but its readers cam to their own conclusions and Savage doesn't bother to explain why none of those are illogical arguments. Instead, he simply tells others to let go of that prejudice the same way they let go of ideas of slavery and stoning. While there's nothing wrong with that, from the pov of Christians who recognize the wrong in slavery and stoning, letting go of their idea of homosexuality is difficult when they don't see any right in it (the way they see wrong in slavery and stoning).




Besides the fact that Superstar has given more than just reason, which comes with the attempt to make up as many ridiculous excuses as possible for bigotry, you're confusing the simple act of criticizing a specific line of reasoning behind a discrimination to mean that there's only that specific line of reasoning in all existence. It's like suggesting that criticizing a specific form of policy from a country somehow means that you're suggesting there's no positive whatsoever in the country. It's a red herring bordering on a strawman.


> My point is they let go of the ideas of slavery and stoning because they know that it's wrong in this modern age, but they don't see how homosexuality is normal and thus letting go of their prejudice isn't as easy yet he demands them to let it go.


In other words, why even bother to suggest that a specific text of socially unhealthy attitudes from the same author likely correlates with the general given that any of these attitudes lead to negative behavior?

It's a reasonable show of how such simple concepts makes it all the more likely that a more complicated issue is better not judged off a specific story in an anthology. 

I don't remember him suggesting that it's easy but actually explaining why it makes little sense that you simply pick and choose out of a series of sociopath suggestions in behavior. You have no point.


> I didn't. What I'm saying is that many Christians have THEIR OWN reasons for not liking homosexuality and it's not because they bible tells them to.


It's a good thing he focuses specifically on people who do. That's what he talked about. You're the one suggesting he is referring to all Christians when he bothered to be specific. In other words, you're still suggesting a generality out of a narrow specific.


> He's making the wrong assumption that all Christians are of a hivemind mentality which is far from the truth.


A good thing said assumption is nonexistent on his part. The fact his simple summation at the end about him specifically referring to a certain type of Christian that discriminates by quoting a text still does not equate to all Christians. The only one guilty of generalizing is you I'm afraid.


> Because he clearly states that Christians refer to the bible when explaining homosexuality is wrong. Yet in my experience every Christian I've ever spoken to gave me reasons from sources OTHER than the Bible (yes, including superstars).


He clearly states how it's used as an argument by certain Christians that discriminate. That's different from simply saying that ALL CHRISTIANS discriminate simply because of that. Your personal experience is relatively meaningless when the last time I checked you weren't a think tank that does surveys and analytic studies. Suggesting that a ridiculously small sample of people in your limited experience and no real position of expertise on the subject means much is quite the jest.


> No, because I've said it here and in another thread that the bible, along with other scriptures, are just books that people take influence from. A medium through which people learn their own values in life. They see the right in some of its passages and they see the wrongs in them as well. They don't all follow its writings just because they're written in there. I even said in this very thread that no one should feel insulted by someone taking a stab at passages in a book.



Yet you support Superstars point when Dan Savage has not at all made an insult against God or bashed on God when the last I checked he only talked about the bible and those who misuse it. It really sounds like you're just manufacturing outrage by suggesting that bringing up one of the reasons why people discriminate automatically means that's the only one. It's not a requirement that criticizing a bad in something automatically means you have to gush about the positive or prattle on about other negatives. It's about as batty as suggesting that you can't focus on bad domestic state spending without bringing up foreign fiscal policy, good or bad.


----------



## Roman (May 2, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> So you're saying that he has to explain in the year 2012 why slavery is wrong?
> 
> And once again, he's referring to a specific group of people. When someone talks about something specifically, it's asinine to suggest they have to talk about a generality.



No because you misread me yet again. I said he needs to explain why there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. Christians already know what's wrong with slavery, that's why they let go of that concept altogether. They can't do it as easily with homosexuality because they don't see anything right about it. Savage goes about it with the idea that everyone knows it's a given that homosexuality is normal but simply use the bible as an excuse, which is fair because a lot of Christians do that, but certainly not all of them. I'm certain some people were like that in his audience.



neodragzero said:


> Besides the fact that Superstar has given more than just reason, which comes with the attempt to make up as many ridiculous excuses as possible for bigotry, you're confusing the simple act of criticizing a specific line of reasoning behind a discrimination to mean that there's only that specific line of reasoning in all existence. It's like suggesting that criticizing a specific form of policy from a country somehow means that you're suggesting there's no positive whatsoever in the country. It's a red herring bordering on a strawman.



For starters, I don't even agree with his pov about homosexuality. I only refer to him as an example of someone who uses reasons other than the bible for not supporting homosexuality, illogical as it may be. And no, I'm not the one confusing one specific line of reasoning as the only one. I'm saying Savage is making that mistake. I even said multiple times how the bible isn't all about slavery, rape and genocide. Perhaps Savage is aware of that as well, but he didn't show that awareness which is why he can be considered rude about the whole matter. That's my entire point (with which you agreed earlier on).



neodragzero said:


> I don't remember him suggesting that it's easy but actually explaining why it makes little sense that you simply pick and choose out of a series of sociopath suggestions in behavior. You have no point.



He doesn't, but he makes it seem like it is when all he says is to ignore the bullshit in the bible about homosexuality when they're able to do so for slavery and stoning. But like I said earlier, the only reason they were able to is because they understand why slavery and stoning is wrong, but not so with homosexuality (being normal). He can point out that that part of the bible is flawed, but he didn't point out why. What he needed to do was give them the opportunity to understand why it's normal.



neodragzero said:


> It's a good thing he focuses specifically on people who do. That's what he talked about. You're the one suggesting he is referring to all Christians when he bothered to be specific. In other words, you're still suggesting a generality out of a narrow specific.



He may do that, but he made no mention of that either and made it look like he was referring to all Christians in general. If he wasn't, I apologize that I misunderstood him. The impression I got from listening to him was different.


----------



## neodragzero (May 2, 2012)

Freedan said:


> No because you misread me yet again. I said he needs to explain why there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.


And once again, no, he doesn't. I'm pretty sure the burden of proof to explain what's wrong with homosexuality goes to the side that made it an issue to begin with. Also, you're acting as if a simple critique of the hypocrisy somehow is invaluable because somehow finding the lack of logic and consistency of one of the primary reasons for a bigotry somehow isn't valid.


> Christians already know what's wrong with slavery, that's why they let go of that concept altogether.


I love how you utterly dumb down a long historical process into "Christians already know." Besides the fact you're the one once again generalizing an entire religion in a nut shell.


> They can't do it as easily with homosexuality because they don't see anything right about it.


More like the attempt to simply blab up a reason about it to claim that it's wrong. It's like asking a backwards question. I'm pretty sure that slavery for instance had a lot that was right for a certain group of affluent rich white men but we don't  act as if ending slavery was simply done by convincing said men. You're still without a point as you seem to be stuck on this fallacy that pointing out a logical hypocrisy somehow isn't valuable in itself.


> * Savage goes about it with the idea that everyone knows it's a given that homosexuality is norma*l but simply use the bible as an excuse, which is fair because a lot of Christians do that, but certainly not all of them. I'm certain some people were like that in his audience.


Which is pretty weird when he himself said the subject is complicated and doesn't seem to think that everyone knows it's a given since, if he did, he wouldn't be making this speech in the first place.

I'm certain a majority of the audience that didn't leave knew the difference between pointing out a hypocrisy and demonizing an entire religion.


> For starters, I don't even agree with his pov about homosexuality. I only refer to him as an example of someone who uses reasons other than the bible for not supporting homosexuality, illogical as it may be. And no, I'm not the one confusing one specific line of reasoning as the only one. I'm saying Savage is making that mistake.


It's still a weak example when he simply reuses numerous typical excuses for bigotry. You have to be pretty naive to simply take what one person says to somehow suggest it's a viable sample at all.

Savage isn't making the mistake when he's talking about a specific type of Christian. Just like how talking about a specific type of American doesn't mean you're talking about all Americans.


> Perhaps Savage is aware of that as well, but he didn't show that awareness which is why he can be considered rude about the whole matter. That's my entire point (with which you agreed earlier on).


Nope. I agree that he could of been nicer but I don't remember suggesting that he has to gush about the positives of the bible just like how a critique of a country's policy in a certain area doesn't mean the critic has to include a gush over the positive. You're confusing a specific critique to require a ridiculous generality in commentary.


> He doesn't, but he makes it seem like it is when all he says is to ignore the bullshit in the bible about homosexuality when they're able to do so for slavery and stoning.


Except that he's pointing out the hypocrisy; nothing about the difficulty of doing so. It's pretty implausible to expect that your suggestion will have Savage will simply undue over a decade of indoctrination or that he actually had that as his only intent when it's obvious he's simply pointing out a glaring fallacy in logic that isn't new but true.


> He may do that, but he made no mention of that either and made it look like he was referring to all Christians in general.


He talked about a specific group of Christians and a book. I don't think he has much a reason to consider this weird idea that these students can't figure out  the difference between specifying a certain group and an entire religion in all its denominations.


> If he wasn't, I apologize that I misunderstood him. The impression I got from listening to him was different.



It happens when emotive reasoning takes over rather than doing something that too many people can't do; actually listen to the words themselves.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (May 2, 2012)

The word "Bullshit" was disrespectful. He could say "Ignore the texts in the Bible" or something similar, it would be better.


----------



## neodragzero (May 2, 2012)

Sure. There's a problem though. How exactly is it a bad thing to call a lot of the awful stuff in Leviticus nothing but? Keep in mind he's referring to specific, and quite horrific, things in the bible that no society should have as an issue.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (May 2, 2012)

There were so many ways to say exactly the same thing without anger believers.


----------



## Roman (May 2, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> And once again, no, he doesn't. I'm pretty sure the burden of proof to explain what's wrong with homosexuality goes to the side that made it an issue to begin with. Also, you're acting as if a simple critique of the hypocrisy somehow is invaluable because somehow finding the lack of logic and consistency of one of the primary reasons for a bigotry somehow isn't valid.



He's the one who stood up there and challenged the bible's views. The way I see it, the burden of proof is on him to show how homosexuality is normal (which it is). I'm not sure I get what you mean with the rest of what you said tho, but you can't expect someone to critique something as hypocritical and not explain why it is so to a group of people who don't see the hypocrisy in it. It's different for people like you and me who do see it, but not so much for people who don't understand, and Savage could've done a better job at inviting them to do so, which is all I'm saying.



neodragzero said:


> I love how you utterly dumb down a long historical process into "Christians already know." Besides the fact you're the one once again generalizing an entire religion in a nut shell.



If all Christians didn't already know, slavery would still exist, capital punishment would still exist in the majority of nations where Christianity has the majority, and so on. I'm not dumbing it down in this instance, it's the truth.



neodragzero said:


> More like the attempt to simply blab up a reason about it to claim that it's wrong. It's like asking a backwards question. I'm pretty sure that slavery for instance had a lot that was right for a certain group of affluent rich white men but we don't  act as if ending slavery was simply done by convincing said men. You're still without a point as you seem to be stuck on this fallacy that pointing out a logical hypocrisy somehow isn't valuable in itself.



And I don't disagree with that. I never said it's a logical reason, I never said it's a justified reason. In fact, I've repeatedly said it isn't. All I said was that it's a reason other than "the bible says so" which is what Savage alluded to.



neodragzero said:


> Which is pretty weird when he himself said the subject is complicated and doesn't seem to think that everyone knows it's a given since, if he did, he wouldn't be making this speech in the first place.
> 
> I'm certain a majority of the audience that didn't leave knew the difference between pointing out a hypocrisy and demonizing an entire religion.



I don't want to try making too many assumptions about the people who remained, and it was good for them that they didn't. I understand that he's not bashing the entire religion now, nor did I try to imply that he did, so I apologize again if I came off that way. I'll reiterate that I believe no one should feel insulted about bashing a book or that the bible = God.



neodragzero said:


> It's still a weak example when he simply reuses numerous typical excuses for bigotry. You have to be pretty naive to simply take what one person says to somehow suggest it's a viable sample at all.



Again, I never said it's logical or justified, just that it's not the excuse of "the bible says so" that Savage alludes to. I'm perfectly aware of that.



neodragzero said:


> Savage isn't making the mistake when he's talking about a specific type of Christian. Just like how talking about a specific type of American doesn't mean you're talking about all Americans.



I'll listen to his conversation again in case I missed it, tho I remember thinking that he should've been more clear rather than coming out as if most Christians are that ignorant as a hive mind. 



neodragzero said:


> Except that he's pointing out the hypocrisy; nothing about the difficulty of doing so. It's pretty implausible to expect that your suggestion will have Savage will simply undue over a decade of indoctrination or that he actually had that as his only intent when it's obvious he's simply pointing out a glaring fallacy in logic that isn't new but true.



I'm not saying that he will succeed with everyone, but he certainly would've had better chances than he did with the method that he did use: rather than just criticizing it, he ought to have invited others to speak their minds to understand more about his pov and why he believed it's bs, considering some people in there don't see it as such.


----------



## Narcissus (May 2, 2012)

The Bible has directly contributed to suffering of the gay community. It is constantly cited by people rallying against it, and it is the instigator of confusion, depression, and suicide in gay youths. 

What Savage said may have been aggressive, but it wasn't any worse than a Christian shouting about how people are going to burn in Hell for eternity. In fact, the burning in Hell is worse. And the truth of the matter, aggressiveness or not, is that he is right: the Bible's passages are not a good enough reason to justify mistreatment of homosexuals. Or anyone.


baconbits said:


> The point is that this man is an idiot.


Because you didn't like what he had to say? 

Nothing he said was idiotic or dishonest. Just aggressive.


> He was supposed to talk about bullying and he turned off an audience


He turned off _*part*_ of the audience. The rest were applauding what he said.


----------



## Grep (May 2, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> i think you're the one marginalizing tbh.
> 
> you just said yourself there's more lgbt kids, ratio-wise, committing suicide or attempting suicide.
> 
> the sort of shit they go through, endlessly, in their hick towns where everyone is telling them they deserve to die, is way worse than the average shit a nerd deals with



They should take his advice and stop being pansy asses 



I love intolerant people being intolerant to other intolerant people. 

Makes me happy.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 2, 2012)

Holy shit this became popular thread...


CandleGuy said:


> I initially responded to that specific response you made to Baconbits. If I repeated the intent of your point then yes I should have taken the time for a closer reading of that overall discussion.
> 
> My response was based solely on the article you brought in which seemed to me more of a showcase of people being asses. For example the love of the ideals of Democracy and the foundations of the Untied States cold promote patriotism and people could use patriotism as garbs to harass immigrants.
> 
> ...


The article was about how the Michigan State legislature created a law protecting bullying if it was based on a religious conviction. 
It gave special bias toward religious people to bully people who disagreed with their faith. 

Nothing in the constitution is anti-immigrant, there is no line that says "immigration is an abomination" this is not true for the Christian faith. The attack on the religious belief, codified in the dogma is appropriate! 

What you are attempting to do is make a false equivalency, in which all beliefs are equal and removed from criticism. If a patriot uses something in the American constitution to justify bigotry, then you are perfectly sensible in attacking that item.


----------



## Stalin (May 2, 2012)

> Noted sexpert Dan Savage, whom we may remember from an earlier, slightly less grotesquely-exaggerated comic, is back in the news, and once again it’s for displaying a massive degree of say-versus-do hypocrisy.
> 
> Speaking before a gathering of teenage journalists earlier last month (but captured on a video that was only widely circulated this weekend), Savage delivered the sort of speech he has become increasingly famous for — an hour-long appeal to end bullying and gay-bashing. And kudos to him for that. Trouble is, as I discussed in my last column on the matter, Dan is stubbornly incapable of promoting his cause as anything less than total warfare against a subhuman foe. Thus, in the most quotable moment of the hour, Savage’s lecture contained a long rant against all the “bullshit” inherent in Christianity.
> 
> ...


----------



## neodragzero (May 2, 2012)

Freedan said:


> He's the one who stood up there and challenged the bible's views. The way I see it, the burden of proof is on him to show how homosexuality is normal (which it is).


And once again, he pointed out a logical fallacy. You're the one making up a strawman argument about homosexuality needing to be explained as normal when Savage himself still made the comment that it's complicated rather than just simple.


> I'm not sure I get what you mean with the rest of what you said tho, but you can't expect someone to critique something as hypocritical and not explain why it is so to a group of people who don't see the hypocrisy in it.


Except that he did explain the contradiction of how certain people pick and choose what is in Leviticus and such. It still stands as a show of hypocrisy on the part of the bigots that choose one bit while ignoring the others.

You're once again demanding he do more when it's not his burden to do so while at the same time pretend as if he has to accommodate what looks like a less bright minority while most high school students from that convention seem to know what they're doing. The lecture wasn't meant for you nor me.


> If all Christians didn't already know, slavery would still exist, capital punishment would still exist in the majority of nations where Christianity has the majority, and so on. I'm not dumbing it down in this instance, it's the truth.


And once again, you're still dumbing down how people have come to learn that slavery is wrong as far as the long history of abolition goes while at the same time you're generalizing all Christians to think exactly the same on an issue. You're treating a now as if it was simply a given that Christians as a whole figured this out rather than the numerous activities, laws, and such that had to be passed.

Once again, pointing out a logical fallacy in using a section of a text is still viable.


> All I said was that it's a reason other than "the bible says so" which is what Savage alluded to.


And once again, Dan Savage was talking explicitly about a group of people who commit bigotry for a certain reason.


> I'll listen to his conversation again in case I missed it, tho I remember thinking that he should've been more clear rather than coming out as if most Christians are that ignorant as a hive mind.


He stated he's talking about Christians who bring up a book passage. Common sense illustrates that he can't be talking about all Christians. The only way to think he's suggesting an all or majority is emotive thinking where you confuse commentary about specific Christians to mean he's talking about a whole or majority.


> I'm not saying that he will succeed with everyone, but he certainly would've had better chances than he did with the method that he did use: rather than just criticizing it, he ought to have invited others to speak their minds to understand more about his pov and why he believed it's bs, considering some people in there don't see it as such.



Except that pointing out a logical fallacy is pretty much the given step for explaining how it doesn't work whether or not you just don't like the concept of homosexuality. Usually it's the case of exposing the fallacies of bigotry to teach people how it doesn't work rather than the weird idea he has to accommodate a minority of high schoolers who don't seem to know what journalism actually is.


> Thus, in the most quotable moment of the hour, Savage’s lecture contained a long rant against all the “bullshit” inherent in Christianity.



Because the bible and Christianity are one and the same.


----------



## Spock (May 2, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> yes



I can bully that kid with glasses and get away with it since its less important but woe to those who will try to bully me for being attracted to girls. 

Thanks for the enlightenment


----------



## Maerala (May 2, 2012)

Eli said:


> I can bully that kid with glasses and get away with it since its less important but woe to those who will try to bully me for being attracted to girls.
> 
> Thanks for the enlightenment



No kid should be bullied for anything, but because gay people are actually killed in some parts of the world just for being gay and are denied the rights of their straight counterparts even in some of the world's most advanced and accepting countries, it's a more sensitive matter. People who wear glasses don't get stoned to death or hanged in public or denied the right to marry someone else who wears glasses.


----------



## PhlegmMaster (May 2, 2012)

He's obviously right. Hell, I'd bet my next paycheck that at least one of the kids that walked out is anti-gay because of his Christian beliefs.


----------



## Spock (May 2, 2012)

Godaime Hokage said:


> No kid should be bullied for anything, but because gay people are actually killed in some parts of the world just for being gay and are denied the rights of their straight counterparts even in some of the world's most advanced and accepting countries, it's a more sensitive matter. People who wear glasses don't get stoned to death or hanged in public or denied the right to marry someone else who wears glasses.



Well we are not talking about other parts of the world, heck I'm not even Christian. This is about teenagers being humiliated on the spot by a celebrity and not adults who wants to get married.

Why do you keep valuing  a cause over the other when both of them lead to the same end ?

This guy wants to fight intolerance and bigotry by being an intolerant offensive bigot. Clap clap.


----------



## Doge (May 2, 2012)

He's going to have to go after the Koran sooner or later:




> "We also sent Lut : He said to his people : "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81
> 
> "What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, and leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are forward folk." Qur'an 26:165



Source: 



I'm in no way, shape, or form trying to attack Islam, homosexuals, Christians, etc.  I'm trying to show that Mr. Savage's mode of anti-bully campaigning is only going to lead to more division.

So far he's only mentioned the Bible, but I predict he will make note of the Koran and its stance on homosexuality.  He needs to choose wisely, because both Muslims and LGBT are heavily bullied.   Pointing out a religious group for their holy book's stance on homosexuality might work against the perceived aggressors, but with a similar stance present in the perceived victims in another bully case, it will be hard to both attack and defend the religion at the same time.  

Mr. Savage can't go around bashing the Bible all he wants.  The Koran has similar values as the Bible and probably won't be well looked upon by him.  And the last time I checked, Muslims in America get plenty of hatred too.


Mr. Savage needs to avoid going after holy books.  It's only going to weaken the relationship with Muslims who have to go through bullying.


----------



## Doge (May 2, 2012)

PhlegmMaster said:


> He's obviously right. Hell, I'd bet my next paycheck that at least one of the kids that walked out is anti-gay because of his Christian beliefs.




Does this apply to Muslims too?


I didn't know gay stances are restricted to only the Christian faith.


----------



## Maerala (May 2, 2012)

Eli said:


> This guy wants to fight intolerance and bigotry by being an intolerant offensive bigot. Clap clap.



Would you say that fighting racism by saying that racists are "full of bullshit" is bigotry? It's the same concept. Whatever they choose to draw from it, the Bible itself does sanction the death penalty for gay people, and millions of Christians take those passages seriously and use them as a basis for their anti-gay beliefs. Whether Christians choose to abide by it or not, it is in their holy book that gays are an abomination worthy of death. What other way is there to rid the masses of their indoctrinated views of the world than by actually fighting the root of the problem?


----------



## PhlegmMaster (May 2, 2012)

Freedan said:


> How does bullying the bullies makes you any different or any better than the bullies exactly?




How does killing a murderer make you any different or any better than the murderer exactly? Think before you ask silly questions.



Not that it matters, Savage hasn't bullied anyone, and if you think he has you don't understand what bullying is. At most, he's been offensive, in the sense that he's hurt the feelings of a few children by stating an obvious fact.


----------



## Golden Circle (May 2, 2012)

I agree, let's forget all that Jesus said about love thy neighbour and lynch the gays.


----------



## PhlegmMaster (May 2, 2012)

lvl80elitetaurenchieftain said:


> Does this apply to Muslims too?



Uh, obviously? And to Jews as well, and some other religions. But we are talking about the USA, and in the USA the main source of anti-gay bigotry and bullying is Christianity.


----------



## Spock (May 2, 2012)

Godaime Hokage said:


> Would you say that fighting racism by saying that racists are "full of bullshit" is bigotry? It's the same concept. Whatever they choose to draw from it, the Bible itself does sanction the death penalty for gay people, and millions of Christians take those passages seriously and use them as a basis for their anti-gay beliefs. Whether Christians choose to abide by it or not, it is in their holy book that gays are an abomination worthy of death. What other way is there to rid the masses of their indoctrinated views of the world than by actually fighting the root of the problem?



Why are treating this as a religious debate ? That is not the issue I am trying to talk about. This is about high school students being picked on by a the big man, how come everyone is forgetting what's it like being a teenager, look at it from a psychological point of view.

If he wants to discuss fallacies in the Bible and get to the root of the problem, he should have done it in "Discuss-Bible" type of meeting with bible professionals who will be able to argue not in front of teenagers who know jack shit about their own religion anyway, they felt attacked by someone who is trying to stop bullying.


----------



## Doge (May 2, 2012)

Godaime Hokage said:


> Would you say that fighting racism by saying that racists are "full of bullshit" is bigotry? It's the same concept. Whatever they choose to draw from it, *the Bible itself does sanction the death penalty for gay people*, and millions of Christians take those passages seriously and use them as a basis for their anti-gay beliefs. Whether Christians choose to abide by it or not, it is in their holy book that *gays are an abomination worthy of death.* What other way is there to rid the masses of their indoctrinated views of the world than by actually fighting the root of the problem?




The Bible actually says everyone on Earth is guilty of a sinful nature and is sentenced to death.  Not just homosexuals.  



I'm sorry if some Christians are making the whole religion look bad.  But bashing religion is not a good idea.  Personally, most Christian friends I have have no problems with homosexuals.  Quite a few of us are not judgmental towards homosexuals contrary to popular belief.  Any half decent pastor who knows what in the world Jesus said will have the sense not to look down on homosexuals.

Judging others is not what a Christian is called to do.  If a Christian is doing so, they need to get their act together and spread the love.  WBC is not an accurate representation of Christianity.  Neither is the medieval age.


----------



## Narcissus (May 2, 2012)

Eli said:


> This is about high school students being picked on by a the big man


Stop. Savage did not pick on them. He attacked irrational claims in the Bible. It just happened to offend some people.


> how come everyone is forgetting what's it like being a teenager, look at it from a psychological point of view.


You want to talk about the psychological point of view of teenagers?



And that's just *ONE* example of how religion affects this group of people. What Savage said may have been aggressive, but he isn't causing those teens some psychological damage that's going to drive them to suicide. And at least what he said is honest.


> If he wants to discuss fallacies in the Bible and get to the root of the problem, he should have done it in "Discuss-Bible" type of meeting with bible professionals who will be able to argue not in front of teenagers who know jack shit about their own religion anyway, they felt attacked by someone who is trying to stop bullying.


His purpose wasn't to discuss the Bible. He just pointed out that it isn't a justification for the bullying of gays, albeit in an aggressive manner. He even says they can come back in once he's done talking about it.


----------



## Doge (May 2, 2012)

> You want to talk about the psychological point of view of teenagers?
> 
> Try looking at Eric James Borges, who was raised in a religious home. His parents attempted an exorcism on him because of his homosexuality, and later kicked him out. He tried to prevent other LGBT youths from preventing suicide, only to end up killing himself.
> 
> And that's just ONE example of how religion affects this group of people. What Savage said may have been aggressive, but he isn't causing those teens some psychological damage that's going to drive them to suicide. And at least what he said is honest.





I do recall a similar argument that Marilyn Manson, Ozzy Osbourne, Rock Music, Rap Music, violent video games, rated "R" movies, etc. all being attributed to negative impact s on our children.

Do you know what the consensus was on the issue?  Individuals have to take personal responsibility.  If you're a complete idiot and decide to shoot up a school because Marilyn Manson makes you feel that way, that's your fault, not Manson's.  The same argument can be applied to religion here, religion isn't immediately deemed evil itself just because someone interprets it in an insane way (unfortunately, a lot of people do.  People need to actually read the Gospel).  If religion is the sole reason this crap is happening, then we can assume the same for someone who listened to Ozzy Osbourne's "Suicide Solution".



Kind of reminds me of that South Park episode...you know, the one where they try to make a banned book.  Some guy goes berserk after reading it and shoots up the Kardashians because of his own interpretation.  What happened?  Book got banned.  Just goes to show how little personal responsibility we have in our society.


----------



## Narcissus (May 2, 2012)

lvl80elitetaurenchieftain said:


> I do recall a similar argument that Marilyn Manson, Ozzy Osbourne, Rock Music, Rap Music, violent video games, rated "R" movies, etc. all being attributed to negative impact s on our children.
> 
> Do you know what the consensus was on the issue?  Individuals have to take personal responsibility.


These examples are not even remotely the same. Try actually looking at the linked example. The teen's parents tried an exorcism on him, and then kicked him out, because he was gay. That has a much deeper psychological impact that music and violent video games or movies.





> If you're a complete idiot and decide to shoot up a school because Marilyn Manson makes you feel that way, that's your fault, not Manson's.  The same argument can be applied to religion here
> 
> religion isn't immediately deemed evil itself just because someone interprets it in an insane way (unfortunately, a lot of people do.  People need to actually read the Gospel).


Religion has blatant, directly immoral statements, like the Bible passages Savage criticized. You don't get to sit there and ignore whatever you want and pretend there is only good in religion, or call the bad someone's insane interpretation.





> If religion is the sole reason this crap is happening, then we can assume the same for someone who listened to Ozzy Osbourne's "Suicide Solution".


No we can't. Ozzy Osbourne isn't an instruction manual on how to live your life. The Bible is, which is the difference that makes your comparisons invalid. Ozzy is not actually telling people to kill themselves.


----------



## Roman (May 3, 2012)

PhlegmMaster said:


> How does killing a murderer make you any different or any better than the murderer exactly? Think before you ask silly questions.



Because you're still killing someone. You're still showing that the answer to fire is fire. You're still telling people that it's ok to kill if you believe it's for the right reasons, and someone who's mentally unstable might reason the death of others is the answer to their problems.



neodragzero said:


> And once again, he pointed out a logical fallacy. You're the one making up a strawman argument about homosexuality needing to be explained as normal when Savage himself still made the comment that it's complicated rather than just simple.



I'll concede this point to you as after transcribing his discussion, I've understood that sexuality isn't something that can be defined by a collective but only on an individual scale. As far as the bible on its own goes, he has a good point there. The question again comes to how the people who read it see it.



neodragzero said:


> Except that he did explain the contradiction of how certain people pick and choose what is in Leviticus and such. It still stands as a show of hypocrisy on the part of the bigots that choose one bit while ignoring the others.



I don't exactly view it as a contradiction when someone picks only relevant parts of the bible, or any given texts for that matter, after reading it from cover to cover and seeing the right in some things and seeing the wrong in others. Christians saw the wrongs of slavery, genocide and stoning over the centuries and thus are able to ignore those parts. In their minds and their perceptions, they view those things as taboo. 

Likewise, they reason from an individual perspective that homosexuality is wrong, which is in accordance to the bible. They may also very well realize that sexuality is a complicated matter and as individuals view it as wrong. They hypocrisy comes when they try to force their perception on others as the absolute right one, and that may apply to non-believers as well for there are anti-gay people among the atheist/agnostic community. Such people, believers and non-believers alike, won't point to the bible as their reason, but their own individual ones. Incorrect they may be, but it's still not the bible.

You might wonder why I still say this even after you told me Savage refers only to those who refer to the bible. There's only one instance where Savage does this and I've enclosed it in the quote:



> Slave-owners waved bibles over their heads during the civil war and justified it.



He was only referring to slave owners. Nowhere else does he make a comment like that. Throughout the rest of the conversation, he talks about believers in general, hence why he gives the impression of generalizing the Christian society as people who refer exclusively to the bible.



neodragzero said:


> You're once again demanding he do more when it's not his burden to do so while at the same time pretend as if he has to accommodate what looks like a less bright minority while most high school students from that convention seem to know what they're doing. The lecture wasn't meant for you nor me.



It's his responsibility when he's the one who came up with the discussion to begin with. Otherwise, it won't be an educative lecture, which it certainly wasn't. So yes, he does have to accommodate for a less bright minority because they're as much a part of his audience as everyone else. He's not there only for the ones who're more intelligent.



neodragzero said:


> And once again, you're still dumbing down how people have come to learn that slavery is wrong as far as the long history of abolition goes while at the same time you're generalizing all Christians to think exactly the same on an issue. You're treating a now as if it was simply a given that Christians as a whole figured this out rather than the numerous activities, laws, and such that had to be passed.



How am I generalizing how Christians think? I thought I made it abundantly clear that every Christian is able to interpret the bible as they wish and have their own opinions. My parents don't even care about homosexuality like it's a life-threatening thing, other Christians who have misgivings have a multitude of reasons for having them.

As far as slavery goes, most have understood the wrongs of slavery just as any sensible human being has, unless you're trying to argue that not all Christians think the same about slavery. I'm practically saying exactly what Savage said about slavery or stoning (quote below) so what's your point with this?



> And there is no effort to amend state constitutions to make it legal to stone women to death on their wedding night if they're not virgins...





neodragzero said:


> He stated he's talking about Christians who bring up a book passage. Common sense illustrates that he can't be talking about all Christians. The only way to think he's suggesting an all or majority is emotive thinking where you confuse commentary about specific Christians to mean he's talking about a whole or majority.



Yes, but like I said above, it's only in reference to slave owners. He doesn't explicitly say "there are a group of Christians who pick and choose parts of the bible to justify their reasons" or something of that nature. He says this:



> I have a right to defend myself and to point out the hypocrisy of people who justify anti-gay bigotry by pointing to the bible and insisting that we must live by the code of Lovidicus on this one issue and no other.



He says this without thinking about why they agree to this specific part in Lovidicus. As I've been saying for a while, they don't ignore it because they're able to make sense of this part, unlike the bible's justifications for slavery or stoning which most do realize is wrong (as Savage himself points out). His responsibility, as the one point out the hypocrisy, is explain to people who have made sound judgement and see the sense in Lovidicus about anti-homosexuality why homosexuality is in fact normal and why the bible is wrong, just like most Christians realized how the bible was wrong on other matters (as Savage himself points out).

He does touch on the fact that it's a complicated issue, but he failed to appeal to the individual level and only attacks the collective, which is why he gives the impression of generalizing Christians as hive minded people.


----------



## lazer (May 3, 2012)

There is no such thing as bad publicity  I don't get what his goal here was but contraversy sells. So, his more of an attention whore than a gay activist.


----------



## Pilaf (May 3, 2012)

lvl80elitetaurenchieftain said:


> Does this apply to Muslims too?
> 
> 
> I didn't know gay stances are restricted to only the Christian faith.



Suppression of homosexuality in the United States almost never has anything to do with Islam.


----------



## Narcissus (May 3, 2012)

lazer said:


> There is no such thing as bad publicity  I don't get what his goal here was but contraversy sells. So, his more of an attention whore than a gay activist.





He's not more of an attention whore, and he is very much a real anti-bullying activist. What he said here may have been aggressive, but it was true, and sometimes people just cannot deal with the truth. 



But it doesn't make his statement about the Bible any less true, and he had every right to express it.


----------



## Spock (May 3, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> Stop. Savage did not pick on them. He attacked irrational claims in the Bible. It just happened to offend some people.
> You want to talk about the psychological point of view of teenagers?



Yup, because I clearly said in my post I support this type of shit, bravo way to get off topic. Eric James was not in the crowd. Eric James was not the main topic of conversation. Eric James dilemma and it's correlation with Christianity was not the issue at hand. What is the point of bringing him up other than to gain sympathy ? I am not defending Christianity in anyway, the issue is about bunch of kids who felt attacked by an alleged anti-bullying activist.



> And that's just *ONE* example of how religion affects this group of people. What Savage said may have been aggressive, but he isn't causing those teens some psychological damage that's going to drive them to suicide. And at least what he said is honest.
> His purpose wasn't to discuss the Bible. He just pointed out that it isn't a justification for the bullying of gays, albeit in an aggressive manner. He even says they can come back in once he's done talking about it.



Sorry but being around 13-16 and receiving "YOUR BELIEF IS BULLSHIT!" by anti-bullying _celebrity_ is gonna cause some form of grave embarrassment and perhaps emotional damage. 

Stop looking at it from an subjective point of view, how honest he may be he picked the wrong ignorant crowd to bash the bible which wasn't the topic of conversation anyway.


----------



## Narcissus (May 3, 2012)

Eli said:


> Yup, because I clearly said in my post I support this type of shit, bravo way to get off topic.


I never asserted that you supported it.





> Eric James was not in the crowd. Eric James was not the main topic of conversation. Eric James dilemma and it's correlation with Christianity was not the issue at hand.


Him not being in the crowd is irrelevant. His example is a representation of what Savage was talking about when he attacked the claims of the Bible. Eric suffered because of the teachings of the Bible, the very thing Savage said to ignore.





> What is the point of bringing him up other than to gain sympathy ?


To show why Savage was justified in saying what he did, not to gain sympathy.





> I am not defending Christianity in anyway, the issue is about bunch of kids who felt attacked by an alleged anti-bullying activist.


Right, and providing justification for what he said shows that he was not bullying them by attacking the Bible. Saying something controversial may make people angry, but that is not tantamount to bullying them.





> Sorry but being around 13-16 and receiving "YOUR BELIEF IS BULLSHIT!" by anti-bullying _celebrity_ is gonna cause some form of grave embarrassment and perhaps emotional damage.


"Think of the children!" is an appeal to emotion fallacy. 

You're also asserting that there was some deep emotional damage done without providing any support for it (keeping in mind that the rest of the audience applauded him). I've presented mine already.





> Stop looking at it from an subjective point of view, how honest he may be he picked the wrong ignorant crowd to bash the bible which wasn't the topic of conversation anyway.


I am looking at this situation objectively. What he said was honest, if aggressive, and it does contribute to the discussion. It is actually dishonest on your part to claim that the Bible is irrelevant when it comes to gay bullying, as it is one of the driving factors behind it.

And there is a difference between bashing and criticizing.


----------



## Spock (May 3, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> Him not being in the crowd is irrelevant. His example is a representation of what Savage was talking about when he attacked the claims of the Bible. Eric suffered because of the teachings of the Bible, the very thing Savage said to ignore.To show why Savage was justified in saying what he did, not to gain sympathy.


This is still not the issue, how horrible and sad Eric's story maybe, he is not the issue. The issue is that Savage is unqualified to work with teenagers and get his anti bullying message across without being an aggressive bully himself. 





> Right, and providing justification for what he said shows that he was not bullying them by attacking the Bible. Saying something controversial may make people angry, but that is not tantamount to bullying them.


The "pansy asses" who left felt attacked by a celebrity who advocates for anti bullying. Teenagers who go to those type of meetings are willing to have a dialogue, give and take and learn, the fact that there was a lot of Christian students who stayed behind to listen proves that. But when you flat out insults their beliefs and call them pansy asses, of course they are gonna be turned off and reject you, you have just closed a door, you are not qualified. 



> "Think of the children!" is an appeal to emotion fallacy.


Yes, if your objective is to reach out to children, then think about their feelings before blatantly insulting them in front of a large crowd.



> You're also asserting that there was some deep emotional damage done without providing any support for it (keeping in mind that the rest of the audience applauded him). I've presented mine already.I am looking at this situation objectively. What he said was honest, if aggressive, and it does contribute to the discussion. It is actually dishonest on your part to claim that the Bible is irrelevant when it comes to gay bullying, as it is one of the driving factors behind it.


Hold your horses, I never said that. What I said was the topic was not a bible debate. He could have said don't use your religion to bully others but he flat out insulted them instead then mocked them while they were leaving. That is a form of bullying whether you think it's serious or not is your own problem .



> And there is a difference between bashing and criticizing.


Of course there is, Savage failed to grasp that though.


----------



## -Dargor- (May 3, 2012)

lol at people still taking the bible seriously in 2012.

It's just sad.

I wonder what the world would spin around if there wasn't money, religion or sex.


----------



## Nihonjin (May 3, 2012)

To all the Christians in this thread crying about Dan Savage being offensive and hateful.

This is what he's fighting:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTiBv99MYDk[/YOUTUBE]

So unless you somehow agree with this obviously hateful bigot who's encouraging parents to bully their own children, I don't see how you can argue against him.


----------



## Roman (May 3, 2012)

Nihonjin said:


> To all the Christians in this thread crying about Dan Savage being offensive and hateful.
> 
> This is what he's fighting:
> 
> ...



Savage was far more civilized compared to this guy, no one is going to argue with that (not me at least). He has every right to point out the hypocrisy and I agree with him 100%. All I'm saying is that he could've been more tactful with respect to his audience rather than resorting to insults and calling someone's personal beliefs bullshit. I'm more than certain most Christians who sat in his lecture are nothing like the pastor you refer to.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 3, 2012)

Eli said:


> Yup, because I clearly said in my post I support this type of *shit*, bravo way to get off topic. "
> ...
> Sorry but being around 13-16 and receiving "YOUR BELIEF IS BULLSHIT!"


Wait so it's completely ok for you to declare people beliefs shit, but it's not ok for other people to do it?


----------



## Gunners (May 3, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> Being offended by something someone says, is not the same as being bullied.
> 
> The fact that the Christians in the audience do not know the difference between being bullied and being offended speaks volumes to the how far and removed the Christian right is from actual oppression.



_Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.
_

The two are not mutually exclusive, in this situation an argument can be presented to suggest that he bullied the Christian students in the sense that he used his position of authority to ridicule their beliefs in a situation where his crowd support would naturally intimidate the people who statement's were directed at. That intimidation would prevent them challenging his sleight on their beliefs which leaves us with an almost text book definition of bullying.


----------



## Petes12 (May 3, 2012)

who cares the beliefs of the people he offended _are _bullshit


----------



## Nihonjin (May 3, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Savage was far more civilized compared to this guy, no one is going to argue with that (not me at least). He has every right to point out the hypocrisy and I agree with him 100%. All I'm saying is that he could've been more tactful with respect to his audience rather than resorting to insults and calling someone's personal beliefs bullshit.



Could have have been more tactful? Yes. I'm sure anyone could have predicted that calling anything in the Bible "Bullshit" would result into people walking out and being offended. Since he's trying to reach Christians, that wasn't a particularly smart thing to say.

But is it an actual insult? No fucking way.



> I'm more than certain most Christians who sat in his lecture are nothing like the pastor you refer to.



Which is part of his point.

A lot of them hold on to the belief that gay people are somehow doing something wrong _because_ it's in the bible, but they don't support slavery even though _it's in the same part of the bible_.

He pointed that out the hypocrisy and urged people to ignore the obviously hateful pieces in the bible about gay people like they ignore the parts about slavery, killing your own children for talking back, stoning your wife for not being a virgin, etc.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with what he said or how he said it from an objective point of view. It's just that religious people are so emotionally invested in their beliefs that they can't handle any criticism of it.

The only thing he said that he shouldn't have, is calling those who walked out pansy-asses or something along those lines.


----------



## Roman (May 3, 2012)

Nihonjin said:


> Could have have been more tactful? Yes. I'm sure anyone could have predicted that calling anything in the Bible "Bullshit" would result into people walking out and being offended. Since he's trying to reach Christians, that wasn't a particularly smart thing to say.
> 
> But is it an actual insult? No fucking way.



I agree. If you look back, you'll notice that I said no one should take insult from someone taking jabs at a book, particularly if that book is treated more as a source of inspiration than a sacred idol to be worshiped.

One other thing Savage made a mistake with is calling the bible a radically pro-slavery document. Altho not an insult, that's definitely far from the truth seeing how the bible contains numerous references to moral behavior and encouraging kindness and giving.



Nihonjin said:


> A lot of them hold on to the belief that gay people are somehow doing something wrong _because_ it's in the bible, but they don't support slavery even though _it's in the same part of the bible_.



My point is that a lot of them don't simply believe homosexuality is wrong just because the bible says so, but for multiple other reasons. Even a number of atheists have no love for homosexuality because they can't wrap their heads around the idea that love isn't limited to gender and has never been so. Believers can not like homosexuality for a number of reasons other than the bible, which is why they find themselves agreeing with that particular part of the text but because they understand the wrongs of slavery and stoning, they disagree with that part of the bible and ignore it.

Savage could've done a much better job if he invited his audience to understand the normality of homosexuality just as they can understand the wrongs of slavery and stoning rather than simply calling it bullshit. It's hypocritical, don't get me wrong, and I perfectly agree with his pov. It's his method of presenting his ideas that was erred.


----------



## Vynjira (May 3, 2012)

Moreover, he didn't say the Bible was bullshit. He said parts of the Bible were Bullshit and that's what we should throw out.





Freedan said:


> One other thing Savage made a mistake with is calling the bible a radically pro-slavery document. Altho not an insult, that's definitely far from the truth seeing how the bible contains numerous references to moral behavior and encouraging kindness and giving.


It is pro-slavery, that it later endorses kindness and giving doesn't make it not pro-slavery.


----------



## Nihonjin (May 3, 2012)

Freedan said:


> I agree. If you look back, you'll notice that I said no one should take insult from someone taking jabs at a book, particularly if that book is treated more as a source of inspiration than a sacred idol to be worshiped.



Fair enough.



> One other thing Savage made a mistake with is calling the bible a radically pro-slavery document. Altho not an insult, *that's definitely far from the truth seeing how the bible contains numerous references to moral behavior and encouraging kindness and giving.*



The fact that it encourages kindness and giving in certain parts, doesn't nullify the fact that it supports slavery and murder in others.



> My point is that a lot of them don't simply believe homosexuality is wrong just because the bible says so



But some do and that's who he's addressing. And even though some might have a deeper lying reason for disliking gay people than just the bible saying they're wrong, those Christians still tend to reference to the bible as if that's somehow evidence that they're right in their stance.



> *Savage could've done a much better job if he invited his audience to understand the normality of homosexuality just as they can understand the wrongs of slavery and stoning* rather than simply calling it bullshit. It's hypocritical, don't get me wrong, and I perfectly agree with his pov. It's his method of presenting his ideas that was erred.



That's easier said than done when dealing with bigots..


----------



## sadated_peon (May 3, 2012)

Gunners said:


> _Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.
> _


[with object]
use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force them to do something:
 a local man was bullied into helping them


Sorry, that is the incorrect definition for bullying, though even using that I don't believe that "intimidation" could be claimed, nor was there "force". 



Gunners said:


> The two are not mutually exclusive, in this situation an argument can be presented to suggest that he bullied the Christian students in the sense that he used his position of authority to ridicule their beliefs in a situation where his crowd support would naturally intimidate the people who statement's were directed at. That intimidation would prevent them challenging his sleight on their beliefs which leaves us with an almost text book definition of bullying.


Once again these are two completely different uses of the word bullying. The idea that a repetitive physical and/or emotional abuse of students can equate to being offended by something that an influence person says during a speech is ridiculous.

There was no targeting of those specific individuals, they simply didn't like is opinions.


----------



## Roman (May 3, 2012)

Nihonjin said:


> The fact that it encourages kindness and giving in certain parts, doesn't nullify the fact that it supports slavery and murder in others.



Of course not. The hypocrisy is when someone denies the bible has anything to do with violence. When someone is aware of its darker aspects but follows the teachings of kindness from the text, that doesn't make the person any less Christian as it's their choice to identify as such. I have no right in claiming what another person is or is not. Same way I don't have a right to say the love someone feels for another person of the same gender isn't true.



Nihonjin said:


> But some do and that's who he's addressing. And even though some might have a deeper lying reason for disliking gay people than just the bible saying they're wrong, those Christians still tend to reference to the bible as if that's somehow evidence that they're right in their stance.



Even after transcribing what he said, I can't make out the part where he specifically refers to them. There's a reference to slave-owners but that's about it. You have a point in saying that they still tend to reference the bible but they do so by explaining why the bible says so according to their own reasoning rather than blindly believing homosexuality is wrong purely because it is according to a book.



Nihonjin said:


> That's easier said than done when dealing with bigots..



Perhaps, but he would've stood a much better chance. History has shown Christians understood why slavery and stoning is wrong instead of simply going along with popular opinion and deciding it's wrong without judging why that's the case. They're perfectly capable of letting go of their prejudice in this way, especially seeing how complex the subject of sexuality is. It's not something that can be done very quickly just by saying how something is wrong or isn't.


----------



## Vynjira (May 3, 2012)

Criticizing someone for "not wanting to hear" what he has to say, isn't the same thing as bullying.


----------



## Spock (May 3, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> Wait so it's completely ok for you to declare people beliefs shit, but it's not ok for other people to do it?



I am not someone who claims to be against bullying but end up offending a portion of my target audience and later call them pansy asses for feeling insulted. I am not abusing my freedom of speech.

Nice try bunny man.


----------



## Vynjira (May 3, 2012)

Eli said:


> I am not someone who claims to be against bullying but end up offending a portion of my target audience and later call them pansy asses for feeling insulted. I am not abusing my freedom of speech.
> 
> Nice try bunny man.


You're someone who will dishonestly compare physical and emotional abuse, to criticizing someone for not even being able to acknowledge their beliefs do cause harm.

So much so, that you even tried to claim that they would suffer emotional damage for listening to him? I think you're being disingenuous, you're trying to deflect criticism by attacking him.

You know like when someone calls an Atheist militant for "trying to ban Government endorsement of religion (war on Christmas nonsense), saying that they're just as bad as the Militant Theists who fly planes into buildings, shoot abortion doctors, etc.. etc..

You've overstated your case, you need to rethink your position.


----------



## Spock (May 3, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> You're someone who will dishonestly compare physical and emotional abuse, to criticizing someone for not even being able to acknowledge their beliefs do cause harm.



Nope, I am someone who does not hypocritically value one bullied group over the other. If I want to reach out to teenagers I will be careful with what I'll say and take their feelings into consideration.


----------



## Vynjira (May 3, 2012)

Eli said:


> Nope, I am someone who does not hypocritically value one bullied group over the other. If I want to reach out to teenagers I will be careful with what I'll say and take their feelings into consideration.


Neither does he, you're trying to deflect valid criticism by dismissing it as bullying. Whereas bullying isn't done as a factual criticism for discussion.

You know like when someone calls an Atheist militant for "trying to ban Government endorsement of religion (war on Christmas nonsense), saying that they're just as bad as the Militant Theists who fly planes into buildings, shoot abortion doctors, etc.. etc..


----------



## Spock (May 3, 2012)

Ignore the bullshit in your bible you pansy asses! 

Yup valid constructive criticism that would make teenagers who came all the way to listen and give and take, open up to your cause. Totally.

I don't know about you, but if you want to teach people about the fallacies in the bible that is not the best approach.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (May 3, 2012)

The high road doesn't work. The only way to get past them is to sink to their level.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 3, 2012)

Eli said:


> I am not someone who claims to be against bullying but end up offending a portion of my target audience and later call them pansy asses for feeling insulted. I am not abusing my freedom of speech.
> 
> Nice try bunny man.


So you are FOR bullying then? No wonder you hate this guy, he has an entire campaign against something you are for.


----------



## Spock (May 3, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> So you are FOR bullying then? No wonder you hate this guy, he has an entire campaign against something you are for.



Nice try                 .


----------



## sadated_peon (May 3, 2012)

Eli said:


> Nice try                 .


good to see you abandoning your failed arguments so quickly. 




Eli said:


> Ignore the bullshit in your bible you pansy asses!


WTF? No where did he say this?

Your objecting to a semantics of argument as being inappropriate, and the basis for that is done by misquoting him!

lol, this is pathetic on so many levels.


----------



## Toroxus (May 3, 2012)




----------



## baconbits (May 3, 2012)

Eli said:


> Nope, I am someone who does not hypocritically value one bullied group over the other. If I want to reach out to teenagers I will be careful with what I'll say and take their feelings into consideration.



Well this is just common sense.  The sad this is that most people in this thread think that its okay to bully so long as they agree with the bully.

There are many reasons Savage shouldn't have said what he did.

1. He didn't have to say what he did to speak on bullying.
2. He can't connect bullying directly to the bible or Christianity.
3. Most bullying is not based on Leviticus or anything else in the Bible - most bullies aren't smart enough to know what is and is not in the Bible.
4. He bullied his audience, a bunch of teenagers, in order to teach them not to bully.

Clearly there are some Christian idiots out there, but their idiocy, particularly a video that surfaced after Savage's speech, can not justify Savage's commentary no more than someone's racism towards me can justify my racism towards their race.

People need to differientiate what they agree with logically or philosophically versus what should be done/said at a particular moment.  For example I don't think people should break down over the things that happen routinely in our lives, like getting yelled at by a boss.  But when my wife comes home from work and breaks down that is not the time to pursue my philosophical leanings.

The same here.  You can agree with Savage.  Perhaps you think the bible is garbage - I won't debate that issue here.  But even if you do that doesn't mean you should accept the tone, method or content of what was supposed to be a speech on bullying.  When people walk out of a speech they should listen to you've failed as a speaker.


----------



## Spock (May 3, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> good to see you abandoning your failed arguments so quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bunny man, please if I wanted to propaply quote him I would have done it in those 





> > that was merely a sarcastic paraphrasing, so to speak
> >
> >
> >
> > ...


----------



## Vynjira (May 3, 2012)

baconbits said:


> *snip*


Yea, that isn't true. Their religious parents indoctrinate them to be against homosexuality.

Your argument would be more convincing if Religious Groups weren't trying to pass laws arguing that bullying should be allowed so long as there is religious justification for it.

Or the various other attempts by Theists to rephrase this as an attack on their religious freedoms. Yet you're gonna insist the Bible has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Petes12 (May 3, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Well this is just common sense.  The sad this is that most people in this thread think that its okay to bully so long as they agree with the bully.
> 
> There are many reasons Savage shouldn't have said what he did.
> 
> ...



I don't think you're doing a very good job at that whole differentiating thing.

He said it was bullshit that people will hold up leviticus as a reason to bash gay people, despite all the other messed up stuff in that book that no one pays attention to. 

That is not bullying. That's pointing out hypocrisy


----------



## sadated_peon (May 3, 2012)

baconbits said:
			
		

> Well this is just common sense. The sad this is that most people in this thread think that its okay to bully so long as they agree with the bully.
> 
> There are many reasons Savage shouldn't have said what he did.
> 
> ...


He wasn’t bullying anyone. Do you think that when priest speaks out again homosexuality in church that he is bullying his audience? If not then how can you claim that he Savage bullied people. 
I have no idea how you equate the two, so I am looking for something that joins beating up a child because he looks gay, to this. 

1.	What you think he “had” to do is immaterial and is in no way any basis for action
2.	You can directly connect bullying to the bible and Christianity and I posted an article about how and why it needs to be done. 
3.	Most of the bullies may not, but most of his speeches and most of this speech wasn’t dedicated to it. But some do, and some of the speech was dedicated to it. 
4.	 He did not bully his audience this is an idiotic claim that I can only match to someone who has no fucking clue what it means to be bullied in their lives. 



			
				Eli said:
			
		

> Bunny man, please if I wanted to propaply quote him I would have done it in those [ -quote][-quote] that was merely a sarcastic paraphrasing, so to speak
> 
> That was so cheap of you btw, not nice try this time


I have no idea what am being cheap about, you are attacking a man for the semantics and how he said something while at the same NOT representing what he said correctly. 

I am sure that you could properly quote him, but that you don’t and instead attack strawman argument of what he said is what I am criticizing you for.


----------



## Spock (May 3, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> I have no idea what am being cheap about, you are attacking a man for the semantics and how he said something while at the same NOT representing what he said correctly.
> 
> I am sure that you could properly quote him, but that you don?t and instead attack strawman argument of what he said is what I am criticizing you for.





sadated_peon said:


> So you are FOR bullying then? No wonder you hate this guy, he has an entire campaign against something you are for.





sadated_peon said:


> Wait so it's completely ok for you to declare people beliefs shit, but it's not ok for other people to do it?


Sorry Bunny man, but you came at me fully armed with strawmanning guns pointing left and right and you expect me to take your critisim seriously ?


----------



## sadated_peon (May 3, 2012)

Eli said:


> Sorry Bunny man, but you came at me fully armed with strawmanning guns pointing left and right and you expect me to take your critisim seriously ?


Wow, it took you this long to realize I was responding in kind to your strawmans. 
lol!


----------



## Vynjira (May 3, 2012)

^As opposed to Straw Manning Dan Savage right?


----------



## Spock (May 3, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> Wow, it took you this long to realize I was responding in kind to your strawmans.
> lol!


----------



## sadated_peon (May 3, 2012)

And here I was thinking that my comment would motivate you to make an actual argument instead of another strawman... 

I blame myself really,


----------



## Gunners (May 3, 2012)

Gunners said:


> _Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.
> _
> 
> The two are not mutually exclusive, in this situation an argument can be presented to suggest that he bullied the Christian students in the sense that he used his position of authority to ridicule their beliefs in a situation where his crowd support would naturally intimidate the people who statement's were directed at. That intimidation would prevent them challenging his sleight on their beliefs which leaves us with an almost text book definition of bullying.





sadated_peon said:


> [with object]
> use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force them to do something:
> a local man was bullied into helping them
> 
> ...


If you're going to suggest that the literal definition of bullying I provided is incorrect then offer an alternative meaning. 

And as I explained in my previous post (highlighted in blue) intimidation can be found in the situation, ridiculing a group of people with crowd support will frighten them to respond. The fact that he was in a position of power and had a degree of crowd control indirectly forced those who he offended to stay silent. 



> Once again these are two completely different uses of the word bullying. The idea that a repetitive physical and/or emotional abuse of students can equate to being offended by something that an influence person says during a speech is ridiculous.
> 
> There was no targeting of those specific individuals, they simply didn't like is opinions


It is not necessary for a bully to target specific individual, I wouldn't say Hitler targeted specific individuals but he would still be considered as a bully ( and much worse obviously) as it is sufficient to target a particular class. In this situation David Savage's statements were offensive and intimidating to particular class ( individual's who value the bible). 

I am not claiming that _repetitive physical and/or emotional abuse equates to being offended by something a person of influence says_. I am claiming that his position of influence is sufficient to intimidate the people he offended which falls in the category to that end it shares elements with repeated emotional torture so far as both victims are intimidated by their oppressor. Obviously the comparison stops so far as the intimidation being continuous however this distinction does not place his actions outside of the meaning of the word 'bully'.


----------



## Spock (May 3, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> And here I was thinking that my comment would motivate you to make an actual argument instead of another strawman...
> 
> I blame myself really,



Blame yourself all you want. I stand by what I said, valuing a bullied group over the other is wrong, even if you think the bible is full of it no gives a fuck .


----------



## xenopyre (May 3, 2012)

Eli said:


> Blame yourself all you want. I stand by what I said, valuing a bullied group over the other is wrong, even if you think the bible is full of it no gives a fuck .


I fail to see how is he bullying the Christians ? the bible is a part of the problem and therefor he is justified in attacking it, the Christians are the problem and tip toeing around it won't solve anything which was the reason of the conference .


----------



## sadated_peon (May 3, 2012)

Gunners said:
			
		

> If you're going to suggest that the literal definition of bullying I provided is incorrect then offer an alternative meaning.
> 
> And as I explained in my previous post (highlighted in blue) intimidation can be found in the situation, ridiculing a group of people with crowd support will frighten them to respond. The fact that he was in a position of power and had a degree of crowd control indirectly forced those who he offended to stay silent.


I didn?t say it was incorrect I said it was out of context. It is like conflating the scientific definition of theory with the common usage of theory. 
If you want a more apt definition of bullying as referred to by Savage then here, 



> 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.[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".
> 
> Bullying consists of three basic types of abuse ? emotional, verbal, and physical. It typically involves subtle methods of coercion such as intimidation.




I think one of the major things to bring up is that bully manifests in abuse of other people, do you really want to make the argument that the people in the audience were abused.

-
The fact that they were in a crowd means very little, as they were not being targeted in the crowd. Nor does the fact that they may feel intimidated mean that they are being bullied. 

Is a priest bullying people in congregation who are gay when he speaks out against homosexuality?
Is a boss bullying an employee when he brings him in for a performance review?
Is a teacher bullying a student when they corrects them in class for something they got wrong?

The ?expect to stay silent? seems meaningless considering they were an audience of a speech, they are expected to stay silent out of respect of the speaker. Are you bullied by the talking hotdog before the movie that tells you not to talk during the movie?

I am having a very hard time reconciling instance where someone may feel intimidated to immediately translate that to bullying as you have done. 



			
				gunners said:
			
		

> It is not necessary for a bully to target specific individual, I wouldn't say Hitler targeted specific individuals but he would still be considered as a bully ( and much worse obviously) as it is sufficient to target a particular class. In this situation David Savage's statements were offensive and intimidating to particular class ( individual's who value the bible).
> 
> I am not claiming that repetitive physical and/or emotional abuse equates to being offended by something a person of influence says. I am claiming that his position of influence is sufficient to intimidate the people he offended which falls in the category to that end it shares elements with repeated emotional torture so far as both victims are intimidated by their oppressor. Obviously the comparison stops so far as the intimidation being continuous however this distinction does not place his actions outside of the meaning of the word 'bully'.


Well first


Next, the targeting of people was not done. Here is the quote ?We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people.? This does not target people, people felt offended by it, but it does not specifically target people. 
If I say the color blue is a bullshit color, I am not targeting people who do like the color blue. Targeting people for bullying involves singleling them out, it means make special purpose for others to single them out. 
Nothing like this was done. 

Actually it very much takes his actions out of the meaning of the word ?bully?, the fact that it does not correlate to any abuse, or any repetition of said nonsexist abuse is the EXACT REASON why it does not correlate to bully. 

Once again you want to complete intimidation to bullying, which is simply false in this context. 



			
				eli said:
			
		

> Blame yourself all you want. I stand by what I said, valuing a bullied group over the other is wrong, even if you think the bible is full of it no gives a fuck .


There is no other bullied group, Christian are not being bullied.


----------



## Spock (May 3, 2012)

xenopyre said:


> I fail to see how is he bullying the Christians ? the bible is a part of the problem and therefor he is justified in attacking it, the Christians are the problem and tip toeing around it won't solve anything which was the reason of the conference .



Why is everyone forgetting the environment he was in or the message he was trying to convey ?

This is the last time I am going to repeat this; if I was an anti-bullying activist fighting intolerance and bigotry and I want to reach out to the teenage Christian students who went there out of their free choice to listen to what I've  got to say I sure as hell not gonna say "ignore your bullshit belief" in hopes of raising awareness and when they feel attacked call them pansy asses. Sorry but he is not helping the LGBT community this way nor is he qualified to speak to teenage students who he was trying to target but ended up embarrassing them in front of a large crowd. Let's not take their feelings into consideration because they are Christians.


----------



## Vynjira (May 3, 2012)

Eli said:


> Why is everyone forgetting the environment he was in or the message he was trying to convey ?


Why are you trying to distort what he did and compare it to what he's fighting against?


----------



## xenopyre (May 3, 2012)

Eli said:


> Why is everyone forgetting the environment he was in or the message he was trying to convey ?
> 
> This is the last time I am going to repeat this; if I was an anti-bullying activist fighting intolerance and bigotry and I want to reach out to the teenage Christian students who went there out of their free choice to listen to what I've  got to say I sure as hell not gonna say "ignore your bullshit belief" in hopes of raising awareness and when they feel attacked call them pansy asses. Sorry but he is not helping the LGBT community this way nor is he qualified to speak to teenage students who he was trying to target but ended up embarrassing them in front of a large crowd. Let's not take their feelings into consideration because they are Christians.


You really think that people who storm out because of such a phrase would of listened to any constructive criticism of the bible ?


----------



## Samehada (May 3, 2012)

I was concerned on if his comments were necessary, but when he said that the Christians are willing to beat the gays but not willing to be beaten themselves, I nodded in agreement. While not all Christians are hostile, it is those more radical that really should have their mouth sealed. Imposing their religious beliefs in politics is exactly why we have had wars from the very beginning.


----------



## Vynjira (May 3, 2012)

Freedan said:
			
		

> I was surprised by how many people reacted saying "nothing wrong here" considering the condescending tone Dan had toward the bible and toward people when he said "I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings." *I even transcribed his discussion and I'm still wondering where it is he specifically refers to Christians only using the bible to justify their opinion.* He's talking in general about Christians from the way I understand it. Maybe I'm wrong but he hasn't made any specifications.


In the first 29 *SECONDS*. "People often point out that they can't help it, they can't help with the anti-gay bullying, it says right there in Leviticus, it says right there in Timothy, it says right there in Romans, that being Gay is wrong. We can learn, to ignore the Bullshit in the Bible about Gay People."

Right here the whole thing *AGAIN*:
[YOUTUBE=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao0k9qDsOvs]Dan Savage[/YOUTUBE]So right there he's talking about people who use those passages to ignore and justify bullying Homosexuals and more importantly, he doesn't say the *BIBLE* is *BULLSHIT*, he said what the *BIBLE* says about Gay People is *BULLSHIT*.

Criticizing people for not hearing him out, is a stark difference from bullying. This is a legitimate example of context and how context changes criticism to the harassment that we call bullying.

In short, spend more time transcribing correctly and less time attacking him for what he said.


----------



## kazuri (May 3, 2012)

It doesn't matter if "god himself" appeared in front of every human being and said gay was wrong. No one, or thing, has the right to stop people from doing things that do not hurt anyone.


----------



## Spock (May 3, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> Why are you trying to distort what he did and compare it to what he's fighting against?


Why cant you admit that him embarrassing teenagers in front of their peers and large crowd was wrong and why cant you fathom the prospect of it having some sort of emotional damage on them ?



xenopyre said:


> You really think that people who storm out because of such a phrase would of listened to any constructive criticism of the bible ?



Well they did come all the way to listen to him, he teenage students who were willing to absorb but instead he was aggressive and closed the door to any opportunity . He doesn't have style and he isn't qualified to work with teenagers.


----------



## xenopyre (May 3, 2012)

Eli said:


> Well they did come all the way to listen to him, he teenage students who were willing to absorb but instead he was aggressive and closed the door to any opportunity . He doesn't have style and he isn't qualified to work with teenagers.


If you've seen the video, people started storming out as soon as he mentioned the bible before he even said "ignore the bullshit", I doubt they were there to listen in the first place .


----------



## Gunners (May 3, 2012)

*Spoiler*: __ 






sadated_peon said:


> I didn?t say it was incorrect I said it was out of context. It is like conflating the scientific definition of theory with the common usage of theory.


My use of the common definition of the 'word' bully is not out of context as it followed on from you suggesting that what happened was the students merely 'taking offence to his words'. You making light of what occurred led you to the the incorrect presumption that the Christian students did not know the difference between being bullied and taking offence as at first glance his actions fall within the literal definition. At this point you are probably thinking that the argument has gone around in full circles but elements of the literal definition of bully that apply to his actions can be found in the definition you provided. 



> 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.[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".
> 
> Bullying consists of three basic types of abuse ? emotional, verbal, and physical. It typically involves subtle methods of coercion such as intimidation.


Following on from this definition evidence it can be said that he displayed aggressive behaviour through his choice of words when describing passages of the bible and of more relevance when he referred to the students as ?pansy-assess?. It can also be claimed that elements of coercion exists as by saying ?The bible guys in the back of the hall can come back now because I?m done beating up the bible?  along with ?How pansy-assed some people react when you push back? can pressurise individuals, who might want to leave, into staying for rear of being associated with the negative crowd.  I have already explained how an imbalance of power can be found from the scenario. 



> I think one of the major things to bring up is that bully manifests in abuse of other people, do you really want to make the argument that the people in the audience were abused.


That is what I am doing now. Being in audience does not have an effect on your initial statement. 


> The fact that they were in a crowd means very little, as they were not being targeted in the crowd. Nor does the fact that they may feel intimidated mean that they are being bullied.


I am not claiming that being in a crowd adds to the claim of being bullied, I am claiming that it does not defeat a claim that they were bullied by David Savage. And I made it clear in my previous post that it is not intimidation alone that gives rise to the accusation that he bullied them, it is the fact that by intimidating them he influenced their reaction. 


> Is a priest bullying people in congregation who are gay when he speaks out against homosexuality?


Depending on the priest?s conduct, yes. 


> Is a boss bullying an employee when he brings him in for a performance review?
> Is a teacher bullying a student when they corrects them in class for something they got wrong?


Depending on the employer?s conduct yes, and if the employee resigned he could potentially claim compensation through claiming he was constructively dismissed. 

Same applies to the teacher, it would depend on how she corrects the student. 

Unless you think employers and teachers should be able to call employees and students pansy-asses referring to the things they value as bullshit in an environment where they cannot defend themselves?



> The ?expect to stay silent? seems meaningless considering they were an audience of a speech, they are expected to stay silent out of respect of the speaker. Are you bullied by the talking hotdog before the movie that tells you not to talk during the movie?


Were people staying silent when they vocally celebrated his claims? In any case that is not what I was referring to, generally during talks there is an opportunity to question the person giving the presentation or raise any concerns. He created an environment where the individuals he offended would no longer feel free to express their opinion when/if the opportunity presented itself. 



> I am having a very hard time reconciling instance where someone may feel intimidated to immediately translate that to bullying as you have done.


You are having a hard time with it because you fail to consider the consequences of intimidating someone. 



> Well first


With all due respect I feel like slapping someone with a wet fish every time they cite Godwin?s law and the comparison was not made to attack your argument, it was made to defend my claim that bullying does not need to target specific individuals. 



> Next, the targeting of people was not done. Here is the quote ?We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people.? This does not target people, people felt offended by it, but it does not specifically target people.
> If I say the color blue is a bullshit color, I am not targeting people who do like the color blue. Targeting people for bullying involves singleling them out, it means make special purpose for others to single them out.
> Nothing like this was done.
> 
> ...


He did target a group, ?The bible guys in the back of the hall can come back now because I?m done beating up the bible? and by claiming ?How pansy-assed some people react when you push back? it can be argued that his initial statements were a thinly-veiled insult towards the offended group as he is acknowledging that his statements were a verbal attack to those pansy-assed people.


----------



## Spock (May 3, 2012)

xenopyre said:


> If you've seen the video, people started storming out as soon as he mentioned the bible before he even said "ignore the bullshit", I doubt they were there to listen in the first place .



The only person I saw walk out before "bullshit comment" was a girl who walked out right after he said Rooomanzz in a funny tone with a smirk. Fair enough.

That still does not justify his style. He came to talk about a sensitive issue, he should have thought this through taking every teenage's feelings into consideration, yes even "the pansy asses bible guys" that is if he calls himself anti-bullying activist. 

If you want to reach out to teenagers, first thing you do is have a style and the right approach and don't act like a condensing insensitive prick. I am willing to bet that the majority of the students who walked out are ignorant of the bible teachings, they felt attacked (by anti-bullying activist, lol) on the spot and they knew they had nothing to defend themselves with so they used the next best thing: defense mechanism by walking out.

Lets not forget that there were Christian student who remained and listened, so yes, the people who came there were willing to give it a shot. He just blew it.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 3, 2012)

Gunners said:
			
		

> My use of the common definition of the 'word' bully is not out of context as it followed on from you suggesting that what happened was the students merely 'taking offence to his words'. You making light of what occurred led you to the the incorrect presumption that the Christian students did not know the difference between being bullied and taking offence as at first glance his actions fall within the literal definition. At this point you are probably thinking that the argument has gone around in full circles but elements of the literal definition of bully that apply to his actions can be found in the definition you provided.


But the literal definition doesn?t apply in the conversation the way that laymen?s definition of the theory doesn?t apply to a scientific discussion of theory. 
You are conflating two different forms of bullying in a false equivalency. 

The students were simply taking offense to the words, and literal use of bullying that applies in by itself in any form where a dissenting opinion is criticized by a figure of authority. A definition so vague that it is more akin to metaphor than actual practice.



			
				Gunners said:
			
		

> Following on from this definition evidence it can be said that he displayed aggressive behaviour through his choice of words when describing passages of the bible and of more relevance when he referred to the students as ?pansy-assess?. It can also be claimed that elements of coercion exists as by saying ?The bible guys in the back of the hall can come back now because I?m done beating up the bible? along with ?How pansy-assed some people react when you push back? can pressurise individuals, who might want to leave, into staying for rear of being associated with the negative crowd. I have already explained how an imbalance of power can be found from the scenario.


I saw no aggressive behavior, this is a gross mis-characterization of what happened. Your liberal use of words for this banal situation telling to the weakness of your position. 
Nor did he reference the students as ?pansy-assess?, I suggest you rewatch to see what he actually said. 
Next the fear of being associated with something negative is once again not a match to the this definition in anyway. The drastic extreme that you seem to have taken this is beyond me. I can?t imagine you could not apply the same exacerbated language to any general situation that occurs in daily lives. 

Going by your seeming inexcusable series of trauma I doubt you could find any person who doesn?t go a week without suffering abuse. 



			
				Gunners said:
			
		

> That is what I am doing now. Being in audience does not have an effect on your initial statement.


I have seen no instance where you have shown any abuse. Being in the audience defines the scope of the effects. 



			
				Gunners said:
			
		

> I am not claiming that being in a crowd adds to the claim of being bullied, I am claiming that it does not defeat a claim that they were bullied by David Savage. And I made it clear in my previous post that it is not intimidation alone that gives rise to the accusation that he bullied them, it is the fact that by intimidating them he influenced their reaction.


The crowd means there was no direct target, it is talking in a general case and not picking out people. The reference was to the bible, which is an object, and not to specific people in the audience who believe in the bible. That members IN the crowd took offense doesn?t mean that they were targeted.
I have no idea how you can claim this general concept of ?influenced their reaction? I cannot think of any situation where this cannot be applied to any communication between people. 



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> Depending on the priest?s conduct, yes.



No, not depending on the conduct. I am working off the incredibly vague and open definition you laid out. By that standard ANY form is now bullying. 



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> Depending on the employer?s conduct yes, and if the employee resigned he could potentially claim compensation through claiming he was constructively dismissed.
> 
> Same applies to the teacher, it would depend on how she corrects the student.
> 
> Unless you think employers and teachers should be able to call employees and students pansy-asses referring to the things they value as bullshit in an environment where they cannot defend themselves?


Once again, no, not based on conduct, by your loose standards you could make it apply to any of these situations. You are simply hyping up the supposed damage that is suffered by the students to match a definition of abuse. 

I think that an employer should be able to say, ?employees who steal from the company are pansy-asses? yes. If an employee who steals feels threaten by this, then it is no fault of the employer. 

If the employer says that it is Bullshit for people to show up late to work, then I believe strongly that people are not being abused by the comment. 



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> Were people staying silent when they vocally celebrated his claims? In any case that is not what I was referring to, generally during talks there is an opportunity to question the person giving the presentation or raise any concerns. He created an environment where the individuals he offended would no longer feel free to express their opinion when/if the opportunity presented itself.


Wow, what a pedantic interpretation of silence. 
But let me take this a step further, they were not forced to ?say silent? they walk out an expression of their beliefs as loud as any words. 
But I disagree, this was NOT an open forum, this was a speech, any him expressing his opinion in no way suppress those who want to dissent. Go watch debates that, or speakers, and their question time afterward and you will see quite clearly that dissent is EXPECTED at question time. 



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> You are having a hard time with it because you fail to consider the consequences of intimidating someone.


I see you making a mountain out of a molehill. 



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> With all due respect I feel like slapping someone with a wet fish every time they cite Godwin?s law and the comparison was not made to attack your argument, it was made to defend my claim that bullying does not need to target specific individuals.


It was used to compare the speaker actions with those of Hitler, sorry, but that is godwins law at it?s finest. 



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> He did target a group, ?The bible guys in the back of the hall can come back now because I?m done beating up the bible? and by claiming ?How pansy-assed some people react when you push back? it can be argued that his initial statements were a thinly-veiled insult towards the offended group as he is acknowledging that his statements were a verbal attack to those pansy-assed people.


Full quote ?it?s funny to someone who on the receiving end of beating justified by the bible, how pansy-ass some people react when you push back?
The reaction is being called pansy-ass, not the people, but this is actually a side issue, and the supposed bullying happened BEFORE this, they had already left at this point.


----------



## Vynjira (May 3, 2012)

Perhaps as Christians they should be aware, that there is going to be some discussion about the people who bully others and not pretend as if he was attacking Christianity.





Eli said:


> Why cant you admit that him embarrassing teenagers in front of their peers and large crowd was wrong and why cant you fathom the prospect of it having some sort of emotional damage on them ?


Because it's a bullshit lie and you should know better.


----------



## Spock (May 3, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> Because it's a bullshit lie and you should know better.



Let's disregard the feelings of those pork eating teenage Christians, seriously they don't have souls.


----------



## xenopyre (May 3, 2012)

Eli said:


> Let's disregard the feelings of those pork eating teenage Christians, seriously they don't have souls.


But how can you make a anti-gay-bullying speech without mentioning the quasi-sole argument out there for it, other than religious beliefs and maybe to an extent eugenics there are no reason to bully gay people.


----------



## WT (May 3, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> Being offended by something someone says, is not the same as being bullied.
> 
> The fact that the Christians in the audience do not know the difference between being bullied and being offended speaks volumes to the how far and removed the Christian right is from actual oppression.



I'm going to teach my children to call the gays in their school ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) and teach my children to tell the ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) how repulsive homosexuality is every day.

Is that bullying or free speech?


----------



## Doge (May 3, 2012)

> Because it's a bullshit lie and you should know better.




Because that argument has worked extremely well and has given every single person on this Earth perfect understanding.


No one can ever know for sure.  I personally would lean slightly towards agnostic atheism over agnostic theism from a non religious point of view.  Saying all thoughts of a "god" are irrational is not a wise thing to say, which I hope is not what you are implying.  You may not believe in a god, but science can never hope to give us understanding of everything.  Especially when there's no way of telling what's beyond perception.


But anyways, that's just me rambling.  I would kindly suggest refraining from possibly offensive speech under any circumstance.  Calling someone else's ideas "bullshit", no matter how ignorant or crazy, is not well looked upon.  Even more so when you want to get rid of bullying.


----------



## Doge (May 3, 2012)

White Tiger said:


> I'm going to teach my children to call the gays in their school ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) and teach my children to tell the ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) how repulsive homosexuality is every day.
> 
> Is that bullying or free speech?



No, that's Xbox Live.


----------



## Vynjira (May 3, 2012)

Eli said:


> Let's disregard the feelings of those pork eating teenage Christians, seriously they don't have souls.


Stop, they're not the victim of anything (except their own foolishness).

You cannot equivocate what happened to them with the physical and emotional abuse/torture that other people go thru. To pretend that they're emotionally damaged, just exposes your dishonest bullshit.





lvl80elitetaurenchieftain said:


> But anyways, that's just me rambling.


Yes, it is.

I didn't say God was bullshit. I said that claiming they were emotionally damaged is a bullshit lie, prove they were emotionally damaged to the extent of kids who are physically abused and emotionally tormented.


----------



## Spock (May 3, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> Stop, they're not the victim of anything (except their own foolishness).
> 
> You cannot equivocate what happened to them with the physical and emotional abuse/torture that other people go thru. To pretend that they're emotionally damaged, just exposes your dishonest bullshit.



Of course they are not, they are bunch of pansy asses.

Edit: You know emotional torment and damage vary from one person to another. To pretend that they weren't emotionally and publicly abused by a celebrity just exposes your dishonest bias.


----------



## Vynjira (May 3, 2012)

Eli said:


> Of course they are not, they are bunch of pansy asses.


You know what, if that's what you wanna call them. Then I don't disagree. 

Perhaps you should try making valid points, instead of repeating an equivocation fallacy.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 3, 2012)

White Tiger said:


> I'm going to teach my children to call the gays in their school ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) and teach my children to tell the ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) how repulsive homosexuality is every day.
> 
> Is that bullying or free speech?


bullying, I am amazed that you can't figure out the difference, I guess that comes from not having free speech as a native value in your upbringing. 



lvl80elitetaurenchieftain said:


> No, that's Xbox Live.


Congrats, you win one free internets.


----------



## AoMythology (May 3, 2012)

Eli said:


> Of course they are not, they are bunch of pansy asses.
> 
> Edit: You know emotional torment and damage vary from one person to another. To pretend that they weren't emotionally and publicly abused by a celebrity just exposes your dishonest bias.



To tell you the truth, I'm inclined to seriously agree with your sarcastic comment about the pansy-asses.

After all, if they were studying to be journalists, they should have a thicker skin.

Edit: and what Savage actually said was much less offensive than you are making it out to be - did you actually watch the video? So yes, they had to be pansy-asses if they left so easily.


----------



## Vynjira (May 3, 2012)

I'd say it's actually Child Abuse.


----------



## Spock (May 3, 2012)

AoMythology said:


> To tell you the truth, I'm inclined to seriously agree with your sarcastic comment about the pansy-asses.
> 
> After all, if they were studying to be journalists, they should have a thicker skin.
> 
> Edit: and what Savage actually said was much less offensive than you are making it out to be - did you actually watch the video? So yes, they had to be pansy-asses if they left so easily.



Savage was there being an advocate against bullying but ended up offending the very same kids he was trying to reach out to. Epic fail.


----------



## AoMythology (May 3, 2012)

Eli said:


> Savage was there being an advocate against bullying but ended up offending the very same kids he was trying to reach out to. Epic fail.



He only offended a part of them. Pointing out that the Bible has passages which contain bullshit is a truth that is bound to piss some people off.

Yes, he could have been more polite by using a word other than "bullshit", but don't delude yourself. Only a very slightly lower number would have stormed out.


----------



## Doge (May 3, 2012)

> Yes, it is.
> 
> I didn't say God was bullshit. I said that claiming they were emotionally damaged is a bullshit lie, prove they were emotionally damaged to the extent of kids who are physically abused and emotionally tormented.




Yeah, just took the risk of thinking for myself right there to find happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom.  


And not everyone takes emotional torment equally.  Some people can take an absurd amount of heat, while others are a little more sensitive.  A simple joke about his beliefs could hurt person A as much as if person B was made fun of for his sexuality.  And it can also work the other way, person B could be crushed by the same verbal statement, while person A might just shrug it off.


It's all relative to the individual.  You cannot assume that all people will react in the same way and that all verbal "torment" of any sort can be accurately ranked on a nonexistent scale.

I am not trying to say that being made fun of for being religious is worse than being abused for being gay; I am trying to convey that there is no way to give an actual value to each one.  No one can make an assumption lumping every individual's feelings all into one mass.


----------



## AoMythology (May 3, 2012)

lvl80elitetaurenchieftain said:


> Yeah, just took the risk of thinking for myself right there to find happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom.
> 
> 
> And not everyone takes emotional torment equally.  Some people can take an absurd amount of heat, while others are a little more sensitive.  A simple joke about his beliefs could hurt person A as much as if person B was made fun of for his sexuality.  And it can also work the other way, person B could be crushed by the same verbal statement, while person A might just shrug it off.
> ...



Yes, boo-hoo, poor Christians...  The Bible was made fun of! 

Fact is, the Bible is one of the most bigoted, intolerant and bloodthirsty books in existence.

Its few pros are far outshined by the horrible passages, and criticism is bound to be brutal sometimes; I personally find Savage's words really mild.

Religion, like it or not, is a thing that exists in this world and, as such, is bound by the same rules and limitations as anything else; including criticism.

Saying that something is holy to some people is just an excuse to avoid the toppling of weak arguments.

It is the most usual defense of fanatical theists, along with "God's ways are beyond our understanding"* and "it's not meant literally"*, when they find themselves backed into a corner during a debate.


*The Bible is not beyond our understanding. God in the Old Testament is not incomprehensible in his ways. He is just much like the ancient Greek gods when they were at their worst (e.g. trying to score with a woman), but without the understanding that gods are much like humans that the believers of that religion had.


----------



## Vynjira (May 3, 2012)

lvl80elitetaurenchieftain said:


> I am not trying to say that being made fun of for being religious is worse than being abused for being gay; I am trying to convey that there is no way to give an actual value to each one..


They weren't being made fun of for being religious. That is one of the *FUNDAMENTAL* differences. Homosexuals are targeted because they are homosexuals.

Christians are being criticized for what they are doing to other people.

Further we don't have to respect your beliefs; That you choose to believe that Black People should be killed, does not mean we have to respect that belief. Nor would it be hypocritical to "embarrass" someone who believed that, simply because we're against bullying.

Comparing what he said, to what he's fighting against is absolute bullshit. It's a dishonest tactic and I think the intention is quite obvious.

If you can't see the difference between criticizing the Nazi Party or the KKK or various hate groups (for outright harmful beliefs) and the *BULLYING* conducted by these groups... then *YOU HAVE SERIOUS ISSUES*.

I can't wait for someone to distort what I wrote.


----------



## Narcissus (May 3, 2012)

Eli said:


> This is still not the issue, how horrible and sad Eric's story maybe, he is not the issue. The issue is that Savage is unqualified to work with teenagers and get his anti bullying message across without being an aggressive bully himself.


Yes, it is the issue. Simple dismissal doesn't change this fact.

It, and all examples like it, serves as a justification for what Savage said. If there were no examples of people using religious teachings to treat people this way, then Savage wouldn't have had to say what he did.





> The "pansy asses" who left felt attacked by a celebrity who advocates for anti bullying.


A comment he later apologized for. If anything, that was the only thing that may have been unnecessary. His comment on the bullshit in the Bible though? That was not an attack on them, despite whatever they felt.





> Teenagers who go to those type of meetings are willing to have a dialogue, give and take and learn, the fact that there was a lot of Christian students who stayed behind to listen proves that. But when you flat out insults their beliefs and call them pansy asses, of course they are gonna be turned off and reject you, you have just closed a door, you are not qualified.


The fact that much of the audience applauded what he had to say about the Bible shows that a lot of people agree with him. Again, what he said may have been harsh, but it was true, regardless of whoever got their feelings hurt.

And you are not qualified to say Savage isn't qualified. He apologized for his "pansy-ass" comment (which pales in comparison to what many Christians say, BTW), and he started the It Gets Better movement. He's promoting anti-bullying all he can, and he shot down one of the key contributors to gay bullying. 


> Yes, if your objective is to reach out to children, then think about their feelings before blatantly insulting them in front of a large crowd.


That can be said about his "pansy-ass" remark, but not his comments on the Bible.


> Hold your horses, I never said that. What I said was the topic was not a bible debate. He could have said don't use your religion to bully others but he flat out insulted them instead then mocked them while they were leaving. That is a form of bullying whether you think it's serious or not is your own problem .


You said that it would cause "some form of grave embarrassment and perhaps emotional damage."

You have no proof of that. Until you do, at best you can say it caused them anger.

And the topic didn't have to be directly about Bible debate. He pointed it out because the Bible is used as a justification to attack homosexuals, and he said that was bullshit. Which it is.


> Of course there is, Savage failed to grasp that though.


No, he criticized it, just in a harsh way.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (May 4, 2012)

> Mr Savage called the defectors 'pansy-assed' and would not back down from his comments.




Some of us think the Bible is bullshit, some of us know it's bullshit. That isn't the point. The speaker should respect the audience when trying to make a point. You wouldn't go up to a married couple and tell them "marriage is bullshit" before talking to them about marriage. Maybe it's true that marriage is essentially an outdated institution. Yet it isn't proper to say. Respecting others is important to get his point across. Civility is required. It isn't "cutting through the BS" to act like a giant asshole, it's just being an asshole. No one wants to listen to an asshole trying to create a headline somewhere. 

Maybe Dan Savage wasn't trying to convince anyone, just emotionally charge the issue or become a Youtube "sensation." Meh is all I can feel about a publicity stunt like this.

As an atheist, I would have left the room. It's clear from his first word that the speech will be thoughtless and unworthy of serious consideration.


----------



## Spock (May 4, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> Yes, it is the issue. Simple dismissal doesn't change this fact.
> 
> It, and all examples like it, serves as a justification for what Savage said. If there were no examples of people using religious teachings to treat people this way, then Savage wouldn't have had to say what he did.


That is still not what I am talking about, you keep getting off topic, I know the bible is cornerstone to justify bullying but if that savage really wanted to reach out to kids about such issue he would have had style, methods to work his way through kids. He knows jack shit about kids psychology if he wanna continue preaching that way he is unqualified.   



> comment he later apologized for. If anything, that was the only thing that may have been unnecessary. His comment on the bullshit in the Bible though? That was not an attack on them, despite whatever they felt.The fact that much of the audience applauded what he had to say about the Bible shows that a lot of people agree with him. Again, what he said may have been harsh, but it was true, regardless of whoever got their feelings hurt.



Yes, no one should care about what they felt, they are insignificant even though they are the very same people we are trying to reach out to but should their feelings matter ? They are not gay. 

True or not true I dont give a shit, you want to work with kids, watch your tone and have a fucking style. 

You've been going at me with all "argument fallacy!" how about you watch the argumentum populum you have, the fact that a large group applauded him does not make what he did right in embarrassing kids who came out of their way to listen to him.



> And you are not qualified to say Savage isn't qualified. He apologized for his "pansy-ass" comment (which pales in comparison to what many Christians say, BTW), and he started the It Gets Better movement. He's promoting anti-bullying all he can, and he shot down one of the key contributors to gay bullying.
> That can be said about his "pansy-ass" remark, but not his comments on the Bible.


I don't think my credentials are worth shit on the Internet, I am merely an observer right now, and I observed that savage is not qualified to work with kids. You calling me out was cheap.

I don't care what many Christians say, I care about what an alleged anti bullying activist who wants to work with kids have to say in front of a large crowd.




> You said that it would cause "some form of grave embarrassment and perhaps emotional damage."
> 
> You have no proof of that. Until you do, at best you can say it caused them anger.



How about I go to a large crowd and start talking aggressively about gay people's life style to teenagers and when they leave I will call them pansy asses oh and receive applause for the greatness I did, how do you think that would make them feel ? Surrounded by a large crowd and their peers. 


> And the topic didn't have to be directly about Bible debate. He pointed it out because the Bible is used as a justification to attack homosexuals, and he said that was bullshit. Which it is.
> No, he criticized it, just in a harsh way..


And ended up hurting the same people he was trying to teach about bullying, he is a failure of a kids activist.


----------



## Petes12 (May 4, 2012)

Eli said:


> Of course they are not, they are bunch of pansy asses.
> 
> Edit: You know emotional torment and damage vary from one person to another. To pretend that they weren't emotionally and publicly abused by a celebrity just exposes your dishonest bias.



you have an interesting (bullshit) definition of abuse


----------



## neodragzero (May 4, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Some of us think the Bible is bullshit, some of us know it's bullshit. That isn't the point. The speaker should respect the audience when trying to make a point. You wouldn't go up to a married couple and tell them "marriage is bullshit" before talking to them about marriage. Maybe it's true that marriage is essentially an outdated institution. Yet it isn't proper to say. Respecting others is important to get his point across. Civility is required. It isn't "cutting through the BS" to act like a giant asshole, it's just being an asshole. No one wants to listen to an asshole trying to create a headline somewhere.



Talk about a weird comparative fallacy. He was pretty specific as he criticized a section of a book and a certain group of people who abuse it for discrimination. Why does have to respect these people? 


> As an atheist, I would have left the room. It's clear from his first word that the speech will be thoughtless and unworthy of serious consideration.



Because bringing up a clear hypocrisy is simply thoughtless. I think whether or not your religious is meaningless compared to the real issue of whether or not you're capable of objective observation.


----------



## WT (May 4, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> bullying, I am amazed that you can't figure out the difference, I guess that comes from not having free speech as a native value in your upbringing.



How the fuck are they different?


----------



## Spock (May 4, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> you have an interesting (bullshit) definition of abuse



Lets ignore the feelings of the ones we don't like their beliefs but at the same time we are trying to reach out to them. How obtrusive.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 4, 2012)

White Tiger said:


> How the fuck are they different?


Because yours is harassment constituting verbal abuse.


----------



## Petes12 (May 4, 2012)

Eli said:


> Lets ignore the feelings of the ones we don't like their beliefs but at the same time we are trying to reach out to them. How obtrusive.



calling out hypocrisy is not abuse. the end.


----------



## baconbits (May 4, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> calling out hypocrisy is not abuse. the end.



True, but pretending to discuss bullying when all you want to do is take a swipe at a point of view you don't agree with isn't effective speaking.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (May 4, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> Talk about a weird comparative fallacy. He was pretty specific as he criticized a section of a book and a certain group of people who abuse it for discrimination.



If he wanted to have a discussion about Biblical fallacies, he wouldn't have started with "your beliefs are bullshit." Imagine if he wanted to have a discussion about politics with a crowd of Paul supporters, no one would start with "libertarianism is bullshit." Hate to break it to you, but that isn't civil conversation. 



> Why does have to respect these people?



He's up there because Christians disrespect him, so to prove them wrong, he insults them? Yeah that makes sense. 



> Because bringing up a clear hypocrisy is simply thoughtless. I think whether or not your religious is meaningless compared to the real issue of whether or not you're *capable of objective observation.*



Anyone capable of objective observation could see that it's hypocritical to demand respect while intentionally disrespecting others.

This isn't hard to understand, is it? A discussion doesn't begin with an obvious insult.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 4, 2012)

baconbits said:


> True, but pretending to discuss bullying when all you want to do is take a swipe at a point of view you don't agree with isn't effective speaking.


He talked about the bible for maybe 3 minutes in the entire speech, if "all" he wanted to do was take a swipe seem like an ineffective way to do it.


----------



## Borel (May 4, 2012)

While I agree with his message and there's nothing wrong with how he presented it, being overly provocative might just cause people to automatically retreat inside their protective barriers and cover their ears. Civil discussion is much better if you want to actually be thought-provoking.

Nothing wrong with what he said, and I understand the frustration that can lead to a more aggressive tone, but if one really wants to affect people's opinions I think being more civil will be more efficient.


----------



## baconbits (May 4, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> He talked about the bible for maybe 3 minutes in the entire speech, if "all" he wanted to do was take a swipe seem like an ineffective way to do it.



And if he wanted to discussing bullying taking a swipe at a religious text seems like an ineffective way to do it.



Borel said:


> While I agree with his message and there's nothing wrong with how he presented it, being overly provocative might just cause people to automatically retreat inside their protective barriers and cover their ears. Civil discussion is much better if you want to actually be thought-provoking.
> 
> Nothing wrong with what he said, and I understand the frustration that can lead to a more aggressive tone, but if one really wants to affect people's opinions I think being more civil will be more efficient.



This is all I'm trying to say.  Not to mention that the more things you bring out that don't have to do with the reason you're speaking the less effective your speech will be.  Effective speech is direct and to the point.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 4, 2012)

baconbits said:


> And if he wanted to discussing bullying taking a swipe at a religious text seems like an ineffective way to do it.


Not when those religious texts are being used as an excuse for bullying people.


----------



## baconbits (May 4, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> Not when those religious texts are being used as an excuse for bullying people.



But most bullying isn't based on anything biblical.  For example many kids are picked on for being undersized, ugly, fat or awkward.  What does that have to do with the bible?

Secondly bullying can be addressed without attacking Christianity so what real point did the attack serve?


----------



## sadated_peon (May 4, 2012)

baconbits said:


> But most bullying isn't based on anything biblical.  For example many kids are picked on for being undersized, ugly, fat or awkward.  What does that have to do with the bible?


And some kids are picked on for being gay, and the bible has been used to justify this form of bullying. So in reference TO the gay bullying using the bible, he talked about it for a small portion of his speech. 



baconbits said:


> Secondly bullying can be addressed without attacking Christianity so what real point did the attack serve?


This form of bully really can't be address without attacking certain beliefs in Christianity, because legislator are making laws ALLOWING this form of bullying based on their Christian beliefs.


----------



## neko-sennin (May 4, 2012)

Given that all the amendments and laws meant to ban gay marriage are all being pushed by the GOP and churches as bible-based, combined with other places trying to make laws *excusing* bullying that's based on religious beliefs, I would consider Savage's 3 minutes on the subject perfectly relevant. That a few Christians were uncomfortable or ashamed enough of where their "holy" book stands says more about them than it will ever say about Mr Savage.

While we're on the subject, how long was his speech in its entirety? Public speakers usually get to be on for at least an hour, so 3 minutes out of an hour... comes out only 5% of his total speech. If he was on for more than an hour, then that percentage diminishes still more. Meaning that his criticism of the bible was only a short blurb in his overall presentation, leaving him with plenty of time to address other facets of bullying.



baconbits said:


> Secondly bullying can be addressed without attacking Christianity so what real point did the attack serve?



Basically, what folks like you want is for people to never be allowed to actually address the youth about the root causes of sexual bigotry in this country simply because you believe that the beliefs underlying that bigotry are above criticism.

Speaking against sexual bullying in America without being allowed to criticize the bible is like speaking against lung cancer without being allowed to criticize tobacco.


----------



## baconbits (May 4, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> And some kids are picked on for being gay, and the bible has been used to justify this form of bullying. So in reference TO the gay bullying using the bible, he talked about it for a small portion of his speech.



And some kids are picked on just because they wear tight pants or are fat.  And those things have nothing to do with Christianity.

In other words even if we accept your premise Christianity is only correlated with a small amount of bullying, whereas actual bullying is correlated with 100% of bullying.  If he had concentrated his speech on unnecessary aggression, disrespect and violence his audience would have been better served.

Also, if he really feels this way why doesn't he criticize the Koran?  There are a number of Christian sects that see nothing wrong with homosexuality while I know of no Muslim sects that allow homosexuality.



sadated_peon said:


> This form of bully really can't be address without attacking certain beliefs in Christianity, because legislator are making laws ALLOWING this form of bullying based on their Christian beliefs.



That's just a stupid law and should be addressed politically.  These kids have nothing to do with the content of the law.



neko-sennin said:


> Basically, what folks like you want is for people to never be allowed to actually address the youth about the root causes of sexual bigotry in this country simply because you believe that the beliefs underlying that bigotry are above criticism.



First this speech isn't just about sexual bigotry, it is about bullying.  Secondly, Christianity really has nothing to do with some idiot who smacks some homosexual because they're homosexual.  That action is due to idiocy, not Christianity.

Thirdly, I do not think that anything is above criticism.  If you'll read my few posts in this thread you'll see that at no point do I even attempt to defend Christianity because that isn't even my point in this thread.  

I do not want Christianity to be protected but I think it is as ridiculous to spend time smashing the bible in a speech about bullying as it is to spend time bashing the internet for child pornography.  Some people might use the internet to enable their pervasion but I wouldn't blame the internet for their sexual desires.



neko-sennin said:


> Speaking against sexual bullying in America without being allowed to criticize the bible is like speaking against lung cancer without being allowed to criticize tobacco.



Not really.  You can argue that almost all lung cancer is caused by inhaling cancerous substances.  You cannot argue that all bullying is caused by accepting Christian beliefs.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 4, 2012)

baconbits said:
			
		

> And some kids are picked on just because they wear tight pants or are fat. And those things have nothing to do with Christianity.
> 
> In other words even if we accept your premise Christianity is only correlated with a small amount of bullying, whereas actual bullying is correlated with 100% of bullying. If he had concentrated his speech on unnecessary aggression, disrespect and violence his audience would have been better served.
> 
> Also, if he really feels this way why doesn't he criticize the Koran? There are a number of Christian sects that see nothing wrong with homosexuality while I know of no Muslim sects that allow homosexuality.


I have no idea what you mean by actual bullying, there is no common cause for all bullying in which you deal with. There is not one singular concept of motivation for everything. 
Different types of bullying are caused by different things, and you identify them differently. 
You mention THREE things for which you contribute to bullying, not one alone is considered ?actual bullying?

For instance where it is gay basing one of the major causes is the religious bigotry that exists in the Christian community. 

The only thing I can grasp from you here is that you don?t believe that Christian gay bashing is included in your "actual bullying" standard. 

I am also sure that he does attack the quran, but as the muslim population is low in America this gets less time than Christianity which is the main religious cause of this type of bullying. 



			
				baconbits said:
			
		

> That's just a stupid law and should be addressed politically. These kids have nothing to do with the content of the law.


First the law is an example of how this TYPE or rational for bullying is persistent throughout the culture, he didn?t directly reference the law. I did to prove that what he was saying was true, based on your and others denial that this is a form of bullying.


----------



## neko-sennin (May 4, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Also, if he really feels this way why doesn't he criticize the Koran?



Probably because America is not a predominantly Muslim country. 

If he were giving a speech about bullying in the Middle East, then criticizing the Quran would be fair game for addressing the bullying of homosexuals, though I would also point out that in that corner of the world, people walking out (or throwing their shoes at him  ) would be the safest and sanest response he could hope for.

Savage addressed a document that is as influential in mainstream American culture and traditions as the Constitution, and very relevant to the politics of various laws and policies aimed a homosexuals.



baconbits said:


> Thirdly, I do not think that anything is above criticism. If you'll read my few posts in this thread you'll see that at no point do I even attempt to defend Christianity because that isn't even my point in this thread.



If my point was misdirected in your case, I apologize. If you truly find nothing above criticism, then I consider that commendable.



baconbits said:


> I do not want Christianity to be protected but I think it is as ridiculous to spend time smashing the bible in a speech about bullying as it is to spend time bashing the internet for child pornography.  Some people might use the internet to enable their pervasion but I wouldn't blame the internet for their sexual desires.



I would suggest you are perhaps confusing motive with means. Pedophiles predate the internet by thousands of years; the internet is merely a means. On the other hand, religious dogma frequently serves as a motive or justification for many actions and decisions-- some good, some bad, some downright ugly-- so pointing out the fallacies of those sources is a completely different dynamic than pointing out that there's kiddie porn on teh interwebs.

As far as "bible-bashing" goes, the fact that there are Christian sects that are or have divested themselves of anti-gay teachings is a boon to civilization, but at the same time, the sects that are pushing laws and other forms of harassment are still using the same book as their justification for it, which means that he was aiming at the source material, rather than the various interpretations.



baconbits said:


> Not really. You can argue that almost all lung cancer is caused by inhaling cancerous substances. You cannot argue that all bullying is caused by accepting Christian beliefs.



Fortunately for Savage, that portion of his presentation was on bullying gays, and most Western cultural traditions against homosexuality have their roots in Christian scripture and dogma.

And, just as I would ask you what was the most common carcinogenic substance Americans ingest in public, I would also ask again where the most common teachings condemning homosexuality got their start. Perhaps homophobes are more sophisticated where you live, but in Montana, Oregon and California, whenever anybody I've ever heard bashing gays gives any justification for their attitude, nine out of ten times they blather something about God or the bible, so perhaps you and I simply have had very different experiences with the matter.

Pretty much what happened here was that several butthurt religious folks managed to take a couple minutes of his speech, and make it overshadow everything else he had to say.


----------



## xenopyre (May 4, 2012)

baconbits said:


> And some kids are picked on just because they wear tight pants or are fat.  And those things have nothing to do with Christianity.


The thing is, gay bullying is the only socially accepted form of bullying and that's because of the bible.


----------



## SwordKing (May 4, 2012)

Prehaps someone should let Mr. Savage know the Bible actually doesn't condemn homosexuality at all.

For example, the famous passage in Leviticus is actually refering to heathen orgy rituals that have nothing to do with the practitioners' sexual orientation.


----------



## Mary212 (May 4, 2012)

Since bible is a bullshit, ignoring anything or everything in it seems like a way to go.


----------



## Rescuebear (May 4, 2012)

SwordKing said:


> Prehaps someone should let Mr. Savage know the Bible actually doesn't condemn homosexuality at all.
> 
> For example, the famous passage in Leviticus is actually refering to heathen orgy rituals that have nothing to do with the practitioners' sexual orientation.



Kinda pointless. 

As the point of this was to stop the bullying, telling Mr Savage that would do nothing.

You would need to tell the bullies, but do you honestly think that they would listen to you over the bible/their bad parents.


OT: This is kinda a weird issue because Christians defiantly got more shit at the school i went to. Our school was pretty uninterested in who was gay.


----------



## neodragzero (May 4, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> If he wanted to have a discussion about Biblical fallacies, he wouldn't have started with "your beliefs are bullshit."


Except that he didn't say "your beliefs are bullshit," he said that people can learn to ignore the "bullshit in the bible." He was talking about the bible and those misuse it for their bigotry. Please pay attention.


> He's up there because Christians disrespect him, so to prove them wrong, he insults them? Yeah that makes sense.


He's up there because certain Christians misuse the bible in hypocritical fashion to commit bigotry that threatens the freedoms and even the bodily safety of a certain group of people. You might as well ask an African American to respect a member of the KKK.


----------



## Basilikos (May 4, 2012)

xenopyre said:


> The thing is, gay bullying is the only socially accepted form of bullying and that's because of the bible.


Um, no.

Bullying generally isn't socially acceptable, regardless of the type unless you've got some crowd mentality thing going. Let's not forget that many people, whether they believe in the bible or not, bully homosexuals.

Also, even if a Christian reads the bible and interprets it to be saying homosexuality is a sin, he or she would be a hypocrite to bully someone because of their sexual orientation. Since the bible maintains that *ALL* have fallen short and are guilty before God.


----------



## Raiden (May 5, 2012)

>We hear something we don't agree it.
>We walk out.

lol.


----------



## Kue (May 5, 2012)

baconbits said:


> And some kids are picked on just because they wear tight pants or are fat.  And those things have nothing to do with Christianity.
> 
> In other words even if we accept your premise Christianity is only correlated with a small amount of bullying, whereas actual bullying is correlated with 100% of bullying.  If he had concentrated his speech on unnecessary aggression, disrespect and violence his audience would have been better served.
> 
> ...



The non-sequiturs... they make my eyes bleed.


----------



## Petes12 (May 5, 2012)

baconbits said:


> True, but pretending to discuss bullying when all you want to do is take a swipe at a point of view you don't agree with isn't effective speaking.



but that's not what happened so stop being stupid.


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (May 5, 2012)

neko-sennin said:


> Speaking against sexual bullying in America without being allowed to criticize the bible is like speaking against lung cancer without being allowed to criticize tobacco.



So if an atheist, agnostic, Jew, Muslim, Taoist, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Satanist or Pagan bully a kid, it must be because of the bible? Not because the person them self might just be a homophobe or general dick?

Your statement of the South Park episode where the kids take up smoking and they lie and say that the Tobcaco companies made them do it, instead of taking responsibility for making the choice themselves.


----------



## hammer (May 5, 2012)

Brotha Yasuji said:


> So if an atheist, agnostic, Jew, Muslim, Taoist, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Satanist or Pagan bully a kid, it must be because of the bible? Not because the person them self might just be a homophobe or general dick?.



first of all the the part of the bible that he said is bullshit is word for word the same as the torah, if he wa sin the middle east and diddnt give a rats ass he would be beheaded he would condem the koran. pagen is way to broad of a belif for you to list, a satanisit is a satanist nothing else needs to be said there.


----------



## The Weeknd (May 5, 2012)

Well, he is right on that part. I don't see the wrong lol  lol  :lol


----------



## neodragzero (May 5, 2012)

Brotha Yasuji said:


> So if an atheist, agnostic, Jew, Muslim, Taoist, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Satanist or Pagan bully a kid, it must be because of the bible? Not because the person them self might just be a homophobe or general dick?


Bugger off on the strawman.


----------



## reiatsuflow (May 5, 2012)

> 'It became hostile,' he said. 'It felt hostile as we were sitting in the audience – especially towards Christians who espouse beliefs that he was literally taking on.'



Christian persecution complexes do not trump homosexual persecution actualities. Savage was putting down religious beliefs that put him down.

But it was inappropriate when making lecture rounds at a high school. 

Still, there is an incongruity between social progress and religious beliefs, and I wonder just how wide it can stretch before one side snaps. People need to address this. A high school auditorium is not the place to make the discussion (especially when it's not even in the format of a discussion), but there is this glaring matter to attend to of a mainstream religion which plainly, not interpretively, damns sodomites to hell. We allow everybody their beliefs in this country, but conflicts arise when their beliefs are against and aghast to modern social progress.

Granted, it was totally inappropriate, and if I was a bible devotee who heard about the high school arranging this lecture I would have rolled my eyes at the administration. It was irresponsible. The more responsible lecture would have been a criticism of the mindset that the bible gives someone the excuse to bully a homosexual, or see the homosexual as someone deserving of mortal judgment and punishment. There are enough verses in the bible to promote this idea, and enough people have haggled with the meanings in biblical passages that Savage could get away with trying to put the beliefs in a less harsh context.

Although the only reason I can be generous with this is because I am neither religious nor gay, and while I have empathy for both struggles, some people don't have the luxury of empathy. Savage has doubtless seen very plain and hateful examples of religious hatred against his sexuality, either directly or vicariously, through the people his organization helps, and a guy can only experience that so long before they stop being magnanimous and start getting angry.


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (May 5, 2012)

hammer said:


> first of all the the part of the bible that he said is bullshit is word for word the same as the torah, if he wa sin the middle east and diddnt give a rats ass he would be beheaded he would condem the koran. pagen is way to broad of a belif for you to list, a satanisit is a satanist nothing else needs to be said there.


I know. I was trying to say that it sounds to me like he means that *all* bullying towards gays should warrant criticism of the only bible regardless of the persons spiritual beliefs.

To make my point short, I believe that unless the bully outright says "Well my religion says...", perhaps people should just spend a little less time scapegoating religion and just try to focus on making the bully themself less of a homophobe.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (May 5, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> Except that he didn't say "your beliefs are bullshit," he said that people can learn to ignore the "bullshit in the bible." He was talking about the bible and those misuse it for their bigotry. Please pay attention.



Talk about semantics. He clearly intended to insult and offend with those words. 



> He's up there because certain Christians misuse the bible in hypocritical fashion to commit bigotry that threatens the freedoms and even the bodily safety of a certain group of people. *You might as well ask an African American to respect a member of the KKK.*



Were the people in the crowd members of the KKK or gay hate groups? 

He should go find some actual gay haters to yell at. These were aspiring journalists and he was acting out a publicity stunt.



neodragzero said:


> Bugger off on the strawman.



No sorry, that's a legitimate question. There are people who discriminate against gays for reasons other than the Bible.


----------



## neko-sennin (May 5, 2012)

Brotha Yasuji said:


> So if an atheist, agnostic, Jew, Muslim, Taoist, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Satanist or Pagan bully a kid, it must be because of the bible? Not because the person them self might just be a homophobe or general dick?
> 
> Your statement of the South Park episode where the kids take up smoking and they lie and say that the Tobcaco companies made them do it, instead of taking responsibility for making the choice themselves.



Cool story, bro. 'Fraid I never caught that episode. (Much like the Simpsons, I kinda lost track of SP around the turn of the century.)

As far as my analogy goes, I would again ask the same two questions I asked bacon: What is the most common carcinogenic substance ingested by Americans? (And keep in mind, that includes Second Hand Smoke, for us non-smokers.) What is the most commonly-cited source for legislation and policies condemning or harassing homosexuals?



Shinigami Perv said:


> There are people who discriminate against gays for reasons other than the Bible.



That's nice, but most of those folks aren't preachers, politicians, or the GOP or other leaders, who are legislating, pushing and preaching against homosexuals, all of whom repeatedly appeal to the bible and religious traditions, which makes your point against Savage completely irrelevant.

If there's anything at all I would agree with you about, it's that expecting the level of maturity some of his points required of his audience, out of a high school student body, was probably a gamble, at best, and the number of butthurt listeners would merely have varied by local demographics.


----------



## Narcissus (May 5, 2012)

Eli said:


> That is still not what I am talking about, you keep getting off topic, I know the bible is cornerstone to justify bullying but if that savage really wanted to reach out to kids about such issue he would have had style, methods to work his way through kids. He knows jack shit about kids psychology if he wanna continue preaching that way he is unqualified.


No, it isn't off-topc. It shows why Savage was justified in calling what is in the Bible bullshit. You're invoking style over substance. Just because his style was harsh, doesn't mean what he had to say was wrong, regardless of whoever got their feeling hurt.


> Yes, no one should care about what they felt, they are insignificant even though they are the very same people we are trying to reach out to but should their feelings matter ? They are not gay.


 So you know how to construct a massive straw man? Wonderful.


> True or not true I dont give a shit, you want to work with kids, watch your tone and have a fucking style.


Style over substance and "think of the chldren" are fallacious. Your personal opiion on the matter is irrelevant.


> You've been going at me with all "argument fallacy!" how about you watch the argumentum populum you have, the fact that a large group applauded him does not make what he did right in embarrassing kids who came out of their way to listen to him.


Appeal to popularity asserts that an argument is right because it has the majority support. Had I said Svage was right because of the applause, it would be fallacious. That is not what I said. I pointed it out to counter all of the people who were saying he offended the auidence, thereby generalizing it. This works the other way too. So congrats on another straw man.

No only are you guilty of fallacies, you've also just demonstrated that you don't know how they work.





> I don't think my credentials are worth shit on the Internet, I am merely an observer right now, and I observed that savage is not qualified to work with kids. You calling me out was cheap.


No, it wasn't cheap, it was honest. You tried to present your persona opinion as fact.


> I don't care what many Christians say, I care about what an alleged anti bullying activist who wants to work with kids have to say in front of a large crowd.


Ten you're a hypocrite. Because what Savage said to that crowd was harsh, but no where near as bad as the brain washing Christians use on groups of kids. And he was a least honest (which is more than you're being right now, considering you use of the word "alleged").


> How about I go to a large crowd and start talking aggressively about gay people's life style to teenagers and when they leave I will call them pansy asses oh and receive applause for the greatness I did, how do you think that would make them feel ? Surrounded by a large crowd and their peers.


So you're asking me to make a lot of unfounded assumptions? The most they might feel is anger. But until they say so, you don't get to sit there makig unfounded claims, like them being "emotionally damaged." 


> And ended up hurting the same people he was trying to teach about bullying, he is a failure of a kids activist.


He offended some people, and later apologized for it. Further, this does not make him a failure. We don't ignore the other things he's done (It Gets Better).

The fact is, he was honest with what he said, and I don't blame him in being aggressive about it, considering the subject he attatcked has resulted in suicide.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (May 5, 2012)

neko-sennin said:


> If there's anything at all I would agree with you about, it's that expecting the level of maturity some of his points required of his audience, out of a high school student body, was probably a gamble, at best, and the number of butthurt listeners would merely have varied by local demographics.



You have the same problem he has. You think that snarky comments like "expecting a level of maturity" is somehow a clever way to insult people while appearing to be civil. Maybe you and Mr. Savage think this approach seems more clever than just base namecalling or something. It isn't, and it's obvious both of you intend to belittle others rather than to make a persuasive argument in a rational conversation.


----------



## Basilikos (May 5, 2012)

Got to love how people here defend a guy that claimed to be anti-bullying yet intentionally offended his audience. Calling their sacred text bullshit and then referring to the people themselves "pansies" for not wanting to be subjected to his sickening condescension and hypocrisy.


----------



## Avix (May 5, 2012)

Wow, make some societal criticism about a bigoted book and you become the Disney villain.


----------



## neko-sennin (May 5, 2012)

Avix said:


> Wow, make some societal criticism about a bigoted book and you become the Disney villain.



Yeah, looking at this thread, it dawned on me earlier, that at least half the people in this thread succeeded in doing exactly the same thing as those handful of students who walked out did: turning a mountain into a molehill. 

Personally, since everyone here's largely agreed to disagree, I'm through tossing dirt on this one.


----------



## Spock (May 5, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> No, it isn't off-topc. It shows why Savage was justified in calling what is in the Bible bullshit. You're invoking style over substance. Just because his style was harsh, doesn't mean what he had to say was wrong, regardless of whoever got their feeling hurt.
> So you know how to construct a massive straw man? Wonderful.
> Style over substance and "think of the chldren" are fallacious. Your personal opiion on the matter is irrelevant.
> Appeal to popularity asserts that an argument is right because it has the majority support. Had I said Svage was right because of the applause, it would be fallacious. That is not what I said. I pointed it out to counter all of the people who were saying he offended the auidence, thereby generalizing it. This works the other way too. So congrats on another straw man.
> ...


You're not following me, I dont care what is in the Bible, if he wanted to reach out to kids he should have taken their feelings into consideration and thought this through. You belittling how he embarrassed them and mocked them in front of the crowd like the "big bad bully on the block" is the dishonest move.

If I wanna reach out to Satanist teenagers for example, the first thing I would be careful not to say is "IGNORE LAVEY! YOUR RITUALS ARE BULLSHIT!", now thats very nice and it will make them totally understand my message and accept me and we will live happily every after with chocolate covered rainbows rain on us .

Even though their rituals are bullshit right ? 

Love the "Strawman! Strawman!" finger-pointing .


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 5, 2012)

Basilikos said:


> Got to love how people here defend a guy that claimed to be anti-bullying yet intentionally offended his audience. Calling their sacred text bullshit and then referring to the people themselves "pansies" for not wanting to be subjected to his sickening condescension and hypocrisy.



Therein lies the problem. The Christians believe the Bible to be objectively sacred when it's not. He criticized the parts of the Bible that advocated homophobia, they couldn't handle it.


----------



## hammer (May 5, 2012)

sickining is a little over the top isnt it?


----------



## Basilikos (May 5, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Therein lies the problem. The Christians believe the Bible to be objectively sacred when it's not. He criticized the parts of the Bible that advocated homophobia, they couldn't handle it.


missingthepoint.jpg



hammer said:


> sickining is a little over the top isnt it?


I call it as I see it.


----------



## hammer (May 5, 2012)

I save the words like that for people sticking their dick up a boys pooper skining him alive then burning him on the cross, that is sickinging,  but this is just crude


----------



## Nihonjin (May 5, 2012)

Basilikos said:


> Got to love how people here defend a guy that claimed to be anti-bullying yet intentionally offended his audience.



What do you mean _yet_? Those two things are not equal.



> Calling their sacred text bullshit



He called the parts that promote bigotry and violence bullshit. I doubt anybody in the audience was in favor of slavery or the stoning to death of people for things we don't consider crimes, I'd say they actually agree with him, they just didn't like his wording which is why they walked out. It's quite childish.

Because really, do you know of a single Christian that dares to defend those things? Probably not, right? Because modern human beings that aren't completely fucked in the head actually do recognize they _are _bullshit.



> and then referring to the people themselves "pansies" for not wanting to be subjected to his sickening condescension and hypocrisy.



Sickening condescension? What the fuck are you even talking about?

And I agree, he shouldn't have called them pansies. But the way the Christian crowd reacted was weak and pathetic and shows exactly the problem with the religious mindset.


----------



## Pinkie Pie (May 5, 2012)

I find nothing wrong with he said. Was he harsh? Yes. But that does not make his point less valid.


----------



## AoMythology (May 5, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> You have the same problem he has. You think that snarky comments like "expecting a level of maturity" is somehow a clever way to insult people while appearing to be civil. Maybe you and Mr. Savage think this approach seems more clever than just base namecalling or something. It isn't, and it's obvious both of you intend to belittle others rather than to make a persuasive argument in a rational conversation.



Savage never said something like that, he was much cruder (something about acting like pansy-asses, remember...?).

And yes, those who walked out were immature. I would expect what they did from 4th graders, not high schoolers.


----------



## kazuri (May 5, 2012)

I love how basil gets offended people trash the bible, yet he has no problem trashing gays, or other religions, etc etc etc.


----------



## Narcissus (May 6, 2012)

Basilikos said:


> Got to love how people here defend a guy that claimed to be anti-bullying yet intentionally offended his audience.


Because we should all be condemning him for his statement? He didn't intentionally offend his audience, he told them to ignore the part of the Bible that is used to justify bullying.

He only offended part of his audience, and he very much is anti-bullying.


> Calling their sacred text bullshit and then referring to the people themselves "pansies" for not wanting to be subjected to his sickening condescension and hypocrisy.


Nothing he said was sickening, and he apologized for his insult. 


Eli said:


> You're not following me, I dont care what is in the Bible, if he wanted to reach out to kids he should have taken their feelings into consideration and thought this through.


Then you're a hypocrite, as I said.

The fact of the matter is that even if he had said it in a nicer way, there would've still been people who were offended. 


> You belittling how he embarrassed them and mocked them in front of the crowd like the "big bad bully on the block" is the dishonest move.


No, it isn't. I've said the one thing he could've been criticized for was the pansy-ass comment, which he later apologized for. But what he said was right, and he had the right to defend himself.

And again, I'm not interested in your unsupported claims regarding how they felt.


> If I wanna reach out to Satanist teenagers for example, the first thing I would be careful not to say is "IGNORE LAVEY! YOUR RITUALS ARE BULLSHIT!", now thats very nice and it will make them totally understand my message and accept me and we will live happily every after with chocolate covered rainbows rain on us .
> 
> Even though their rituals are bullshit right ?


Even if you're nice, you're not always going to convince them. And he apparently reached part of his audience, so he accomplished what he'd set out to do, because you will never gain 100% agreement from everyone. 


> Love the "Strawman! Strawman!" finger-pointing .


The problem is that you have no idea how to construct a formal argument. If you did, I wouldn't have to point out your fallacies.


----------



## Basilikos (May 6, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> Because we should all be condemning him for his statement? He didn't intentionally offend his audience, he told them to ignore the part of the Bible that is used to justify bullying.
> 
> He only offended part of his audience, and he very much is anti-bullying.
> Nothing he said was sickening, and he apologized for his insult.


>claims to be anti-bullying and wanting to rationally and politely persuade people to prevent it
>purposely offends and belittles his audience by calling their view "bullshit"
>calls them pansies when they leave because of it
>after his act of bullying, thinks apologizing will help him save face
>people willfully ignore his glaring irony, hypocrisy, and piss poor methods of rational and civil persuasion

lol NF cafe


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 6, 2012)

Basilikos said:


> >claims to be anti-bullying and wanting to rationally and politely persuade people to prevent it
> >purposely offends and belittles his audience by calling their view "bullshit"
> >calls them pansies when they leave because of it
> >after his act of bullying, thinks apologizing will help him save face
> ...



Christian victimization.


----------



## Basilikos (May 6, 2012)

This is your second time purposefully dodging the point, SK.

Well done.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 6, 2012)

Basilikos said:


> >claims to be anti-bullying and wanting to rationally and politely persuade people to prevent it
> >purposely offends and belittles his audience by calling their view "bullshit"
> >calls them pansies when they leave because of it
> >after his act of bullying, thinks apologizing will help him save face
> ...


First, let me ask you a question, would you prefer that instead of saying "bullshit" he said "hateful" would that have been better?

-
Next, 
There is no hypocricy. He did not bully the people in the audiance. A small minority of the audiance were offended by what he said, but his comments were not purposfully made to offend, they only took offense. 
Their offense steming from their own double standard inherent in their beliefs. 

He didn't call the people pansies, he called the action of leaving pansy. 
He aplogized for calling the action pansy, but not the comment about the fact we can ignore the bullshit parts of the bible... like the parts that endorce slavery.


----------



## Pilaf (May 6, 2012)

When the nerd punches the bully in the nose he's called a bully too, because the bully is too stupid and too immature to realize his own hypocrisy.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 6, 2012)

Basilikos said:


> This is your second time purposefully dodging the point, SK.
> 
> Well done.



You always say that to people when you have none to make. He told them to ignore the parts of the Bible that advocate discrimination of homosexuals because it IS bullshit. He didn't make a widespread condemnation of Christianity. They overreacted, and instead of actually making questions about their faith and the teachings within they walked out. It's a common attitude among Christians in this nation, they take any criticism as an attack on the religion as a whole and refuse to ask the questions about their faith that need to be asked. They mistake their faith and their scripture as being objectively sacred, and have to act like the oppressed people they are clearly not in this country.


----------



## Basilikos (May 6, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You always say that to people when you have none to make. He told them to ignore the parts of the Bible that advocate discrimination of homosexuals because it IS bullshit. He didn't make a widespread condemnation of Christianity. They overreacted, and instead of actually making questions about their faith and the teachings within they walked out. It's a common attitude among Christians in this nation, they take any criticism as an attack on the religion as a whole and refuse to ask the questions about their faith that need to be asked. They mistake their faith and their scripture as being objectively sacred, and have to act like the oppressed people they are clearly not in this country.


There you go missing the point again. I was pointing out that his attitude and mockery was the same type of behavior typical of bullies. Hence my accusation of him being a hypocrite and why I think he's a joke. What he did was hardly mere "criticism". His method of persuasion was piss poor. You won't convince people to see things your way if you resort to calling anything they believe "bullshit" and then mocking them when they don't want to be subjected to such derision. Dan's actions did nothing to bring about understanding, inclusiveness, or rational thought: he just escalated the very problem he claims to want to prevent. Such irony.

Bringing up what Christians have or have not done serves to do nothing but distract from the actual point here: Dan Savage fucked up and made himself look immature and a fool. What Christians have or have not done doesn't change this fact and his simply a red herring.


----------



## Petes12 (May 6, 2012)

Basilikos said:


> This is your second time purposefully dodging the point, SK.
> 
> Well done.



I think he was right on the money, your post was a bunch of false equivalency bullshit, like most of this thread.

if you think that's bullying, then you're a fucking moron.


----------



## Basilikos (May 6, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> *irony and no logical refutation*


----------



## Petes12 (May 6, 2012)

see this is what i mean. calling you a moron for saying something blatantly stupid does not rise to the level of bullying.

criticism isn't bullying. when people like you say it is, it's just an annoying and kind of offensive way to avoid criticism.


----------



## Spirit King (May 6, 2012)

Basilikos point, still stands it IS actually a sin the punish someone else because of a sin, because according to the bible everyone has sinned and only God. is allowed to judge sinners, combined with the love thy neighbour stuff their isn't a real retort , had the dude stated this his point would have went over a lot better than what he did. Which makes him incompetatant in his purpose. There was an easier way present his point.

Of course there's plenty of Christians who may not like this point and may outright ignore it, but they don't have an out right defense arguement in oposition to it.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 6, 2012)

Spirit King said:


> Basilikos point, still stands it IS actually a sin the punish someone else because of a sin, because according to the bible everyone has sinned and only God. is allowed to judge sinners, combined with the love thy neighbour stuff their isn't a real retort , had the dude stated this his point would have went over a lot better than what he did. Which makes him incompetatant in his purpose. There was an easier way present his point.
> 
> Of course there's plenty of Christians who may not like this point and may outright ignore it, but they don't have an out right defense arguement in oposition to it.



So if no human is allow to judge another why does the bible dictate crimes, judges, and punishment?


----------



## Borel (May 6, 2012)

Spirit King said:


> Basilikos point, still stands it IS actually a sin the punish someone else because of a sin, because according to the bible everyone has sinned and only God. is allowed to judge sinners, combined with the love thy neighbour stuff their isn't a real retort , had the dude stated this his point would have went over a lot better than what he did. Which makes him incompetatant in his purpose. There was an easier way present his point.
> 
> Of course there's plenty of Christians who may not like this point and may outright ignore it, but they don't have an out right defense arguement in oposition to it.


Granting your assertion, that only reinforces Savage's point. He said "ignore the bullshit in the Bible", not "ignore the Bible, it's bullshit". He was talking about the morally repulsive parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality, and you apparently agree with him, based on this post. He didn't criticize the Bible as a whole.

Now, arguably civil language is more effective when affecting people's attitudes, but there was nothing wrong with what he said, and apparently you seem to agree.


----------



## Spock (May 6, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> Then you're a hypocrite, as I said.


Hilarious coming from the person who is defending an alleged anti-bullying activist who mocked a portion of his audience after offending them. 


> The fact of the matter is that even if he had said it in a nicer way, there would've still been people who were offended.


Nice clairvoyant abilities you have, lets put it to the test. Go and try to reach out to Christian kids nicely and lets see how they would react .

How about we stick to what happened and not what could have happened ? 




> No, it isn't. I've said the one thing he could've been criticized for was the pansy-ass comment, which he later apologized for. But what he said was right, and he had the right to defend himself.


I don't like the Bible as much as the next guy, whether what he said was right or wrong is NOT what I started to talk about, how he put it out there and his failure of a style to reach out is what I was talking about .



> And again, I'm not interested in your unsupported claims regarding how they felt.


You don't care about how they felt, you won't even considerate it. 



> Even if you're nice, you're not always going to convince them. because you will never gain 100% agreement from everyone.


Yes we know/


> And he apparently reached part of his audience, so he accomplished what he'd set out to do,


Great, after he offended and mocked a portion of his audience at least he accomplished something. Cool .




> The problem is that you have no idea how to construct a formal argument. If you did, I wouldn't have to point out your fallacies.


No, it's because you love getting off topic .


----------



## Kue (May 6, 2012)

The Christian defense in this thread reminds me of rednecks trying to justify that they are being suppressed by immigrants, blacks, and feminists.


----------



## God (May 6, 2012)

dem kids ain't cut out to be journalists.


----------



## Doge (May 6, 2012)

Cold Dish said:


> The Christian defense in this thread reminds me of rednecks trying to justify that they are being suppressed by immigrants, blacks, and feminists.



Because it's a scientific law that all rednecks hate black people, feminists, and immigrants.


----------



## Kue (May 6, 2012)

lvl80elitetaurenchieftain said:


> Because it's a scientific law that all rednecks hate black people, feminists, and immigrants.



The Redneck Theory.


----------



## Narcissus (May 7, 2012)

Basilikos said:


> >claims to be anti-bullying and wanting to rationally and politely persuade people to prevent it


When did he claim the politely bit? Even so, I don't blame him for his aggressive criticism, when people are using it to justify their bullying.


> >purposely offends and belittles his audience by calling their view "bullshit"


Stop.

Only part of the audience was offended, and it was not even his intention. He attacked a portion of the Bible that people use to justify bullying. Calling it bullshit is harsh, but there was no need to sugar coat his message, not when people are killing themselves.


> >calls them pansies when they leave because of it


He more so referred to their actions, and considering these kids want to be journalist, it isn't entirely false.


> >after his act of bullying, thinks apologizing will help him save face


So he can't be sincere when apologizing? Thanks for demonstrating your bias.

His act wasn't bullying, and he was honest.


> >people willfully ignore his glaring irony, hypocrisy, and piss poor methods of rational and civil persuasion


Even if he was polite, he wouldn't have convinced everyone. So he still accomplished what he wanted because he did reach most of his audience. 


> lol NF cafe


What I find funny, Bas, is that you've directly told me you'd like to see the entire Care thrashed. You've also said you don't like to argue these threads and call those who do arrogant.. Yet here you are. And you're talking about irony and hypocrisy?



Eli said:


> Hilarious coming from the person who is defending an alleged anti-bullying activist who mocked a portion of his audience after offending them.


Savage isn't an alleged anti-bullying activist, he is one. And no, I'm not being hypocritical by defending him. But to say you don't care what the Bible says is a double standard.



> Nice clairvoyant abilities you have, lets put it to the test. Go and try to reach out to Christian kids nicely and lets see how they would react .
> 
> How about we stick to what happened and not what could have happened ?


If that's the case, then you need to stop claiming that using a more polite manner would've caused them to react better, and that they were emotionally damaged. Stick to what happened, right?


> I don't like the Bible as much as the next guy, whether what he said was right or wrong is NOT what I started to talk about, how he put it out there and his failure of a style to reach out is what I was talking about .


And I'm telling you that he was justified because of what the Bible says. You're also being dishonest by saying his style was a failure, because he did reach out to most of the audience. 



> You don't care about how they felt, you won't even considerate it.


Because there is no basis for what you claimed, and how they felt doesn't debunk his argument.


> Yes we know/
> 
> Great, after he offended and mocked a portion of his audience at least he accomplished something. Cool .


If you know then you'd realize the problem with style over substance.

And yes, he accomplished something, meaning he didn't fail like you're trying to claim.



> No, it's because you love getting off topic .


Except everything I've saidhas been on-topic, but thanks for further demonstrating dishonesty.


----------



## Golden Circle (May 7, 2012)

From what I can see Narcissius is like a farmer who builds a strawman of his opponent and beats the strawman instead of his opposition. Dude, Eli said she doesn't care about the Bible, stop calling her out on it as if she never said it.

[YOUTUBE]BYLMTvxOaeE[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## lint789 (May 7, 2012)

If the bible is gonna encourage bullying of any kind to hell with it.


----------



## Narcissus (May 7, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> From what I can see Narcissius is like a farmer who builds a strawman of his opponent and beats the strawman instead of his opposition. Dude, Eli said she doesn't care about the Bible, stop calling her out on it as if she never said.


From what I see, you, like Eli, don't know how a straw man works, or how to present a formal argument.

If you don't have anything to contribute, don't bother posting or expect to be taken seriously.


----------



## Golden Circle (May 7, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> From what I see, you, like Eli, don't know how a straw man works, or how to present a formal argument.


Strawman:


> To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.


Oh look, that's what I said you were doing and you didn't recognize that was a strawman definition and accused me of not knowing what it is even though it is obvious you don't because you didn't recognize it when it's staring at you in the face. 



> If you don't have anything to contribute, don't bother posting or expect to be taken seriously.


Oh wow, better add ad hominem to the mix as well.


----------



## Nihonjin (May 7, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> Oh wow, better add ad hominem to the mix as well.



You apparently don't know what an ad hominem is either.


Anyway, this isn't going anywhere until Eli, Bas and anyone on their said recognizes that offending someone, even purposely, does not necessarily mean you're bullying.

What Savage did was no where near bullying, it was just harsh criticism of a particular part of their "holy" book that went down the wrong hole for some people. (Even though they most likely agree with everything he said, they just didn't like his wording)


----------



## Petes12 (May 7, 2012)

prepare to be ignored because you spoke an inarguable truth nihonjin


----------



## Narcissus (May 7, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> Strawman:
> Oh look, that's what I said you were doing and you didn't recognize that was a strawman definition and accused me of not knowing what it is even though it is obvious you don't because you didn't recognize it when it's staring at you in the face.


Yes, you know how to copy and paste a definition. You don't know how to properly apply it. You are falsely accusing me of invoking the straw man fallacy, while Eli has been using them and other fallacies.





> Oh wow, better add ad hominem to the mix as well.


Nihonjin already said it, but you also don't know what an ad hominem is. Not only have I not insulted you, you have not presented an argument for me to try an negate with an insult. All you did was make unfounded claims.


----------



## baconbits (May 7, 2012)

Nihonjin said:


> You apparently don't know what an ad hominem is either.
> 
> Anyway, this isn't going anywhere until Eli, Bas and anyone on their said recognizes that offending someone, even purposely, does not necessarily mean you're bullying.
> 
> What Savage did was no where near bullying, it was just harsh criticism of a particular part of their "holy" book that went down the wrong hole for some people. (Even though they most likely agree with everything he said, they just didn't like his wording)



It is bullying because you have an adult attacking the views of a captive audience composed mainly of kids.  They came to hear him speak on bullying; he came armed with attacks on their religion.

If I summoned a group of kids and bashed something they held dear, whether it related to the topic at hand or not, I'd consider that to be bullying - whether I was bashing a group of gay kids for being gay or a group of fundamentalists kids for being homophobic.

There is a way to address bullying, but the abrasive manner that the speaker did it isn't the effective way - which is why his audience left.  Typically a speaker that makes his audience leave cannot be said to have done a good job.

So let's stop making this about the bible.  We can defend the bible in other threads - this is about one man who got on a platform and decided to attack another point of view.  He was not attempting to be constructive.


----------



## AoMythology (May 7, 2012)

baconbits said:


> It is bullying because you have an adult attacking the views of a captive audience composed mainly of kids.  They came to hear him speak on bullying; he came armed with attacks on their religion.
> 
> If I summoned a group of kids and bashed something they held dear, whether it related to the topic at hand or not, I'd consider that to be bullying - whether I was bashing a group of gay kids for being gay or a group of fundamentalists kids for being homophobic.
> 
> ...



He didn't attack their views themselves, but parts of the Bible; and only a few left, the others applauded him.

You refuse to accept these facts.


----------



## neodragzero (May 7, 2012)

baconbits said:


> It is bullying because you have an adult attacking the views of a captive audience composed mainly of kids.


You're suggesting those kids are Christians that use the bible to support their bigotry? Because I'm pretty sure he was talking about a certain group of people who commit acts of bigotry and a faulty part of the bible. You don't seem to understand what it means to critic a particular group of people and a passage from a book and actually directly "attacking the views of a captive audience."


> If I summoned a group of kids and bashed something they held dear,


Once again, you're suggesting with that line of logic that these kids hold bullshit parts of the bible dear. Because I'm pretty sure that's what Savage was referring rather than ever going after the bible as a whole nor ever going after Christianity as a whole.


> There is a way to address bullying, but the abrasive manner that the speaker did it isn't the effective way - which is why his audience left.  Typically a speaker that makes his audience leave cannot be said to have done a good job.


Because a minority of ignorant people leaving while a speech is made somehow always means a bad job is being done even though the massive majority is still there. The real point of issue here is that this minority in the audience somehow think they want to be journalist but can't seem to sit down as someone makes a viable critic.


> So let's stop making this about the bible.  We can defend the bible in other threads - this is about one man who got on a platform and decided to attack another point of view.  He was not attempting to be constructive.



In other words, you really need to learn to pay attention to what people say.


----------



## Judas (May 7, 2012)

This is still going on?


----------



## Spock (May 7, 2012)

*Spoiler*: _off topic_ 





Narcissus said:


> Savage isn't an alleged anti-bullying activist, he is one. And no, I'm not being hypocritical by defending him. But to say you don't care what the Bible says is a double standard.


Right, a name-calling anti-bullying activist, is that better ? To not even consider their feelings is double standards. 



> If that's the case, then you need to stop claiming that using a more polite manner would've caused them to react better, and that they were emotionally damaged. Stick to what happened, right?


I'm sticking to what happened, I report what  I saw, few kids leaving in anger, publicly mocked and called pansy asses, that is a type of bullying that is sure to hurt their feelings. You on the other hand: PLAYING NICE OR NOT, IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYWAY." Should this be counted as a logical fallacy ?




> And I'm telling you that he was justified because of what the Bible says. You're also being dishonest by saying his style was a failure, because he did reach out to most of the audience.


Insulting a portion of his audience in the process, what a successful anti-bullying-name-calling activist.

For the last time, my argument is not even about the bible, its about his audience and how he should have thought this through if he had been more qualified.



> Because there is no basis for what you claimed, and how they felt doesn't debunk his argument. If you know then you'd realize the problem with style over substance.


MY argument was all about feelings, embarrassment and the hilarious way of closing any doors of opportunities to reach out to the Christian kids he was supposedly trying to deliver a message. If you want to establish your substance  correctly then have a fucking style .



> Except everything I've saidhas been on-topic, but thanks for further demonstrating dishonesty.


No  you've been dismissing their feelings and going back and forth to the bible while its not the issue I'm trying to talk about






Nihonjin said:


> You apparently don't know what an ad hominem is either.
> 
> 
> Anyway, this isn't going anywhere until Eli, Bas and anyone on their said recognizes that offending someone, even purposely, does not necessarily mean you're bullying.
> ...





> Bullying Definition
> 
> In order to be considered bullying, the behavior must be aggressive and include:
> An Imbalance of Power: Kids who bully use their power—such as physical strength, access to embarrassing information, *or popularity*—to control or harm others. Power imbalances can change over time and in different situations, even if they involve the same people.
> ...


Please write to that site, tell them to change the definitions of bullying




AoMythology said:


> You are an *idiot*.
> 
> This is Ad Hominem, or it would have been, had there not been a lack of arguments on your end.


I really wanna use an Ad Hominem right now...

Ad Hominem does't have to be a direct insult, 





> He didn't attack their views themselves, but parts of the Bible; and only a few left, the others applauded him.
> You refuse to accept these facts.


...And called them pansy asses in public, you refuse to consider their feelings.


----------



## Narcissus (May 7, 2012)

Eli said:


> Right, a name-calling anti-bullying activist, is that better ? To not even consider their feelings is double standards.


"How pansy-ass some people can react..."

That is what he said. He didn't name-call, he was referring to how they reacted. And no, it isn't a double standard to dismiss fallacies. 


> I'm sticking to what happened, I report what  I saw, few kids leaving in anger, publicly mocked and called pansy asses, that is a type of bullying that is sure to hurt their feelings. You on the other hand: PLAYING NICE OR NOT, IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYWAY." Should this be counted as a logical fallacy ?


No, you're making wild assumptions, saying they were "emotionally damaged." And there were kids smiling and laughing as they left. You are not just sticking to what you saw.

And no, it's not a logical fallacy, because it's true. In fact, the fallacy is caring more about the style he used rather than the substance of his message (as I've already said).


> Insulting a portion of his audience in the process, what a successful anti-bullying-name-calling activist.


Yes, he is, considering he started the It Gets Better movement, and he reached a large portion of his audience. The fact that some of them were offended doesn't dismiss his other accomplishments.


> For the last time, my argument is not even about the bible, its about his audience and how he should have this through if he had been more qualified.


And for the last time, I'm telling you that he was justified because of what's in the Bible.


> MY argument was all about feelings, embarrassment and the hilarious way of closing any doors of opportunities to reach out to the Christian kids he was supposedly trying to deliver a message. If you want to establish your substance  correctly then have a fucking style .


Except you're not going to convince everyone no matter what style you use. Furthermore, what he said was true. For the heat he's taking over the comment, he has people defending him too.

You don't get to sit there making nonsensical claims without support.


> 1) you've been dismissing their feelings
> 2) and going back and forth to the bible while its not the issue I'm trying to talk about



Because it's fallacious
Because the Bible is relevant in justifying what he said, something you cannot seem to comprehend


----------



## Nihonjin (May 7, 2012)

baconbits said:


> It is bullying because you have an adult attacking the views of a captive audience composed mainly of kids.  They came to hear him speak on bullying; he came armed with attacks on their religion.



1) He didn't attack their views, he attacked specific hateful parts of the bible. I assume they're not pro-slavery or murder, so he didn't really attack their views.

2) Even if what you're saying was true, it would still not fall under bullying, but harsh criticism.



> If I summoned a group of kids and *bashed something they held dear*, whether it related to the topic at hand or not, I'd consider that to be bullying



Again, he didn't. He attacked specific parts of the bible which I'm sure they're ignoring, just like he said they should. They just didn't like his wording, which is pathetic.



> So let's stop making this about the bible.  We can defend the bible in other threads - *this is about one man who got on a platform and decided to attack another point of view.*  He was not attempting to be constructive.



Except he _didn't._ He attacked specific parts of the bible that encourage bigotry and murder. 



Eli said:


> Please write to that site, tell them to change the definitions of bullying



The name calling was _after_ they decided to walk out.

We can all agree that he shouldn't have done that. Savage himself even agrees, which is why he apologized for it.

I'm arguing against people who like Bacon who seem to be arguing that they walked out _because_ they were being bullied. That's simply _not_ true.

If you're not in that camp, then we are probably not in disagreement.


----------



## Spock (May 7, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> "How pansy-ass some people can react..."
> 
> That is what he said. He didn't name-call, he was referring to how they reacted. And no, it isn't a double standard to dismiss fallacies.


Why do you refuse to take their feelings into consideration ? Why do you continually dismiss them as fallacy ? Why do you refuse to stop and consider that you're not dealing with adults fully aware of what is in their books but you're dealing with immature kids and with kids, getting your point across demands style and a qualified one at that, considering the sensitive issue of gay bullying. It's rather odd.



> No, you're making wild assumptions, saying they were "emotionally damaged." And there were kids smiling and laughing as they left. You are not just sticking to what you saw.


Not all of the kids who left were all smiles and giggles, if they did feel comfortable in the presence of an anti-bullying-name-calling-activist in the first place they would never have felt the need to leave, considering there was a good amount of Christians that stayed, the "bible guys" just felt attacked. 

Some were all smiles and giggles, I saw that but I stopped to reconsider. Ever heard of defense mechanism ? 



> And no, it's not a logical fallacy, because it's true. In fact, the fallacy is caring more about the style he used rather than the substance of his message (as I've already said).


I've never cared about the bible to begin with, bash it all you want it does not effect me in the slightest. My argument was about the kids and his unqualified style. You dismissing style as well is funny. How else are we gonna deliver our messages to teenagers without the right approach?  



> Yes, he is, considering he started the It Gets Better movement, and he reached a large portion of his audience. The fact that some of them were offended doesn't dismiss his other accomplishments.


The Day of Silence campaign gets all sorts of horrible opposition I don't remember reading about them offending or responding by calling the kids they were trying to reach out to pansy-asses. I feel bad just comparing Savage to them . He is not qualified, the fact that a large portion of his audience applauded does not dismiss that .



> And for the last time, I'm telling you that he was justified because of what's in the Bible.
> Furthermore, what he said was true. For the heat he's taking over the comment, he has people defending him too.You don't get to sit there making nonsensical claims without support.
> 
> Because it's fallacious
> Because the Bible is relevant in justifying what he said, something you cannot seem to comprehend


This is a lost cause. 



> Except you're not going to convince everyone no matter what style you use.


I'll make sure not to offend or name-call them in the process though. Especially if I'm dealing with a bunch of immature high school students. And especially if I want to reach out to them and deliver an important message. 





Nihonjin said:


> The name calling was _after_ they decided to walk out.
> 
> We can all agree that he shouldn't have done that. Savage himself even agrees, which is why he apologized for it.
> 
> ...



Fair enough .


----------



## baconbits (May 7, 2012)

AoMythology said:


> He didn't attack their views themselves, but parts of the Bible; and only a few left, the others applauded him.
> 
> You refuse to accept these facts.



There's really nothing to not accept.  The fact that some people applaud when others get bullied isn't something I dispute.



neodragzero said:


> You're suggesting those kids are Christians that use the bible to support their bigotry? Because I'm pretty sure he was talking about a certain group of people who commit acts of bigotry and a faulty part of the bible. You don't seem to understand what it means to critic a particular group of people and a passage from a book and actually directly "attacking the views of a captive audience."



When some in the said audience actually think that the Bible is God's Word you are actually attacking the views of a captive audience.  He didn't attack the actions he attacked the beliefs.



neodragzero said:


> Once again, you're suggesting with that line of logic that these kids hold bullshit parts of the bible dear. Because I'm pretty sure that's what Savage was referring rather than ever going after the bible as a whole nor ever going after Christianity as a whole.



For some people that is part of their Christianity.



neodragzero said:


> Because a minority of ignorant people leaving while a speech is made somehow always means a bad job is being done even though the massive majority is still there. The real point of issue here is that this minority in the audience somehow think they want to be journalist but can't seem to sit down as someone makes a viable critic.



Not really.  The real issue and thus the story is that a man gave a speech that some audience members were so disgusted with they got up and left.

Your argument that these people are "ignorant" is really nothing but an assertion without any validation.



neodragzero said:


> In other words, you really need to learn to pay attention to what people say.



I do pay attention, but thanks for the advice.



Nihonjin said:


> 1) He didn't attack their views, he attacked specific hateful parts of the bible. I assume they're not pro-slavery or murder, so he didn't really attack their views.
> 
> 2) Even if what you're saying was true, it would still not fall under bullying, but harsh criticism.



He actually did attack their views if they view that the Bible, as a whole, is the word of God.  Secondly I would argue that embarassing a minority of people in front of an entire audience is bullying.



Nihonjin said:


> Again, he didn't. He attacked specific parts of the bible which I'm sure they're ignoring, just like he said they should. They just didn't like his wording, which is pathetic.



First, these are kids confronting an adult.  I don't like his wording either - there's nothing pathetic about an opinion you disagree with.

Secondly, his attack of the bible is an attack on something people view as sacred.  You're simply being blinded by your own beliefs, but if you had something you viewed as sacred I wouldn't denigrate it in front of an audience and expect you to sit still and smile about it.



Nihonjin said:


> Except he _didn't._ He attacked specific parts of the bible that encourage bigotry and murder.



He attacked something these kids hold to be sacred.  Whether you like those parts or not is irrelevant.



Nihonjin said:


> The name calling was _after_ they decided to walk out.
> 
> We can all agree that he shouldn't have done that. Savage himself even agrees, which is why he apologized for it.



So he bashes a point of view and when people react he calls them pansies.  I'm glad he bullied them on the way out instead of before he bullied their point of view.


----------



## God (May 7, 2012)

to sum up the arguments in this thread

"that guy's a hypocrite because he bullied people"
"he didn't bully"
"yes he did, he insulted members of his audience"
"no he didn't, he called the bible bullshit, there's a difference"
"people in his audience were christians and felt offended by his attacks. calling the bible bullshit is an attack"
"the people in his audience were supposedly journalists in training. as a journalist, you have to be able to take more than a few nicely put politically correct nonsense. he was blunt about his opinion. would it have been better if he said the bible is partially inaccurate and misrepresentative?"
"yes"
"learn how to take opinions, fuckhead"

all in all, you guys are pissed because he didn't put his opinions into nicer words and was mean about your religion. so what? quit being fucking pansies, fuckers who cant handle to-the-point statements have no future in journalism


----------



## sadated_peon (May 7, 2012)

I would say the sum of this is

"How dare you call my beliefs that gay people are disgusting abominations as Bullshit, do you have any idea how offensive that is?"


----------



## Narcissus (May 7, 2012)

Eli said:


> Why do you refuse to take their feelings into consideration ? Why do you continually dismiss them as fallacy ? Why do you refuse to stop and consider that you're not dealing with adults fully aware of what is in their books but you're dealing with immature kids and with kids, getting your point across demands style and a qualified one at that, considering the sensitive issue of gay bullying. It's rather odd.


Because it is a fallacy. I've even cited them several times throughout this thread, and there is nothing odd about it.

Their personal feeling do not debunk Savage's argument.

The fact that you do not understand this shows that you do not know how to present a formal argument.


> Not all of the kids who left were all smiles and giggles, if they did feel comfortable in the presence of an anti-bullying-name-calling-activist in the first place they would never have felt the need to leave, considering there was a good amount of Christians that stayed, the "bible guys" just felt attacked.


I didn't say all of the kids were laughing and smiling. And again, they left before he ever made the "pansy-ass" comment (which was directed towards their reaction, not them). They left because he attacked the Bible, without bothering to realize that what he said was true.


> Some were all smiles and giggles, I saw that but I stopped to reconsider. Ever heard of defense mechanism ?


So you're making more unfounded assertions rather than basing things on what you saw in the room? Thanks again for showing another double standard.


> I've never cared about the bible to begin with, bash it all you want it does not effect me in the slightest. My argument was about the kids and his unqualified style. You dismissing style as well is funny. How else are we gonna deliver our messages to teenagers without the right approach?


What you don't seem to understand is that it's irrelevant whether you care about the Bible or not. Your personal opinion doesn't matter. I am telling you that Savage was justified to say what he said because of the Bible, regardless of it offending some people. And he did reach most of his audience.


> The Day of Silence campaign gets all sorts of horrible opposition I don't remember reading about them offending or responding by calling the kids they were trying to reach out to pansy-asses. I feel bad just comparing Savage to them . He is not qualified, the fact that a large portion of his audience applauded does not dismiss that .


 

There is all kinds of offensive opposition towards the Day of Silence, more so than Savage's comment. And you don't have the authority to decide whether Savage is qualified. It's your opinion, which, again, doesn't matter.


> This is a lost cause.


I've known that from the beginning.


> I'll make sure not to offend or name-call them in the process though. Especially if I'm dealing with a bunch of immature high school students. And especially if I want to reach out to them and deliver an important message.


You'll *TRY* not to offend them, but you aren't psychic. You cannot possibly know that you won't offend someone, regardless of how nice you are, just because they disagree with you. And not only has Savage apologized for the "pansy-ass" comment, he directed it towards their action rather than them. And he was still right.

Besides which, he *STILL* reached out to most of the audience, so he didn't fail.


----------



## baconbits (May 7, 2012)

Cubey said:


> to sum up the arguments in this thread
> 
> "that guy's a hypocrite because he bullied people"
> "he didn't bully"
> ...



That isn't how the debate should be characterized.

*The original argument is*: Savage shouldn't have said what he said.  He attacked a system of belief that really has no connection to bullying.  It could be said that he bullied people to stop bullying.

*Counter*: Christianity deserves to be attacked.

*Reply*: Christianity does not cause bullying.

*Counter*: Some gay kids get attacked because of the Bible.

*Reply*: Christians of all sects wouldn't support attacking gay kids for any reason.  The speaker attacked the bible because he has a pesonal agenda.  If he wanted to address bullying there were better ways to do so.

*Counter*: Chrisitans are stupid.

--

That's the correct way to characterize this discussion.  The touchiness of the students is really a sideshow but it does indicate that the speaker's message was not received and so any intended audience was turned off by his message, not educated by it.



sadated_peon said:


> I would say the sum of this is
> 
> "How dare you call my beliefs that gay people are disgusting abominations as Bullshit, do you have any idea how offensive that is?"



I would sum it up as: what does your above statement have to do with bullying?


----------



## sadated_peon (May 7, 2012)

baconbits said:


> I would sum it up as: what does your above statement have to do with bullying?


Easy
"beliefs that gay people are disgusting abominations" 
is being used as justification for bullying.


----------



## Nihonjin (May 7, 2012)

baconbits said:


> He actually did attack their views *if they view that the Bible, as a whole, is the word of God*.



But they don't, since they don't support slavery or the stoning of unruly children. (I hope at least)

Do you agree?



> Secondly I would argue that embarassing a minority of people in front of an entire audience is bullying.



The part where he called them pansies? Yes, that was wrong. He shouldn't have done it and apologized for it. But that's not the reason they walked out, it wasn't part of his actual message and would have never happened if it wasn't for their retarded reaction.



> First, these are kids confronting an adult.



So?



> I don't like his wording either - there's nothing pathetic about an opinion you disagree with.



Their reaction was pathetic. And retarded since I'm quite sure that if they actually listened to what he was saying, they'd be in full agreement, despite his less than diplomatic wording.



> Secondly, his attack of the bible is an attack on something people view as sacred.



Sacred, yet cherry picked to the point where you have a billion different groups of Christianity. Which was his point.

I'll paraphrase:

_If you're going to *cherry pick what to believe and follow from the Bible*, please, do us all a favor and *leave out the* parts that promote *violence and bigotry* against your fellow human beings._

That's really all he said.



> You're simply being blinded by your own beliefs, but if you had something you viewed as sacred I wouldn't denigrate it in front of an audience and expect you to sit still and smile about it.



I can't even imagine what it's like to view anything as sacred, so you're kind of talking to a brick wall here, sorry.

And no, I wouldn't feel embarrassed for you saying something I agree with. Even if you're rude and insulting something I care about, I wouldn't let my emotions block out your actual point. I tend to stay objective about these things.



> He attacked something these kids hold to be sacred.  Whether you like those parts or not is irrelevant.



He attacked parts they know aren't sacred or they'd be following them to a T.


----------



## Narcissus (May 7, 2012)

baconbits said:


> *The original argument is*: Savage shouldn't have said what he said.  He attacked a system of belief that really has no connection to bullying.  It could be said that he bullied people to stop bullying.


Except that system does have a connection to bullying. People use it to justify their actions.


> That's the correct way to characterize this discussion.


This is dishonest, as it ignores what people have actually said. There have even been examples cited of when Christianity has negatively impacted homosexuals. 


> The touchiness of the students is really a sideshow but it does indicate that the speaker's message was not received and so any intended audience was turned off by his message, not educated by it.


Stop.

Savage's message was not received by the few who were offended by what he said. The rest of the audience applauded what he had to say.


----------



## Bishop (May 7, 2012)

Not to enter any sub-argument, my question is: If it is ok to attack (or state your opinion) a religion for certain reasons, can it also be ok for someone to attack Homosexuality?


----------



## Spock (May 7, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> Because it is a fallacy. I've even cited them several times throughout this thread, and there is nothing odd about it.
> 
> Their personal feeling do not debunk Savage's argument.


Did I ever say that their feelings = Bible is not bullshit ? No, stop getting off topic. I'm talking about Savage's savage style of handling kids. He closed a door of opportunity by being aggressive, by mocking a portion of his audience. 



> The fact that you do not understand this shows that you do not know how to present a formal argument.





> I didn't say all of the kids were laughing and smiling. And again, they left before he ever made the "pansy-ass" comment(which was directed towards their reaction, not them).


 It must not have reached their ears, therefore justified. Cool. He mocked a portion of his audience. 



> They left because he attacked the Bible, without bothering to realize that what he said was true.


Yes because, blatantly calling others beliefs bullshit will make them sit down and listen carefully, especially if they were bunch of immature highschool students . His approach would totally reach them.  



> So you're making more unfounded assertions rather than basing things on what you saw in the room? Thanks again for showing another double standard.


It's called observation. Observations are later based on what you learn later. Thanks for showing you could care less about everybody's feelings save a selected few. 



> What you don't seem to understand is that it's irrelevant whether you care about the Bible or not. Your personal opinion doesn't matter. I am telling you that Savage was justified to say what he said because of the Bible, regardless of it offending some people. And he did reach most of his audience.


What you seems to miss is my original argument was about his style, wording and they way he tries to reach out to the students. 


> There is all kinds of offensive opposition towards the Day of Silence, more so than Savage's comment. And you don't have the authority to decide whether Savage is qualified.


Yes, thats what I said ? They receive all sorts of horrible opposition from Christian students and yet they don't respond like Savage. They've got style and are qualified to work with the like of highschoolers. Stop repeating.



> You'll *TRY* not to offend them, but you aren't psychic. You cannot possibly know that you won't offend someone, regardless of how nice you are, just because they disagree with you. And not only has Savage apologized for the "pansy-ass" comment, he directed it towards their action rather than them. And he was still right.


Do I sense a strawman ? 

Stop coming off with "it doesn't matter anyway" attitude and I don't give a shit if what he said about the bible was right or wrong. You're dealing with highschoolers, hypocritically coming to speak about anti-bullying while acting all aggressive towards them and expecting them to absorb "the right substance" with that kind of approach. 

He apologized I know, great but you forgot that he also admitted that he mocked them. He said what I did was name-calling. So I'm not sure what you're trying to defend. 

*Spoiler*: __ 





> I would like to apologize for describing that walk out as a pansy-a---- 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-a----’ was insulting, it was *name-calling*, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it.





I might actually like this guy. 






> Besides which, he *STILL* reached out to most of the audience, so he didn't fail.


You make a portion of your audience leave in anger you're not exactly a successful public speaker.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 7, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Not to enter any sub-argument, my question is: If it is ok to attack (or state your opinion) a religion for certain reasons, can it also be ok for someone to attack Homosexuality?


Yea, it is ok, as long as the attack doesn't constitute abuse of others.


----------



## neodragzero (May 7, 2012)

baconbits said:


> When some in the said audience actually think that the Bible is God's Word you are actually attacking the views of a captive audience.  He didn't attack the actions he attacked the beliefs.


Except that you would have to actually prove that those who left actually believe in the numerous things he cited from the bible. Once again, attacking passages in a book doesn't equate to attacking entire belief system that extends beyond just those cited passages. When exactly was it reported that the minority that left consider the Bible literally the word of God? Are you suggesting the African American girl who left accepts slavery, stoning children, etc.? That's how oddball your attempt is as you attempt to make an emotive argument into a logical one.


> For some people that is part of their Christianity.


And for some people, beating their wife on a Sunday is apart of their religion. It doesn't mean we don't criticize that because it's part of a bigger whole. All the more so when your so-called "some people" don't simply follow the entirety of the book to begin with as they pick and choose what they follow. To claim that their faith was being attacked by someone bringing up the fact that not all of that book is believed and practiced upon sounds pretty lazy as intelligent thought goes.


> Not really.  The real issue and thus the story is that a man gave a speech that some audience members were so disgusted with they got up and left.
> 
> Your argument that these people are "ignorant" is really nothing but an assertion without any validation.


No, the real point of this whole thing is that the people who left utterly failed on something that's a given in journalism; the ability to observe and record speech and events even if you find it morally reprehensible or distasteful.

I'm pretty sure I didn't explicitly argue that they're ignorant as I simply stated a general statement in response to your generality that somehow a minority part of the audience leaving means that a speech isn't valid as if we should ignore the majority.


> I do pay attention, but thanks for the advice.


The fact you're stating that Dan Savage did something in contradiction to reality would beg to differ. All the more so when your misrepresent the arguments of others in this thread to the point of slander. Follow the advice.


----------



## Bishop (May 7, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> Yea, it is ok, as long as the attack doesn't constitute abuse of others.



Okay, well, I think we're all on the same side if we believe this; just some random guy sharing his opinion. Those kids can call homosexuality stupid and attack it, as long as it does not go overboard, or get physical, and people have the same rights towards Religion. I think it's called freedom of speech.


----------



## Spock (May 7, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Not to enter any sub-argument, my question is: If it is ok to attack (or state your opinion) a religion for certain reasons, can it also be ok for someone to attack Homosexuality?



I don't know...If you organize a public gathering mostly for teens (which has a great portion of gay teens) to speak about Homosexuality in general and at the end of the speech start to get aggressive with your wording and attitude, see group of your target audience leave, publicly mock them ( you can apologize later and explain yourself but at the heat of the moment you cant) then no it's not ok. 

With adults it might be a different issue .


----------



## Bishop (May 7, 2012)

Eli said:


> I don't know...If you organize a public gathering mostly for teens (which has a great portion of gay teens) to speak about Homosexuality in general and at the end of the speech start to get aggressive with your wording and attitude, see group of your target audience leave, publicly mock them ( you can apologize later and explain yourself but at the heat of the moment you cant) then no it's not ok.
> 
> With adults it might be a different issue .



Honey, we're in a liberal forum, act accordingly; thus, if it ain't illegal, it ain't wrong.


----------



## Narcissus (May 7, 2012)

Eli said:


> Did I ever say that their feelings = Bible is not bullshit ? No, stop getting off topic. I'm talking about Savage's savage style of handling kids. He closed a door of opportunity by being aggressive, by mocking a portion of his audience.


It isn't off-topic, despite your ad nauseum claim that it is. 

You're talking about style, I'm telling you style over substance is fallacious. Anything else is your personal opinion, and irrelevant.


> It must not have reached their ears, therefore justified. Cool. He mocked a portion of his audience.


You have a way with constructing straw men and missing the point, because that's not what I said.

The fact that the people left before he ever made the pansy-ass comment means they were offended before the so-called insult.


> Yes because, blatantly calling others beliefs bullshit will make them sit down and listen carefully, especially if they were bunch of immature highschool students . His approach would totally reach them.


It's called aggressive criticism, and it certainly reached most of the audience. You're never going to reach everyone no matter what approach you take.


> It's called observation. Observations are later based on what you learn later. Thanks for showing you could care less about everybody's feelings save a selected few.


No, you made numerous presuppositions, and even admitted some of them were just possibilities ("might be emotionally damaged"). Then you made up the excuse of a coping mechanism for the ones who were smiling and laughing.


> What you seems to miss is my original argument was about his style, wording and they way he tries to reach out to the students.


And I explained to you about style over substance and "think of the children." 


> Yes, thats what I said ? They receive all sorts of horrible opposition from Christian students and yet they don't respond like Savage. They've got style and are qualified to work with the like of highschoolers. Stop repeating.


Missing the point, again. That what the religious side is saying and doing is significantly worse than what Savage said, and they don't even have the justification that he does.


> Do I sense a strawman ?
> 
> Stop coming off with "it doesn't matter anyway" attitude and I don't give a shit if what he said about the bible was right or wrong. You're dealing with highschoolers, hypocritically coming to speak about anti-bullying while acting all aggressive towards them and expecting them to absorb "the right substance" with that kind of approach.


No. Just because you cannot comprehend how what the Bible say justifies what he said, doesn't mean I'm not going to defend it. Your opinion is of no importance. People use the bullshit of the Bible to justify bullying, which has lead to suicide, and Savage gave a harsh yet honest and justified criticism of that portion. And the rest of the audience agreed with him.

I don't care if you didn't like his style, but he didn't fail and he was right.


> He apologized I know, great but you forgot that he also admitted that he mocked them. He said what I did was name-calling. So I'm not sure what you're trying to defend.
> 
> *Spoiler*: __


I'm defending his argument, even if it was aggressive. And he also says in the video that they reacted in a pansy-ass way (which I have cited in this thread as the one thing anyone could criticize him for anyway). 


> You make a portion of your audience leave in anger you're not exactly a successful public speaker.


That's your opinion, which I don't care about.


----------



## sadated_peon (May 7, 2012)

Eli said:


> I don't know...If you organize a public gathering mostly for teens (which has a great portion of gay teens) to speak about Homosexuality in general and at the end of the speech start to get aggressive with your wording and attitude, see group of your target audience leave, publicly mock them ( you can apologize later and explain yourself but at the heat of the moment you cant) then no it's not ok.
> 
> With adults it might be a different issue .



corrected for ya

"If you organize a public gathering mostly for teens (which has a great portion of gay teens) to speak about "sexual health" in general and at the end of the speech start to get "call having unprotected anal sex BS", see group of your target audience leave, publicly mock them ( you can apologize later and explain yourself but at the heat of the moment you cant) then yes, it's ok."


----------



## Petes12 (May 7, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Not to enter any sub-argument, my question is: If it is ok to attack (or state your opinion) a religion for certain reasons, can it also be ok for someone to attack Homosexuality?



No.

This is like "if it's ok to attack racism, is it then ok to attack black people?"


----------



## Spock (May 7, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Honey, we're in a liberal forum, act accordingly; thus, if it ain't illegal, it ain't wrong.



Just because it is not illegal doesn't mean it's not wrong. I'm for freedom of expression and all that jazz, insult and attack religion, insult and homosexuality and homosexuals all you want if it makes you sleep at night but if you wanna do it just for the sake of hurting others feelings why do it ? 



Narcissus said:


> It isn't off-topic, despite your ad nauseum claim that it is.
> 
> You're talking about style, I'm telling you style over substance is fallacious. Anything else is your personal opinion, and irrelevant.]


And I'm telling you, your substance is nothing if you have no style. Christians already ignore the bible about lots of stuff, and I'm willing to bet that most of the students who walked out don't even realize that. You wanna confront ignorant bunch about a text they know nothing of but still take seriously ? Have a style. His "aggressive criticism"  wasn't the best choice. 



> You have a way with constructing straw men and missing the point, because that's not what I said.
> 
> The fact that the people left before he ever made the pansy-ass comment means they were offended before the so-called insult.


Does this excuse the insult by the anti-bullying activist?



> It's called aggressive criticism,


I'm aware, it's not the most effective type criticism while dealing with these issues or with that crowd. 



> and it certainly reached most of the audience. You're never going to reach everyone no matter what approach you take.


Yes that is nice.



> No, you made numerous presuppositions, and even admitted some of them were just possibilities ("might be emotionally damaged"). Then you made up the excuse of a coping mechanism for the ones who were smiling and laughing.


That was merely from what I observed and I didn't make anything, I was reconsidering, after all being mocked in public isn't  exactly a cakewalk.



> And I explained to you about style over substance and "think of the children."


And I explained to you, if you truly want your substance to be delivered across to that specific crowd, then the right approach is needed, think through this correctly and consider their feelings, you might gain a supporter or two from their group. 


> Missing the point, again. That what the religious side is saying and doing is significantly worse than what Savage said, and they don't even have the justification that he does


.
Their doings are 10x worse than what Savage did, yes but you're missing MY point. What I said is the Day of Silence campaign have a style with the kids they are trying to reach out to unlike Savage. Even though they receive worse opposition from these religious groups, they know if they want to convince them, the first thing is not to stoop to their level. 



> No. Just because you cannot comprehend how what the Bible say justifies what he said, doesn't mean I'm not going to defend it. Your opinion is of no importance. People use the bullshit of the Bible to justify bullying, which has lead to suicide, and Savage gave a harsh yet honest and justified criticism of that portion. And the rest of the audience agreed with him.
> 
> I don't care if you didn't like his style, but he didn't fail and he was right.
> I'm defending his argument, even if it was aggressive. And he also says in the video that they reacted in a pansy-ass way (which I have cited in this thread as the one thing anyone could criticize him for anyway).
> That's your opinion, which I don't care about.


It's like you are implying that I've been defending the bible all this time or something. Bullying justified by the bible is bullshit yes but putting this argument so blatantly in their faces isn't going to work out. If he really wanted to reach out to them, he would have been more civil about it, he would have known the exact right words to use and what not to use. 

He wants Christians students to ignore their prejudiced text ? Well it's not gonna happen with that attitude or the way he presented his argument.


----------



## Bishop (May 7, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> No.
> 
> This is like "if it's ok to attack racism, is it then ok to attack black people?"



Using that analogy this means that Christianity, or Religion, is viewed as bad. Is this what you mean?


----------



## Petes12 (May 7, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Using that analogy this means that Christianity, or Religion, is viewed as bad. Is this what you mean?



The passages in the bible savage quoted are bad.

Selective fundamentalism is bad.

Ignorant bigotry is bad whether it's written into the bible or not.


----------



## AoMythology (May 7, 2012)

Eli said:


> I really wanna use an Ad Hominem right now...
> 
> Ad Hominem does't have to be a direct insult,



It doesn't, but the quote he considered an Ad Hominem was most definitely not; he missed ridiculously. I removed that part of my post though, it was too offensive.




Eli said:


> ...And called them pansy asses in public, you refuse to consider their feelings.



He called their actions pansy-assed.

And so few walking out for an argument against the bible doesn't say anything negative about Savage.


----------



## Spock (May 7, 2012)

AoMythology said:


> It doesn't, but the quote he considered an Ad Hominem was most definitely not; he missed ridiculously. I removed that part of my post though, it was too offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hate the sin not the sinner ?


----------



## Bishop (May 7, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> The passages in the bible savage quoted are bad.
> 
> Selective fundamentalism is bad.
> 
> Ignorant bigotry is bad whether it's written into the bible or not.



I get what your saying and I agree completely.


----------



## Narcissus (May 8, 2012)

Eli said:


> And I'm telling you, your substance is nothing if you have no style. Christians already ignore the bible about lots of stuff, and I'm willing to bet that most of the students who walked out don't even realize that. You wanna confront ignorant bunch about a text they know nothing of but still take seriously ? Have a style. His "aggressive criticism"  wasn't the best choice.


This is your opinion, which is based on assumptions and fallacies. 


> Does this excuse the insult by the anti-bullying activist?


Still missing the point, which is that those kids didn't even care about his message before the supposed insult, even though it was right. 


> I'm aware, it's not the most effective type criticism while dealing with these issues or with that crowd.


Because you say so? 

It was effective with most of the crowd, and it was justified. You're not going to convince everyone no matter what tactic you use.


> Yes that is nice.


It's the truth.


> That was merely from what I observed and I didn't make anything, I was reconsidering, after all being mocked in public isn't  exactly a cakewalk.


No, it was unfounded guess work. You did not observe them being emotionally damaged, and you tried to make an excuse for why some of them were laughing and smiling. That's bullshit.


> And I explained to you, if you truly want your substance to be delivered across to that specific crowd, then the right approach is needed, think through this correctly and consider their feelings, you might gain a supporter or two from their group.


"_I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred, and contempt, and I claim that right._" - Christopher Hitchens​
When dealing with something that is contributing to the suicide of kids, aggressive criticism is sometimes required. And that isn't going to change because of some peoples' feelings (hence the fallacies you're guilty of).


> Their doings are 10x worse than what Savage did, yes but you're missing MY point. What I said is the Day of Silence campaign have a style with the kids they are trying to reach out to unlike Savage. Even though they receive worse opposition from these religious groups, they know if they want to convince them, the first thing is not to stoop to their level.


What the Day of Silence's opposition actually shows is that even if you address them in a nicer way, you're still not going to convince everyone. 


> It's like you are implying that I've been defending the bible all this time or something.




No, I haven't. Yet another thing you fail to comprehend. I've been telling you that I don't care about your opinion on the Bible, but rather that the Bible justifies the what Savage said and the way he said it.


> Bullying justified by the bible is bullshit yes but putting this argument so blatantly in their faces isn't going to work out. If he really wanted to reach out to them, he would have been more civil about it, he would have known the exact right words to use and what not to use.


He reached the majority of the audience, and even if he was nicer about it, he wouldn't have convinced them all anyway. It's delusional to think he would have.


> He wants Christians students to ignore their prejudiced text ? Well it's not gonna happen with that attitude or the way he presented his argument.


Considering most stayed and listened? You're wrong.


----------



## -Dargor- (May 8, 2012)

The Bible, isn't that a LOTR prequel?


----------



## baconbits (May 8, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> Easy
> "beliefs that gay people are disgusting abominations"
> is being used as justification for bullying.



I didn't know that 99% of all bullying was towards gays...

So let's be honest - he's highlighting bullying towards a very small percentage of students, and the bullying has a very tenuous connection to a religious text.  It's also well established that this bullying would be condemned by most Christian sects - so Christians are responsible for gay bullying how?

From where I'm standing kids tend to bully those who violate social norms.  It has nothing to do with Christianity.  When the shortest kid in school gets punched in the back of the head the bully doesn't quote from the Old Testament.



Nihonjin said:


> But they don't, since they don't support slavery or the stoning of unruly children. (I hope at least)
> 
> Do you agree?



No.  Your characterization of a biblical viewpoint is false and rather jaded.  If people think the bible is a holy book insulting it is in fact insulting their views.



Nihonjin said:


> The part where he called them pansies? Yes, that was wrong. He shouldn't have done it and apologized for it. But that's not the reason they walked out, it wasn't part of his actual message and would have never happened if it wasn't for their retarded reaction.



Lol.  You can't on one hand say his reaction was wrong and then try to defend the reaction at the same time.  Either it was wrong and uncalled for or it isn't.

Secondly, the part I was referring to was simply calling Christians out.  Implied is that there are gangs of Christians going around beating up gays.  If that happens it isn't common and it isn't because of something they learned in the Bible.



Nihonjin said:


> So?



So realize that this alone means he should have moderated his tone.  Unloading on a 25-year-old is different than unloading on a 15-year-old.  Secondly, they're reactions may reflect their relative immaturity.  You'd hope that when an adult is addressing highschoolers that the highschoolers wouldn't be the ones that would have to take the high road, but we don't always get what we hope for.



Nihonjin said:


> Their reaction was pathetic. And retarded since I'm quite sure that if they actually listened to what he was saying, they'd be in full agreement, despite his less than diplomatic wording.



I'm not in full agreement with what he said so I see no reason why they should be in full agreement either.

(Also realize that his insults turned off an audience, another reason why civility is important.  Hint, hint.)



Nihonjin said:


> Sacred, yet cherry picked to the point where you have a billion different groups of Christianity.



The fact that people have different points of view is irrelevant.



Nihonjin said:


> Which was his point.
> 
> I'll paraphrase:
> 
> ...



That's not all he said.  I'll paraphrase:

_The Bible is wrong about basically everything and that includes the Old and New Testament.  What makes you think the Bible is right about sexuality?  I'll also attack random conservatives._

What did Calista Gingrich have to do with bullying?  What does Paul's letter to Philemon have to do with bullying (if anything that letter can be taken as a letter against bullying)?  What does Timothy have to do with bullying?

Why focus on texts that he clearly does not understand and why not focus on the Golden Rule?  In fact it is Savage who is clearly cherry picking and focusing on parts of the Bible he does not like in an effort to discredit it in its totality.



Nihonjin said:


> I can't even imagine what it's like to view anything as sacred, so you're kind of talking to a brick wall here, sorry.
> 
> And no, I wouldn't feel embarrassed for you saying something I agree with. Even if you're rude and insulting something I care about, I wouldn't let my emotions block out your actual point. I tend to stay objective about these things.



You're not objective at all, because if you could see anything from another perspective you'd join with Borel and Freedan (both are not Christians) and oppose this nonsense, not because it is against Christianity but because it really has nothing to do with bullying and doesn't help the message Savage was supposed to convey.

If you had a shred of objectivity you'd see this for what it is: a gratuitous shot at religion to an audience that was obviously unprepared for the attack.  Logically you can rephrase Savage's point as this:

Bullying is bad.  Some people use the bible to justify bullying.  The Bible is bad.

That's not a valid argument and it doesn't end with a method to solve the problem of bullying.  So in the end people walked out.  Insult them if you will and follow Savage's delusion but it doesn't make sense for a speaker to say things that will create hostility in a group he's hoping to change.  If this was a political debate or forum on the topic then I wouldn't have a problem.  If this was a conference on the problems with religion and bullying I'd disagree with his point of view but I wouldn't have a real problem with him stating it.



Nihonjin said:


> He attacked parts they know aren't sacred or they'd be following them to a T.



Sigh.  You don't understand how to interpret the Bible, so let's move beyond that.  Obviously some people in the audience did view those parts as sacred - if they didn't they would have applauded with others in the crowd.


----------



## baconbits (May 8, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> Except that system does have a connection to bullying. People use it to justify their actions.



So what.  People use evolution to justify racism.  That doesn't mean I should go and decry evolutionists everytime I see something racist happens.  I should decry racism if I want to solve racism, much as Savage should have decried bullying if he wanted to solve bullying.



Narcissus said:


> This is dishonest, as it ignores what people have actually said. There have even been examples cited of when Christianity has negatively impacted homosexuals.



True, it has.  That doesn't mean that a speech on bullying needs to include attacks on Christianity.



Narcissus said:


> Stop.
> 
> Savage's message was not received by the few who were offended by what he said. The rest of the audience applauded what he had to say.



Irrelevant.  I could pack an audience with radicals then make a speech screaming about how all gay people are a bunch of abominations going straight to hell.  The audience will then applaud as a few people leave.  I suppose the message will then receive your commendation.



neodragzero said:


> Except that you would have to actually prove that those who left actually believe in the numerous things he cited from the bible.




Actually Savage would have to prove that.  He's the one who made the original claim.  I simply accepted his assertion.



neodragzero said:


> Once again, attacking passages in a book doesn't equate to attacking entire belief system that extends beyond just those cited passages.



The belief system believes that the book in its totality is holy and sacred, so attacking part is attacking the whole.



neodragzero said:


> When exactly was it reported that the minority that left consider the Bible literally the word of God? Are you suggesting the African American girl who left accepts slavery, stoning children, etc.? That's how oddball your attempt is as you attempt to make an emotive argument into a logical one.



Odd argument.  Are you saying that you reject Savage's claim?  (Hint: he's the one who claimed these people were leaving because of his Bible bashing.)



neodragzero said:


> And for some people, beating their wife on a Sunday is apart of their religion.  It doesn't mean we don't criticize that because it's part of a bigger whole.



True.  But if I were giving a speech on something completely unrelated to that point I wouldn't speak on that issue.  There are many things we all agree/disagree with, but when giving a speech you ought to focus like a lazer on your point (particularly when approaching an audience that isn't familiar with you or doesn't know the general direction of your speech).

I don't mind Christianity being attacked - when it's attacked Christians can defend it.  I mind it being attacked as the cause for bullying when there is absolutely nothing tying it to bullying.



neodragzero said:


> All the more so when your so-called "some people" don't simply follow the entirety of the book to begin with as they pick and choose what they follow.



The different points of view on the Bible are irrelevant to this discussion.  And it doesn't even further your point.



neodragzero said:


> To claim that their faith was being attacked by someone bringing up the fact that not all of that book is believed and practiced upon sounds pretty lazy as intelligent thought goes.



Not really.  Some people believe the book in its entirety.  Some don't.  Clearly the ones who walked out were offended by something Savage said.



neodragzero said:


> No, the real point of this whole thing is that the people who left utterly failed on something that's a given in journalism; the ability to observe and record speech and events even if you find it morally reprehensible or distasteful.



If they were supposed to report on this speech then yes, I agree on this point.  But I think that more than just journalists left this speech.



neodragzero said:


> I'm pretty sure I didn't explicitly argue that they're ignorant as I simply stated a general statement in response to your generality that somehow a minority part of the audience leaving means that a speech isn't valid as if we should ignore the majority.



No, you called them ignorant independent of your particular argument, which is an unfounded assertion simply based on the fact you disagree with them.

Secondly, realize that a speech is an attempt to influence the audience.  When part of the audience leaves before you even get to the main points of your talk you can't influence them.



neodragzero said:


> The fact you're stating that Dan Savage did something in contradiction to reality would beg to differ. All the more so when your misrepresent the arguments of others in this thread to the point of slander. Follow the advice.



I don't even understand your first sentence.  If you have a real argument cite examples or keep your assertions to yourself.  Claiming I'm misrepresenting arguments without detailing which ones and how I did so is ridiculous.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 8, 2012)

> Sigh. You don't understand how to interpret the Bible, so let's move beyond that.



Claims like this are just plain ridiculous. We've had people go back and forth and commit wars for centuries over stuff like this, how is his interpretation any more or less valid than yours? At least he's taking the actual passages into account rather than acting like they don't exist all together.



baconbits said:


> That isn't how the debate should be characterized.
> 
> *The original argument is*: Savage shouldn't have said what he said.  He attacked a system of belief that really has no connection to bullying.  It could be said that he bullied people to stop bullying.
> 
> ...



No it isn't. That's just plain delusional and intentionally ignoring the clear points made in defense of Savage's words on the Bible in this thread. You're deliberately mischaracterizing the entire exchange to make it as if Christianity is the victim here.

Many sects of Christianity advocate attacks on homosexuals. The Bible itself advocates the persecution and execution of homosexuals. Religion, and in this country, Christianity in particular is at the root of many people's homophobic views.


----------



## Spock (May 8, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> This is your opinion, which is based on assumptions and fallacies.



Yes my opinion, aggressive style in public speaking is not the most effective. I'm entitled to that opinion and I at least, am not trying to throw my opinion as a fact.



> Still missing the point, which is that those kids didn't even care about his message before the supposed insult, even though it was right.


The gathering was not mandatory by the schools, they came out of their own free choice, so to some degree they cared about what his message what he wanted to say. That aside, does that excuse his behavior as an anti-bullying activist? He even admits and apologizes for the name calling. You're not really helping.



> Because you say so?



 ad ignorantiam much ? It's an opinion on public speaking, you dont have to ne entitled to it.



> It was effective with most of the crowd, and it was justified. You're not going to convince everyone no matter what tactic you use.


You are going to win less supporters by being aggressive, so what's better ? Majority of the audience liked what he did therefore must be right, doesn't this sound like ad populum? 



> It's the truth.


Yes the truth is nice.



> No, it was unfounded guess work. You did not observe them being emotionally damaged, and you tried to make an excuse for why some of them were laughing and smiling. That's bullshit.


argument by dismissal you won't even consider their feelings or the type of environment they were in.

No, I didn't try to make up excuses,  I stopped to reconsider and thought about possibilities , you on the other hand are completely ignoring them.



> "_I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred, and contempt, and I claim that right._" - Christopher Hitchens​


Appealing to authority ? Christophers context is not the same as this matter. I'm criticizing Savages attitude and the way he presented himself as a public speaker. Savages job is to reach out to kids since he is an anti-bullying activist, if he wants to appeal to them, ridicule hatred and contempt are not really effective.





> What the Day of Silence's opposition actually shows is that even if you address them in a nicer way, you're still not going to convince everyone.


It also shows that the Day of Silence are very qualified to work with teenagers, they have gained many christian supporters without the need of aggravation.




> No, I haven't. Yet another thing you fail to comprehend. I've been telling you that I don't care about your opinion on the Bible, but rather that the Bible justifies the what Savage said and the way he said it.


Whatever man, while I'm criticizing his style of being an anti-bullying activist dealing with bunch of immature high schoolers you keep coming back to the bible, Chris and religion. Bible justifies what Savage said yes, but not in that atmosphere, as a an anti bullying activist you would want to reach out to as many as possible not push them away with that attitude.




> He reached the majority of the audience, and even if he was nicer about it, he wouldn't have convinced them all anyway. It's delusional to think he would .


so stooping to their level is the logical thing to do.


----------



## Nihonjin (May 8, 2012)

baconbits said:


> No.  Your characterization of a biblical viewpoint is false and rather jaded.  If people think the bible is a holy book insulting it is in fact insulting their views.



Bacon, you are avoiding the question. So I'll ask again. 

Do you believe the people that walked out (and everyone criticizing him, including you) are in favor of stoning unruly children, killing women that aren't virgins on their wedding day and killing those that work on the sabbath?



> Lol.  You can't on one hand say his reaction was wrong and then try to defend the reaction at the same time.  Either it was wrong and uncalled for or it isn't.



It was wrong, but understandable. It was in reaction to their retarded first move.



> Secondly, the part I was referring to was simply calling Christians out.  *Implied is that there are gangs of Christians going around beating up gays.*  If that happens it isn't common and it isn't because of something they learned in the Bible.



This pretty much proves you can't listen to criticism objectively when it comes to your bible. Because I don't think anybody here got that idea.

All he said is that there are people who look at those passages and (subconsciously) use them to justify the mistreatment of gay people. It's not just the ones doing the beating, but also the bystanders that somehow think it's acceptable or at least understandable. 



> So realize that this alone means he should have moderated his tone.  Unloading on a 25-year-old is different than unloading on a 15-year-old.  Secondly, they're reactions may reflect their relative immaturity.  You'd hope that when an adult is addressing highschoolers that the highschoolers wouldn't be the ones that would have to take the high road, but we don't always get what we hope for.



Walking out wasn't the high road. It was the indoctrinated one.



> I'm not in full agreement with what he said so I see no reason why they should be in full agreement either.
> 
> (Also realize that his insults turned off an audience, another reason why civility is important.  Hint, hint.)



Until you actually answer my first question, there's no point in arguing any further about this.



> The fact that people have different points of view is irrelevant.



It shows that nobody finds the whole book sacred, just the parts they picked. It's entirely relevant.



> That's not all he said.  I'll paraphrase:
> 
> _The Bible is wrong about basically everything and that includes the Old and New Testament.  What makes you think the Bible is right about sexuality?  I'll also attack random conservatives._



You might want to look at the video again Bacon, through an objective lens this time. Because he didn't come close to what you're suggesting.



> What did Calista Gingrich have to do with bullying?



Gingrich is against gay people. I'm quite sure he thinks they're doing wrong in the eyes of his God and wants to take their rights away (like everyone else in the republican party). This is purely because of what it says in the bible.

Yet, his wife, who wasn't a virgin on her wedding day, still walks the earth. If he was consistent in following the bible, he would have stoned her on his wedding day.

He was pointing out the blatant hypocrisy. Which is something you should have easily picked up on had you been objective.



> What does Paul's letter to Philemon have to do with bullying (if anything that letter can be taken as a letter against bullying)?  What does Timothy have to do with bullying?



Don't remember these parts, so I'll reply after I've watched it again, whenever that is.



> Why focus on texts that he clearly does not understand



It's not about his understanding.



> and why not focus on the Golden Rule?



Because that isn't used as a justification to bully people.



> In fact it is Savage who is clearly cherry picking and focusing on parts of the Bible he does not like in an effort to discredit it in its totality.



Except he_ didn't._

*Savage:* Ignore the _bullshit_ in the bible.

He didn't say ignore it as a whole, he said, ignore the bullshit parts. And then went on the explain which parts he thinks are bullshit, condoning slavery, encouraging murder, promoting bigotry.



> You're not objective at all, because if you could see anything from another perspective you'd join with Borel and Freedan (both are not Christians) and oppose this nonsense, not because it is against Christianity but because it really has nothing to do with bullying and doesn't help the message Savage was supposed to convey.
> 
> If you had a shred of objectivity you'd see this for what it is: a gratuitous shot at religion to an audience that was obviously unprepared for the attack.  Logically you can rephrase Savage's point as this:
> 
> ...



Since you're just making things up, I'm not going to bother with this.


----------



## neodragzero (May 8, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Actually Savage would have to prove that.  He's the one who made the original claim.  I simply accepted his assertion.



You probably didn't even watch the video if that's your serious response. He made no claim about the audience. He never directly referred to the audience as the people he specifies that misuse the bible nor did he suggest they treat the entire bible as the literal word of God. Only you did for the latter.


> The belief system believes that the book in its totality is holy and sacred, so attacking part is attacking the whole.


And once again, you're suggesting that the belief system truly believes and practices all things in the book as far as population thought goes. I'm afraid that's not the case when so much of what Dan Savage cited is illegal.


> Odd argument.  Are you saying that you reject Savage's claim?  (Hint: he's the one who claimed these people were leaving because of his Bible bashing.)


No, it's odd you're acting as if it was given information that the people who walked out literally treat the Bible as the word of god and somehow thus accept its entirety when you have no basis to suggest that's the case.


> True.  But if I were giving a speech on something completely unrelated to that point I wouldn't speak on that issue.  There are many things we all agree/disagree with, but when giving a speech you ought to focus like a lazer on your point (particularly when approaching an audience that isn't familiar with you or doesn't know the general direction of your speech).


Besides the fact that bringing up one of the hypocrisies that people use to discriminate is quite within the topic of his speech, you're once again insinuating you know that the audience isn't familiar with Dan Savage nor the general direction he may go. You're acting like you completely are aware of the entire thoughts of a minority while at the same time seem to think a minority portion leaving the room somehow negates the fact that the majority of the audience knew better when it comes to being a journalist. It would be like claiming that a speech that's disliked by Glenn Beck means it should of be altered when a mass majority of civil society news coverage would beg to differ.


> I don't mind Christianity being attacked - when it's attacked Christians can defend it.  I mind it being attacked as the cause for bullying *when there is absolutely nothing tying it to bullying.*


In other words, ignore reality.


> The different points of view on the Bible are irrelevant to this discussion.  And it doesn't even further your point.


...Learn to read better. It's relevant that a bigot uses a passage from a section of a book while utterly ignoring other parts of it. At least know what the conversation is even about.


> If they were supposed to report on this speech then yes, I agree on this point.  But I think that more than just journalists left this speech.



...It's a conference for youth aspiring to be journalist. Baconbits, at least know what your'e talking about before taking part in a discussion.


> No, you called them ignorant independent of your particular argument, which is an unfounded assertion simply based on the fact you disagree with them.


No, I'm pretty sure I was responding to a generality you made about how a minority of the audience somehow means a speech should be changed when the majority is shown to still attend. I didn't directly call them ignorant. You're the one on the multiple keeps suggesting you know the complete thoughts of the people who left.


> Secondly, realize that a speech is an attempt to influence the audience.  When part of the audience leaves before you even get to the main points of your talk you can't influence them.


I'm pretty sure the main point was clear from the beginning of that speech section in itself. You're still suggesting automatic benevolence for a minority part of the audience leaving simply at the fault of the speech maker rather than the audience. I would say things go both ways on this while you seem to think only one side is at fault. Then again, you don't seem to know much about the situation at all no matter the insinuations you have made.


> I don't even understand your first sentence.


You made a false claim about what Dan Savage said as you continue to ignore reality. Then again, you argue like a person who doesn't seem to have even watched the video.


> Claiming I'm misrepresenting arguments without detailing which ones and how I did so is ridiculous.



You dumbed down one side of this conversation as simply either thinking Christians should be attacked, an utterly non-nuanced some gay children get attacked by Christians, and Christians are stupid. I'm pretty sure that ignores arguing that Dan Savage specified how a certain group of people who make up a part of a belief system's population and use the bible for their bigotry with Savage being very specific in his speech rather than ever suggesting he was attacking all of Christendom. That dear sir just makes it all the more obvious that your word on what others' say is pretty slim to nil in deserving respect and consideration.


----------



## baconbits (May 8, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Claims like this are just plain ridiculous. We've had people go back and forth and commit wars for centuries over stuff like this, how is his interpretation any more or less valid than yours? At least he's taking the actual passages into account rather than acting like they don't exist all together.



Because he takes individual passages and does not interpret them with the context or the entirety of biblical thought in mind.  Whether or not people have fought wars over this stuff is irrrelvant to this discussion.



Seto Kaiba said:


> No it isn't. That's just plain delusional and intentionally ignoring the clear points made in defense of Savage's words on the Bible in this thread. You're deliberately mischaracterizing the entire exchange to make it as if Christianity is the victim here.



You've made a very generalized attack.  Give me specifics of where I've gone wrong and I'll challenge your assertion.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Many sects of Christianity advocate attacks on homosexuals.



Really?  I don't know of any mainstream sects that do.  Catholics don't, Lutherans don't, Baptists don't, Fundamentalists don't, Pentecostals don't...

Evidence please.



Seto Kaiba said:


> The Bible itself advocates the persecution and execution of homosexuals. Religion, and in this country, Christianity in particular is at the root of many people's homophobic views.



Being against homosexuality does not equal encouraging kids to bully gays.  Also, you fail to address this simple but important point: how much of bullying is addressed towards gays?  At my school we didn't have anyone who was openly gay but we still had bullying.  In my brother's school there were tons of gay kids, but many kids tried to bully him (new kid).  How much of that is explained by kids putting the Bible into practice?


----------



## baconbits (May 8, 2012)

Nihonjin said:


> Bacon, you are avoiding the question. So I'll ask again.
> 
> Do you believe the people that walked out (and everyone criticizing him, including you) are in favor of stoning unruly children, killing women that aren't virgins on their wedding day and killing those that work on the sabbath?



The question is silly.  If these kids believe the bible in its totality any attack on the bible is an attack on their views.  Characterize the Bible as you will.



Nihonjin said:


> It was wrong, but understandable. It was in reaction to their retarded first move.



Their move cannot have been the first move, since they were reacting to words he said.



Nihonjin said:


> This pretty much proves you can't listen to criticism objectively when it comes to your bible. Because I don't think anybody here got that idea.



Then why else spend a portion of the speech addressing it?  I was mocking the speech because it addresses a portion of bullying that, even if we accept your premise, isn't even close to being significant.



Nihonjin said:


> All he said is that there are people who look at those passages and (subconsciously) use them to justify the mistreatment of gay people. It's not just the ones doing the beating, but also the bystanders that somehow think it's acceptable or at least understandable.



Then the people who use those passages to justify bullying are idiots.  Their idiocy has nothing to do with the text.



Nihonjin said:


> Walking out wasn't the high road. It was the indoctrinated one.



I didn't say it was.  I meant that the highroad was sitting through the speech.



Nihonjin said:


> Until you actually answer my first question, there's no point in arguing any further about this.



How does that follow?



Nihonjin said:


> It shows that nobody finds the whole book sacred, just the parts they picked. It's entirely relevant.



Many find the whole book sacred.  Many theologians and many philosphers do.  I find the Bible sacred in its totality, but the views of these kids is only somewhat relevant.

What different views are on the bible really don't matter.



Nihonjin said:


> You might want to look at the video again Bacon, through an objective lens this time. Because he didn't come close to what you're suggesting.



Actually he did.  Read the transcript.



Nihonjin said:


> Gingrich is against gay people. I'm quite sure he thinks they're doing wrong in the eyes of his God and wants to take their rights away (like everyone else in the republican party). This is purely because of what it says in the bible.



Lol.  I hate being in the position of defending Gingrich because I can't stand him but that isn't a correct description of his views.  He stands against gay marriage.  I myself disagree with homosexuality, but I don't want to take anyone's rights away.

In most states gays can't marry so there isn't anything to take away.



Nihonjin said:


> Yet, his wife, who wasn't a virgin on her wedding day, still walks the earth. If he was consistent in following the bible, he would have stoned her on his wedding day.



That shows you don't know the context of that verse.



Nihonjin said:


> He was pointing out the blatant hypocrisy. Which is something you should have easily picked up on had you been objective.



If you were objective you'd sense the gratuituous nature of the attack since the Gingrichs would probably tell any bully to knock it off if they saw them acting out of line.



Nihonjin said:


> Don't remember these parts, so I'll reply after I've watched it again, whenever that is.



Read the transcripts.



Nihonjin said:


> It's not about his understanding.



Actually it is because the part about a girl who isn't a virgin being stoned is completely false no matter how you wish to interpret the passage.



Nihonjin said:


> Because that isn't used as a justification to bully people.



No, its because if people followed this verse they wouldn't be bullying people.  Also if he looked at that verse he wouldn't have a basis to launch random attacks on Christianity.



Nihonjin said:


> Except he_ didn't._
> 
> *Savage:* Ignore the _bullshit_ in the bible.
> 
> He didn't say ignore it as a whole, he said, ignore the bullshit parts. And then went on the explain which parts he thinks are bullshit, condoning slavery, encouraging murder, promoting bigotry.



He also talked about Philemon and Timothy, which do not even address homosexuality and don't fit the narrative he was trying to create.



Nihonjin said:


> Since you're just making things up, I'm not going to bother with this.



Don't pull a Vynjira on me, man.  That was all legitimate.



> You're not objective at all, because if you could see anything from another perspective you'd join with Borel and Freedan (both are not Christians) and oppose this nonsense, not because it is against Christianity but because it really has nothing to do with bullying and doesn't help the message Savage was supposed to convey.
> 
> If you had a shred of objectivity you'd see this for what it is: a gratuitous shot at religion to an audience that was obviously unprepared for the attack. Logically you can rephrase Savage's point as this:
> 
> ...



There's nothing wrong with what I wrote above.


----------



## Petes12 (May 8, 2012)

itt: baconbigot logic


----------



## Narcissus (May 10, 2012)

baconbits said:


> So what.  People use evolution to justify racism.  That doesn't mean I should go and decry evolutionists everytime I see something racist happens.  I should decry racism if I want to solve racism, much as Savage should have decried bullying if he wanted to solve bullying.


The comparison to people using evolution is an Assocation Fallacy. The only connection is the people involved. Evolution does not dictate how people should live their lives or what morals to abide by. Religion *DIRECTLY* tells people how to live and what to believe, hence the significant difference in your comparison.

So while you wouldn't be justified in attacking evolution (which also has more supporting evidence than religion), Savage was justified in what he said.


> True, it has.  That doesn't mean that a speech on bullying needs to include attacks on Christianity.


Because you say so? or because you just don't like it?

Savage was specifically talking about the bullying of homosexuals, which the Bible condemns. He said we can learn to ignore its bullshit regarding this, because those passages are used to justify discrimination and bigotry. It has relevancy to his anti-bullying speech.


> Irrelevant.  I could pack an audience with radicals then make a speech screaming about how all gay people are a bunch of abominations going straight to hell.  The audience will then applaud as a few people leave.  I suppose the message will then receive your commendation.



Savage's audience was mostly Christians
His message was honest; your example isn't

The situation you invented is different from what happened.

Besides which, this wasn't your original point. You said he "turned the audience off." That was a blatant lie. He only "turned off" *PART* of the audience.

And in your situation you would actually deserve the condemnation. Savage attacked a part of a book. You're attacking a group of people.



Eli said:


> Yes my opinion, aggressive style in public speaking is not the most effective. I'm entitled to that opinion and I at least, am not trying to throw my opinion as a fact.


Yes, you're entitled to your opinion. But it has no place in a formal argument.


> The gathering was not mandatory by the schools, they came out of their own free choice, so to some degree they cared about what his message what he wanted to say. That aside, does that excuse his behavior as an anti-bullying activist? He even admits and apologizes for the name calling. You're not really helping.


Coming to listen doesn't mean they were open to accepting his message. That's a presupposition on you're part. 


> ad ignorantiam much ? It's an opinion on public speaking, you dont have to ne entitled to it.


Yes, all you've offered is your opinion, and done a poor job defending it.


> You are going to win less supporters by being aggressive, so what's better ? Majority of the audience liked what he did therefore must be right, doesn't this sound like ad populum?


Actually, this is a straw man. I never said he was right because most of the people applauded what he said. It was to refute the notion that he had offended the audience in general, and to show why style over substance is fallacious. There were people willing to listen to him despite his aggressive manner. 


> Yes the truth is nice.


Yes it is, so I'll accept your concession  that even if he was nicer not everyone would've agreed.


> argument by dismissal you won't even consider their feelings or the type of environment they were in.


Argument by dismissal would require that I don't explain *WHY* I don't accept their feelings. I have explained why.


> No, I didn't try to make up excuses,  *I stopped to reconsider and thought about possibilities* , you on the other hand are completely ignoring them.


Exactly. You thought about possibilities that have no support, only your say-so, which holds no weight.


> Appealing to authority ?


You've embarrassed yourself enough already by demonstrating that you don't know how to properly implement fallacies. Until you learn how they work, it'd be a good idea to stop.


> Christophers context is not the same as this matter. I'm criticizing Savages attitude and the way he presented himself as a public speaker. Savages job is to reach out to kids since he is an anti-bullying activist, if he wants to appeal to them, ridicule hatred and contempt are not really effective.


It is impossible for him to reach every single person, which is why your criticism fails. There are many styles of criticism, and Savage chose an aggressive one. It was mostly effective on his audience.

It is not always right to compromise your message or the way you present it just because someone may be offended.


> It also shows that the Day of Silence are very qualified to work with teenagers, they have gained many christian supporters without the need of aggravation.


And it in no way shows that Savage isn't qualified.


> Whatever man, while I'm criticizing his style of being an anti-bullying activist dealing with bunch of immature high schoolers you keep coming back to the bible, Chris and religion. *Bible justifies what Savage said yes*


Oh look, you finally got it!


> but not in that atmosphere, as a an anti bullying activist you would want to reach out to as many as possible not push them away with that attitude.


Good for your opinion, but it stops there. You're never going to reach everyone, and he did reach as many as he could. Sometimes criticism has to be harsh, an he was justified in it being harsh, despite the few people he offended.


> so stooping to their level is the logical thing to do.


Except he isn't stooping to their level. He isn't screaming about how people will burn in Hell, or saying things that would make people even contemplate suicide.

What he said isn't anywhere near as bad as people are trying to make it seem.


----------



## Vynjira (May 10, 2012)

It's somehow possible to hate the sin and not the sinner, but impossible to criticize the belief and not the believer.


----------



## Bishop (May 10, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> It's somehow possible to hate the sin and not the sinner, but impossible to criticize the belief and not the believer.



No, criticize all you want, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.


----------



## Vynjira (May 10, 2012)

Bishop said:


> No, criticize all you want, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.


Which is why baconbits and Eli keep trying to claim that Dan Savage was attacking Christians and Christianity as a whole?

Instead of specific beliefs that he finds as bullshit, that we can ignore.

Keep in mind, one of your friends claimed that you cannot attack just part of the Bible without attacking every believer.


----------



## Bishop (May 10, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> Which is why baconbits and Eli keep trying to claim that Dan Savage was attacking Christians and Christianity as a whole?
> 
> Instead of specific beliefs that he finds as bullshit, that we can ignore.
> 
> Keep in mind, one of your friends claimed that you cannot attack just part of the Bible without attacking every believer.



One of my friends? Really now? 

I believe they are arguing that he was rude.

Plus, Dan Savage apologized for bullying and clarified somethings: 

He is also facing charges, but they will probably be dropped.


----------



## Vynjira (May 10, 2012)

I'm not even sure how to respond, because you immediately switched the scope of my criticism.

I didn't say anything about their argument that he was rude, I was criticizing their attempts to misrepresent what he said as an attack on all Christians. Which numerous people have done throughout this thread.

So why are you deflecting that criticism?

Also what does it matter that he's facing charges that won't stick. (you said will be dropped, which is true but misleading... because they don't have a case)


----------



## Bishop (May 10, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> I'm not even sure how to respond, because you immediately switched the scope of my criticism.
> 
> I didn't say anything about their argument that he was rude, I was criticizing their attempts to misrepresent what he said as an attack on all Christians. Which numerous people have done throughout this thread.
> 
> ...



Calm down, no one's switching anything. I am saying, I believe they were arguing that he was being rude, rather than the criticism itself. You've been in the thick of it more than I, so you may know more.

As for deflecting, I think you are assuming, I have nothing to deflect; you have the right to criticize whatever you want, just saying I think they were arguing him being rude.

The charges was extra info geared towards regular post readers, not at you to defend. As for don't have a case, I think the article says they do, I just don't think it'll stick. 

To clear it up, you have the freedom to criticize whatever you want, and don't let anyone tell you any different.


----------



## Vynjira (May 10, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Calm down, no one's switching anything. I am saying, I believe they were arguing that he was being rude, rather than the criticism itself. You've been in the thick of it more than I, so you may know more.


Calm down what? What did I say that implies I need to calm down?





> As for deflecting, I think you are assuming, I have nothing to deflect; you have the right to criticize whatever you want, just saying I think they were arguing him being rude.


If you claim not to know, what they've been arguing about in the past couple of pages *OTHER* than this single issue of him being rude. Then why are you trying to defend what they said?





> The charges was extra info geared towards regular post readers, not at you to defend. As for don't have a case, I think the article says they do, I just don't think it'll stick.


First off, think? How bout checking what the Article says or at least linking to it if you're unsure.

What you linked did not mention anything about Dan Savage being charged (in any legal sense at all) which is what you'd be talking about if you're saying the article said they do have a case.


----------



## Narcissus (May 10, 2012)

Bishop said:


> I am saying, I believe they were arguing that he was being rude, rather than the criticism itself.



Even if this was the case, it would still be blatantly dishonest. Harsh criticism is not tantamount to being rude, and it is sometimes necessary. In the case of the Bible, people use it to bully the gay community which results in suicide.

Dan Savage was not being rude, and he was not bullying. Rather, people are desperately attempting to distort what he said into an attack on Christianity.


----------



## Bishop (May 10, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> Even if this was the case, it would still be blatantly dishonest. Harsh criticism is not tantamount to being rude, and it is sometimes necessary. In the case of the Bible, people use it to bully the gay community which results in suicide.
> 
> Dan Savage was not being rude, and he was not bullying. Rather, people are desperately attempting to distort what he said into an attack on Christianity.



I can see your point, but rudeness _is _an opinion after all. The school where he gave the speech believed it to be rude as well as the National Scholastic Press Association and Journalism Education Association, which is why he apologized (probably more so _encouraged_).

As for using the Bible, true; though there are many people who are not Christian nor Religious who thrash gays, Christians in American tend to be the most vocal, which is probably because most Religious people in America tend to be Christian. Doesn't make it right, but it seems that will change anyway.


----------



## Vynjira (May 10, 2012)

Bishop said:


> As for using the Bible, true; though there are many people who are not Christian nor Religious who thrash gays,


He didn't say they were, nor did he say all Christians.. and he only spent 3 mins on Christians who use the Bible as an excuse specifically. (which would have been shorter had people not turned it into something bigger than it was) Had they not walked out, he would have been able to move on quicker to rest of what he planned to say.


----------



## Bishop (May 10, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> He didn't say they were, nor did he say all Christians.. and he only spent 3 mins on Christians who use the Bible as an excuse specifically. (which would have been shorter had people not turned it into something bigger than it was) Had they not walked out, he would have been able to move on quicker to rest of what he planned to say.



I was not talking to you Vynjira. If you read the post I was talking to Narc about  people using the Bible. You act like an attention whore sometimes who wants to draw up an argument. Sheesh.


----------



## Vynjira (May 10, 2012)

Bishop said:


> I was not talking to you Vynjira. If you read the post I was talking to Narc about  people using the Bible. You act like an attention whore sometimes who wants to draw up an argument. Sheesh.


..and I wasn't talking to you before, yet that didn't stop you?

I love your double standards. I've noticed you don't like being called on your bullshit. Perhaps, that should be the way I respond to people from now on.


----------



## Narcissus (May 10, 2012)

Bishop said:


> I can see your point, but rudeness _is _an opinion after all. The school where he gave the speech believed it to be rude as well as the National Scholastic Press Association and Journalism Education Association, which is why he apologized (probably more so _encouraged_).


He apologized for the "pansy-ass" remark. And quite frankly I don't care who thought it was rude. I'm concerned with the content of what he said, and what he said was right.


> As for using the Bible, true; though there are many people who are not Christian nor Religious who thrash gays


Yes, but Christianity has a much more significant influence, which is another reason he was justified in bring it up.


Bishop said:


> I was not talking to you Vynjira. If you read the post I was talking to Narc about  people using the Bible. You act like an attention whore sometimes who wants to draw up an argument. Sheesh.


I can say that I have no problem with her stepping in. The point of this forum is for discussion. If you don't like the chance of someone else responding, then it's best you don't bother posting in the first place. Especially in a debating section.


----------



## Bishop (May 10, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> ..and I wasn't talking to you before, yet that didn't stop you?
> 
> I love your double standards. I've noticed you don't like being called on your bullshit. Perhaps, that should be the way I respond to people from now on.


Double standards nothing, I was replying about a quote from Narc and you changed to Savage. If you want to reply, just stay within relevance of the post.



Narcissus said:


> He apologized for the "pansy-ass" remark. And quite frankly I don't care who thought it was rude. I'm concerned with the content of what he said, and what he said was right.



Ok, you can say that, it was the school who thought it was rude. It was the pansy-ass that I meant was rude.



> Yes, but Christianity has a much more significant influence, which is another reason he was justified in bring it up.


It doesn't matter what influence Christianity had, he has the right to bring it up no matter what. He was there to get a point across, he simply erred a little bit. No more, no less.



> I can say that I have no problem with her stepping in. The point of this forum is for discussion. If you don't like the chance of someone else responding, then it's best you don't bother posting in the first place. Especially in a debating section.


I have no problem, it's misleading a post, I was talking about X and she directed it to Y.

I had no idea this was the debate section. I thought the Debate Corner was the debate section and this was the News section.


----------



## Vynjira (May 10, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Double standards nothing, I was replying about a quote from Narc and you changed to Savage. If you want to reply, just stay within relevance of the post.


That's funny because Narc was talking about Dan Savage.. more interesting because by saying that you were talking about Narc, you're implying that Narc said only Christians thrash gays.

You've got some serious issues.
(Oh no! I'm assuming something I can't possibly know again)


----------



## Narcissus (May 10, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Ok, you can say that, it was the school who thought it was rude. It was the pansy-ass that I meant was rude.


I didn't even see it as an insult, as he was referring to the reaction when he made the comment.


> It doesn't matter what influence Christianity had,


*Yes it really does...*

When you have parents trying to exorcise the gay out of their children, or brainwash them in some other way, it really does matter.


> he has the right to bring it up no matter what.


Tell that to baconbits and anyone else who claimed the religion has nothing to do with bullying.


> He was there to get a point across, he simply erred a little bit. No more, no less.


And how exactly did he err?


> I have no problem,


Then you wouldn't have said nonsense like "I wasn't talking to you!"


> I had no idea this was the debate section. I thought the Debate Corner was the debate section and this was the News section.


Please, don't bother with semantics. The very nature of a News section is going to inspire debate. It's common in this section.


----------



## Vynjira (May 10, 2012)

Or when you have Christians passing laws, that allow bullying so long as there is a religious basis for it...


----------



## Spock (May 10, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> Coming to listen doesn't mean they were open to accepting his message. That's a presupposition on you're part.


I never said they would accept him on open arms, I said that they came out of their own choice which mean they cared about what that person had to say, and who knows, if he had been smooth public speak this whole thing would not have happened and he wouldn't have to apologize for that insult.




> Yes, all you've offered is your opinion, and done a poor job defending it.


Criticizing his aggressive attitude while delivering an important message such anti bullying to bunch of high schoolers and suggesting that he should have been more civil to the same kids he was trying to reach out to is hardy a poor opinion compared to what you've been saying which is "he was being honest and it didn't matter even if he was nice" .



> Actually, this is a straw man. I never said he was right because most of the people applauded what he said. It was to refute the notion that he had offended the audience in general, and to show why style over substance is fallacious. There were people willing to listen to him despite his aggressive manner.



Actually, this is funny, because I've been careful to say "portion of his audience" the whole time and I've been careful to remind you of the Christian students that stayed. I never claimed that he offended his audience in general, wth.



> Yes it is, so I'll accept your _concession_  that even if he was nicer not everyone would've agreed.


So this is all an ego-feed argument ?  
I don't expect 100% support but I also don't want a *portion of my target audience* to walk out on me because of my way of public speaking.



> Argument by dismissal would require that I don't explain *WHY* I don't accept their feelings. I have explained why.


No, you expressed that because of what he said was right and honest, it's alright not to pay attention to how they might have felt. That's hardly a proper explanation. 


> Exactly. You thought about possibilities that have no support, only your say-so, which holds no weight.


You on the other hand refuse to consider the possibilities because of a blatant bias.



> You've embarrassed yourself enough already by demonstrating that you don't know how to properly implement fallacies. Until you learn how they work, it'd be a good idea to stop.
> It is impossible for him to reach every single person, which is why your criticism fails. There are many styles of criticism, and Savage chose an aggressive one. It was mostly effective on his audience.


Get to the point,
I have never made that claim, I said that being civil with your approach and having thoughtful tactics would gain you more supporters. On top of that claiming to be an anti-bullying activist while being harsh with your speaking methods is not effective and ut shows when a portion of your target audience walk out in the middle of your speech 



> It is not always right to compromise your message or the way you present it just because someone may be offended


.
Sure, but it's always right to be more sophisticated with your style and wording. Considering the type of environment he was surrounded by, extra sophisticated should be kept in mind.



> And it in no way shows that Savage isn't qualified


.
It is a comparison of two anti-bullying campaigns with the same goal. It shows that the DoS know how to handle these type of stuff and how they carefully consider who they are dealing with in order not to push them away. Savage on the other hand turned a portion of his target audience off. Compared to them, he is unqualified. 



> Oh look, you finally got it!


I never denied it in the first place, you just keep on implying it all the time.



> Good for your opinion, but it stops there. You're never going to reach everyone, and he did reach as many as he could. Sometimes criticism has to be harsh, an he was justified in it being harsh, despite the few people he offended.


No you are not, but you also shouldn't make part of your target audience leave because of your aggressive attitude and pushy style of speaking, especially when you are an anti-bullying activist. 



> Except he isn't stooping to their level. He isn't screaming about how people will burn in Hell, or saying things that would make people even contemplate suicide.


He admits to it being name calling, no matter how light it seems in comparison a name calling is a name calling. 



> What he said isn't anywhere near as bad as people are trying to make it seem


He is an anti bullying activist, these type of "scandals"  or gossip if you may, shouldn't even be associated with him. 




Vynjira said:


> Which is why baconbits and Eli keep trying to claim that Dan Savage was attacking Christians and Christianity as a whole?
> 
> .



The hell? All I'm critizing his attitude and methods as a public speaker and an anti-bullying activist, I've never stood for Christianity.


----------



## Vynjira (May 10, 2012)

Eli said:


> The hell? All I'm critizing his attitude and methods as a public speaker and an anti-bullying activist, I've never stood for Christianity.


..and you keep distorting what he said, and equating it to what he's fighting against.

You asserted several times that he was bullying these Christians and then called him a Hypocrite for it.


----------



## Spock (May 10, 2012)

Eh no, 
He says he is an anti bullying activist, yet he demonstrate it quite the show . That's all I'm saying .


----------



## Vynjira (May 10, 2012)

Eli said:


> Eh no,
> He says he is an anti bullying activist, *yet he demonstrate it quite the show* . That's all I'm saying .


English please... (no, I'm not attacking you. I just have no clue what the hell you meant to write there)

I know what you're saying, you're saying that he bullied Christians and claims to be Anti-Bullying. You also mocked that as long as we're bullying Christians no one cares. You also implied that calling those kids pansy-assed, was somehow equivalent to bullying. Which it isn't, which makes your claim that he's a hypocrite false, and your accusation that no one cares if Christians are being bullied, an obvious farce.

If he was mocking them for being Christian, then you might have an actual point.


----------



## Spock (May 10, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> English please... (no, I'm not attacking you. I just have no clue what the hell you meant to write there)
> 
> I know what you're saying, you're saying that he bullied Christians and claims to be Anti-Bullying. You also mocked that as long as we're bullying Christians no one cares. You also implied that calling those kids pansy-assed, was somehow equivalent to bullying. Which it isn't, which makes your claim that he's a hypocrite false, and your accusation that no one cares if Christians are being bullied, an obvious farce.



Please excuse my writing I hope that typo didn't  upset you much.

Hmm I'm not the only one who compared the pansy ass comment to bullying, Savage himself admits to it being name calling in his column.

Didn't you tell me that it was fine by you to call those kids pansy asses few pages back ?


----------



## Vynjira (May 10, 2012)

Eli said:


> Please excuse my writing I hope that typo didn't  upset you much.


 No, it just doesn't help me understand what you were trying to say.





> Hmm I'm not the only one who compared the pansy ass comment to bullying, Savage himself admits to it being name calling in his column.


I know you're not the only one who did. You're not the only one I called out on it and everyone else who claimed it was bullying, and said Dan Savage is a Hypocrite is flat out wrong. They're equivocating name-calling (ad-hominem) to the bullying that he opposes.

The fact you can't see the difference between verbally abusing someone on a daily basis, harassment to the point of suicide or dragging someone across a parking lot by a truck with a noose around the neck, is flat out disgusting and as I said an obviously dishonest.





> Didn't you tell me that it was fine by you to call those kids pansy asses few pages back ?


I said I don't disagree, if you want to call them pansy asses.
(or indeed if he wants to call them pansy asses)

..but I'll drop the neutral pretense and flat out assert that what they did was cowardly.



I wrote this as an EDIT: "If he was mocking them for being Christian, then you might have an actual point."


----------



## Narcissus (May 10, 2012)

Eli said:


> I never said they would accept him on open arms, I said that they came out of their own choice which mean they cared about what that person had to say, and who knows, if he had been smooth public speak this whole thing would not have happened and he wouldn't have to apologize for that insult.


I'm not interested in your presuppositions. As you said, stick with what happened. And his apologizing has nothing to do with them choosing to come there.


> Criticizing his aggressive attitude while delivering an important message such anti bullying to bunch of high schoolers and suggesting that he should have been more civil to the same kids he was trying to reach out to is hardy a poor opinion compared to what you've been saying which is "he was being honest and it didn't matter even if he was nice" .


Yes, it really is, because it ignores the content of his message, which is what's important.


> Actually, this is funny, because I've been careful to say "portion of his audience" the whole time and I've been careful to remind you of the Christian students that stayed. I never claimed that he offended his audience in general, wth.




I said to refute *THE NOTION* that he had offended the audience. Not your particular claim.

So yes, you are still guilty of the fallacy (and apparently of poor reading comprehension).


> So this is all an ego-feed argument ?
> I don't expect 100% support but I also don't want a *portion of my target audience* to walk out on me because of my way of public speaking.


It wasn't ego-feed, you agreed with the point. 


> No, you expressed that because of what he said was right and honest, it's alright not to pay attention to how they might have felt. That's hardly a proper explanation.


It might not satisfy you, but it doesn't have to. It is a proper explanation also because I pointed out the fallacies on your side of the argument.

So it was an improper use of the argument by dismissal fallacy on your part.


> You on the other hand refuse to consider the possibilities because of a blatant bias.


Appeal to motive fallacy.


> Get to the point,
> I have never made that claim, I said that being civil with your approach and having thoughtful tactics would gain you more supporters. On top of that claiming to be an anti-bullying activist while being harsh with your speaking methods is not effective and ut shows when a portion of your target audience walk out in the middle of your speech


That's your opinion about how he should have given the speech. Good for you. But a small portion of his audience walking out because he was offended does not mean he is not qualified to be an anti-bully activist. Some things require harsh criticism.


> Sure, but it's always right to be more sophisticated with your style and wording. Considering the type of environment he was surrounded by, extra sophisticated should be kept in mind.


You have no authority to decide what style is always right to use.


> It is a comparison of two anti-bullying campaigns with the same goal. It shows that the DoS know how to handle these type of stuff and how they carefully consider who they are dealing with in order not to push them away. Savage on the other hand turned a portion of his target audience off. Compared to them, he is unqualified.


At first, you said he was unqualified. Now you're saying "compared to them" he is unqualified...

Two things using different tactics to reach the same goal doesn't mean one is unqualified if it does better. Savage didn't fail, and has other accomplishments, so no, he is not unqualified.


> I never denied it in the first place, you just keep on implying it all the time.


You're sitting here saying that Savage's style was wrong, and I'm saying what the Bible says justified his harsh criticism...

Clearly we were on different pages concerning this.


> No you are not, but you also shouldn't make part of your target audience leave because of your aggressive attitude and pushy style of speaking, especially when you are an anti-bullying activist.


He didn't "make" anyone leave. They chose to leave themselves. He called a specific portion of the Bible bullshit, which it is, and they were already getting up and walking out. He didn't do anything wrong here.


> He admits to it being name calling, no matter how light it seems in comparison a name calling is a name calling.


Your claim was that he was stooping to their level. He was not. His comment is mild in comparison to what many Christians say.


> He is an anti bullying activist, these type of "scandals"  or gossip if you may, shouldn't even be associated with him.


Because he is expected to be perfect? 

He is free to criticize the Bible however harshly he wants. Of course he would draw fire for it, but he was honest, and he shouldn't have to back down because of some negative reactions.


----------



## Spock (May 11, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> No, it just doesn't help me understand what you were trying to say.I know you're not the only one who did. You're not the only one I called out on it and everyone else who claimed it was bullying, and said Dan Savage is a Hypocrite is flat out wrong. They're equivocating name-calling (ad-hominem) to the bullying that he opposes.




I was not referring to the other members I was referring to Savage himself admitting that it was name calling and name calling is considered bullying no matter how light it may seem.



> The fact you can't see the difference between verbally abusing someone on a daily basis, harassment to the point of suicide or dragging someone across a parking lot by a truck with a noose around the neck, is flat out disgusting and as I said an obviously dishonest.I said I don't disagree, if you want to call them pansy asses.
> (or indeed if he wants to call them pansy asses)
> 
> ..but I'll drop the neutral pretense and flat out assert that what they did was cowardly.


What a pro, stop trying to gain sympathies by putting words into my mouth. I don't think that calling someone's actions pansy assed the same as dragging someone across a parking lot by a truck with a noose around the neck, however I think it was rude besides, that comment is already defined as name calling, I'm not the one who makes the rules here. 





> I wrote this as an EDIT: "If he was mocking them for being Christian, then you might have an actual point."


I was critisizing his style of approach .




Narcissus said:


> I'm not interested in your presuppositions. As you said, stick with what happened. And his apologizing has nothing to do with them choosing to come there.


It is not an inappropriate  presupposition and you know it. Him having  that kind of approach was a bad move . 



> Yes, it really is, because it ignores the content of his message, which is what's important.


See? By having an aggressive attitude people are bound to ignore the content of your message, I never disagreed with the content of his message in the first place, it is his way of presenting as an anti bullying activist that was of poor quality.





> I said to refute *THE NOTION* that he had offended the audience. Not your particular claim.


No one had the concept of him offending the entire audience to begin with.



> It wasn't ego-feed, you agreed with the point.


I never denied that point, stop making it sound like I ever did.



> It might not satisfy you, but it doesn't have to. It is a proper explanation also because I pointed out the fallacies on your side of the argument.
> 
> So it was an improper use of the argument by dismissal fallacy on your part.


No it wasn't, you dismissed their feelings because you liked what he said without having to think about the type of environment they were surrounded by.



> Appeal to motive fallacy.


Hardly, you quoted that religion should be dealt with ridicule, contempt and hatred because you agree with his message but you also disregard whatever way he delivers it, even if it was hostile. But him being anti bullying activist that shouldn't be.




> That's your opinion about how he should have given the speech. Good for you. But a small portion of his audience walking out because he was offended does not mean he is not qualified to be an anti-bully activist. Some things require harsh criticism.


Some things require sophistication and style as well.



> You have no authority to decide what style is always right to use.


Appeal to accomplishment. My credentials are worth nothing on the Internet.


> At first, you said he was unqualified. Now you're saying "compared to them" he is unqualified
> Two things using different tactics to reach the same goal doesn't mean one is unqualified if it does better. Savage didn't fail, and has other accomplishments, so no, he is not unqualified.


I'm showing you that you by being an anti bullying activist you should be as sophisticated as possible considering the subjects you are dealing with DoS receive worse opposition than Savage and they don't react as he does .


Alright, I'm willing to take back the "he is unqualified comment" for his other accomplishments no problem at all but that specific incident lacked proper qualification as an anti bullying activist.



> You're sitting here saying that Savage's style was wrong, and I'm saying what the Bible says justified his harsh criticism..
> 
> Clearly we were on different pages concerning this.


I didn't say he was wrong, I said his style and approach was wrong.



> He didn't "make" anyone leave. They chose to leave themselves. He called a specific portion of the Bible bullshit, which it is, and they were already getting up and walking out. He didn't do anything wrong here.


He turned them off with his wording, the very same people he wants to reach out to. They choose to leave because they felt attacked by a celebrity. The leave I'll admit wasn't the smartest of moves but it's understandable giving the fact that they were still high schoolers, something that you seems to be forgetting. 




> Your claim was that he was stooping to their level. He was not. His comment is mild in comparison to what many Christians say.


Because of every single harsh Christian who tormented gays with namecalling was in that crowd. His comment was name calling, mild or not it was wrong.




> Because he is expected to be perfect?


As an anti bullying activist, you are expected to be civil with his approach. No perfection required. But if you wanna admit that was a slip, fine by me.



> He is free to criticize the Bible however harshly he wants. Of course he would draw fire for it, but he was honest, and he shouldn't have to back down because of some negative reactions.


Of course he is free to do whatever he wants, I just don't think with that his campaign will be looking too bright with that type of approach, and as anti bullying activist, nonetheless.


----------



## TheSweetFleshofDeath (May 11, 2012)

People often associate many postive things with religion such as a stable home life, happiness in marriage ect...  In God particular I believe people associate him* with an aspect missing from their lives such as placing him in the postition a father, a mother, a friend, or perhaps a savior.  So there actions are understandable.  He is challenging the pillar of their lives.

On the other hand if you use that old catchphrase, "What would Jesus do?"  It certaintly wouldn't be going outside to bitch.  Instead, I think it would be taking an active role.  Understanding the problem, and why the Dan Savage attacked Christianity.  Shutting one's ears, and eyes only makes you blind and deaf.

It's seems that a lot of the hate towards gays stems, or is supported by religious dogma.  Is Dan to say that Christianity has had nothing to do with the persecution of gays?  Is he to pussyfoot around the issue?  No, he's attacking one of the fundamental roots of the problem.

And if you think, "oh, it religious persecutions of gays aren't that bad."  Well, America is tolerant compared to some countries in Europe.

*I use him, because masculine verbiage is classically associated with God.  Who knows it could be a giant asexual kangeroo.


----------



## Vynjira (May 11, 2012)

Eli said:


> I was not referring to the other members I was referring to Savage himself admitting that it was name calling and name calling is considered bullying no matter how light it may seem.


No, it fucking isn't. It's the way words are used, their context that give it meaning.

I'll try to explain it another way.. Putting your child in an Oven is clearly Child Abuse, spanking a Child is something people disagree on but a single slap on the ass that doesn't even leave a red mark is considerably different from the parent who ties their child in a garbage bag for the day.

In this specific instance it would be more like saying that it is hypocritical of someone against child abuse, to yell at a child for drinking and driving. The fact that the parent might apologize for yelling afterwards doesn't make them a hypocrite.





> What a pro, stop trying to gain sympathies by putting words into my mouth. I don't think that calling someone's actions pansy assed the same as dragging someone across a parking lot by a truck with a noose around the neck, however I think it was rude besides, that comment is already defined as name calling, I'm not the one who makes the rules here.


Name calling isn't equivalent to these behaviors, which is why you're wrong. You're using labels "that comment was already defined as name calling, I'm not the one who makes the rules here." to equivocate name calling to bullying and that equivocates calling someone a dumb-ass to the same actions of people who have dragged people by their trucks with a noose around their neck.

The "Bullying" against homosexuals often goes to an entirely different level, that should be considered criminal assault (and in other cases harassment). Instead they call it bullying and the homosexual is punished for being dragged across the parking lot by truck and noose. These behaviors is what he's against, and rightfully so.

You can say you didn't say they were equivalent all fucking day, but when you keep saying that what he did was name-calling and say that is no different from the bullying he claims to be against, you've just equated them. To make it seem as if he's hypocritical.





> I was critisizing his style of approach .


Which is a style over substance fallacy. Which people keep telling you.


----------



## Narcissus (May 11, 2012)

Eli said:


> It is not an inappropriate  presupposition and you know it. Him having  that kind of approach was a bad move .


It was an unfounded presupposition on your part. As for his approach, that's your opinion.





> See? By having an aggressive attitude people are bound to ignore the content of your message, I never disagreed with the content of his message in the first place, it is his way of presenting as an anti bullying activist that was of poor quality.


There is nothing to see except for what happened. The few who walked out were too thin-skinned to deal with the truth. They placed his style over his substance, so they're at fault, not him.





> No one had the concept of him offending the entire audience to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Either you haven't actually been reading what people write, or you're being intellectually dishonest. Either way, you're wrong, and I'm calling you out on it.





> I never denied that point, stop making it sound like I ever did.


The rest of your argument certainly says otherwise.





> No it wasn't, you dismissed their feelings because you liked what he said without having to think about the type of environment they were surrounded by.


Appeal to motive fallacy

You're also directly ignoring the actual reasoning I gave. Concession accepted.





> Hardly, you quoted that religion should be dealt with ridicule, contempt and hatred because you agree with his message but you also disregard whatever way he delivers it, even if it was hostile. But him being anti bullying activist that shouldn't be.


Nothing you've just said actually refutes that fact that you are guilty of a fallacy. His substance was what was important. And the last part is your opinion on how he should be. But when people are dying, harsh criticism becomes necessary from somewhere, because bullies will not all respond to the gentle approach.





> Some things require sophistication and style as well.


And there is plenty of it out there. This wasn't the style he chose, and there isn't anything wrong with that.





> Appeal to accomplishment. My credentials are worth nothing on the Internet.


Appeal to accomplishment requires I dismiss what you said on the basis that you have not accomplished anything on the level of the subject of your criticism (in this case, Savage). That was not my argument. I said that you do not have the authority to decide what style he should use, which I never based on your lack of accomplishments.





> I'm showing you that you by being an anti bullying activist you should be as sophisticated as possible considering the subjects you are dealing with DoS receive worse opposition than Savage and they don't react as he does .


And that approach works for them. But as I said, just because two are working towards the same goal, they don't have to use the same method.





> Alright, I'm willing to take back the "he is unqualified comment" for his other accomplishments no problem at all


And I accept.


> I didn't say he was wrong, I said his style and approach was wrong.


Try reading what you're quoting, because this is exactly what I said in the quoted context (about you claiming his style to be wrong). I then go on to say that his style was justified.





> He turned them off with his wording, the very same people he wants to reach out to. They choose to leave because they felt attacked by a celebrity. The leave I'll admit wasn't the smartest of moves but it's understandable giving the fact that they were still high schoolers, something that you seems to be forgetting.


A few of the people he was trying to reach out to. And they left because he attacked a portion of the Bible, not because he attacked them.





> Because of every single harsh Christian who tormented gays with namecalling was in that crowd. His comment was name calling, mild or not it was wrong.


I have said in this thread that the one thing he could be criticized for was the "pansy-ass" remark, and even then it is not the same level. He isn't making teens become depressed or commit suicide.

And the fact that he gave a real apology places him on a higher pedestal. Unlike the North Carolina preacher who told parents to punch the children for being gay, then tried to say he was joking...





> As an anti bullying activist, you are expected to be civil with his approach. No perfection required. But if you wanna admit that was a slip, fine by me.


His style wasn't a slip, just the one remark he apologized for. But civility doesn't always work.





> Of course he is free to do whatever he wants, I just don't think with that his campaign will be looking too bright with that type of approach, and as anti bullying activist, nonetheless.


Not interested in what you think about how his campaign will go. We're discussing the current issue, in which case, I am defending the style he used.


----------



## baconbits (May 11, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> You probably didn't even watch the video if that's your serious response.



I didn't - I read the transcript of the speech.



neodragzero said:


> He made no claim about the audience. He never directly referred to the audience as the people he specifies that misuse the bible nor did he suggest they treat the entire bible as the literal word of God. Only you did for the latter.



He insults Christianity and then insults those that walked out:



> It?s funny, as someone who?s on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy-assed some people react when you push back.





neodragzero said:


> And once again, you're suggesting that the belief system truly believes and practices all things in the book as far as population thought goes. I'm afraid that's not the case when so much of what Dan Savage cited is illegal.



You've added in the word "practices" in an attempt to legitimize your bad argument.  All I've said is that they believe in the entirety of the bible.  Many people do.



neodragzero said:


> No, it's odd you're acting as if it was given information that the people who walked out literally treat the Bible as the word of god and somehow thus accept its entirety when you have no basis to suggest that's the case.



Actually I do.  The students took his speech as an attack on the bible as a whole:

?The first thing he told the audience was, ?I hope you?re all using birth control,?? she told CitizenLink. ?he said there are people using the Bible as an excuse for gay bullying, because it says in Leviticus and Romans that being gay is wrong. Right after that, he said we can ignore all the (expletive deleted) in the Bible.?

And Savage seemed to generalize his comments and said they were on the Bible as a whole:



> "The Bible, we?ll just talk about the Bible for a second ah."





> We ignore bullshit in the Bible about all sorts of things.





> ?You can tell the Bible guys in the hall they can come back now because I?m done beating up the Bible,?



Since both those offended and Savage treat the Bible as a whole, why do you object to me doing so?



neodragzero said:


> Besides the fact that bringing up one of the hypocrisies that people use to discriminate is quite within the topic of his speech, you're once again insinuating you know that the audience isn't familiar with Dan Savage nor the general direction he may go.



They weren't:



> Tuttle said that he ?felt duped? by the event. ?There were Christian schools who went to the conference. To have this happen was disappointing and shocking.?
> 
> The NSPA said they should have done a better job preparing schools for what to expect.





neodragzero said:


> You're acting like you completely are aware of the entire thoughts of a minority while at the same time seem to think a minority portion leaving the room somehow negates the fact that the majority of the audience knew better when it comes to being a journalist. It would be like claiming that a speech that's disliked by Glenn Beck means it should of be altered when a mass majority of civil society news coverage would beg to differ.



I never claimed to know the mind of the minority - I read up and found out what most of them thought.  It's called research.

Secondly, I never claimed that they were good journalists.  I've already stated they should have taken the highroad and stayed and listened to that garbage speech - no one is hurt by hearing a terrible speech every now and then.

Thirdly, the fact that he was trying to teach them about bullying was underminded by the fact that he used bullying tactics and was so offensive that people tuned out his message.



neodragzero said:


> In other words, ignore reality.



When you can actually back up your assertions I'll counter this.



neodragzero said:


> ...Learn to read better. It's relevant that a bigot uses a passage from a section of a book while utterly ignoring other parts of it. At least know what the conversation is even about.



Lol.  And you're the one defending a bigot who takes sections out of a book that he doesn't understand and tries to use that to delegitimize the entirety of it.



neodragzero said:


> ...It's a conference for youth aspiring to be journalist. Baconbits, at least know what your'e talking about before taking part in a discussion.



In other words there were teachers and administrators there, too.  Learn to read ND.



neodragzero said:


> No, I'm pretty sure I was responding to a generality you made about how a minority of the audience somehow means a speech should be changed when the majority is shown to still attend. I didn't directly call them ignorant. You're the one on the multiple keeps suggesting you know the complete thoughts of the people who left.



Now you're backtracking.



neodragzero said:


> I'm pretty sure the main point was clear from the beginning of that speech section in itself.



It was: the Bible is BS.  It didn't say much about bullying.



neodragzero said:


> You're still suggesting automatic benevolence for a minority part of the audience leaving simply at the fault of the speech maker rather than the audience.



If I say something offensive and the worst that happens is that people walk away from me I'd expect most onlookers to think I was the only one at fault.  All the audience did was leave.



neodragzero said:


> I would say things go both ways on this while you seem to think only one side is at fault. Then again, you don't seem to know much about the situation at all no matter the insinuations you have made.



Lol.  I've read the transcript of this portion of the speech and I've read four or five articles on it.  What have you done other than watch the video and make bad arguments?



neodragzero said:


> You made a false claim about what Dan Savage said as you continue to ignore reality. Then again, you argue like a person who doesn't seem to have even watched the video.



You're sounding delusional.



neodragzero said:


> You dumbed down one side of this conversation as simply either thinking Christians should be attacked, an utterly non-nuanced some gay children get attacked by Christians, and Christians are stupid.



Well that's pretty accurate.  The OP simply cheers him on and all the non-Christians except for Freedan and Borel leapt in here and said "the Bible is BS" without considering whether this was the place to make this argument.  Essentially what you have is an attack on an unfavored minority.  Those who don't like the minority don't care about objectivity, they like hearing the criticism.  The few that defend the minority are grouped in with "stupid Christians".

So yeah, I didn't dumb down anything.  Your arguments started dumb.



neodragzero said:


> I'm pretty sure that ignores arguing that Dan Savage specified how a certain group of people who make up a part of a belief system's population and use the bible for their bigotry with Savage being very specific in his speech rather than ever suggesting he was attacking all of Christendom. That dear sir just makes it all the more obvious that your word on what others' say is pretty slim to nil in deserving respect and consideration.



Well dear sir, I think that when Savage and his audience both refer to the Bible in its entirety and not in its specificity it's been established that your arguments are bogus.  Not to mention he was unnecessarily rude and crude to a bunch of highschool students.

But keep defending this bigotry.  After all, Christians don't deserve the consideration you would hope to receive from anyone else.


----------



## baconbits (May 11, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> The comparison to people using evolution is an Assocation Fallacy.



True.  That's why I made the poor argument - to point out that the association fallacy is the entirety of your argument.



Narcissus said:


> The only connection is the people involved. Evolution does not dictate how people should live their lives or what morals to abide by. Religion *DIRECTLY* tells people how to live and what to believe, hence the significant difference in your comparison.



Not really.  The bible does not instruct teens to bully gays.  Theology would not endorse this and this can be proven biblically.  Thus what you've done is simply associate bullying and Christianity without proving the connection logically and without discussing the method Savage used to deliver this argument.



Narcissus said:


> So while you wouldn't be justified in attacking evolution (which also has more supporting evidence than religion), Savage was justified in what he said.



(What you said in parenthises is irrelevant to this discussion.  It is more like an unnecessary shot, just like Savage's speech.)

Clearly the argument was framed to point out that I wouldn't be justified, so there isn't a need to point out the obvious.  Savage is completely unjustified because he is simply condemning all Christians by associating them with the bullying of a small minority of society.



Narcissus said:


> Because you say so? or because you just don't like it?



What a ridiculous counter.  Why would you include a gratuituous attack in an argument that is completely unrelated to the subject you're attacking?



Narcissus said:


> Savage was specifically talking about the bullying of homosexuals, which the Bible condemns. He said we can learn to ignore its bullshit regarding this, because those passages are used to justify discrimination and bigotry. It has relevancy to his anti-bullying speech.



Not really.  First, I think it stupid that he spend so much time focusing on a very small amount of the bullying that goes on.  Many kids are bullied, few of them are gay.

Secondly, he's discussing the bullying of homosexuals, which is not approved by the Bible.  Thirdly, he uses passages that define Israelite law (and other passages that show he clearly doesn't understand how to read the bible) not passages that encourage Christian action.

Lastly he attempts to use single passages that he clearly doesn't understand to attempt to discredit the entirety of the bible.  (And don't pretend that he isn't talking about the totality when we have quotes from he and his audience showing that they both interpreted his words as an attack on the bible in its totality.)



			
				Narcissus;42977966[COLOR="DarkRed" said:
			
		

> 1. Savage's audience was mostly Christians[/COLOR]



And you know this how?  The articles I've read didn't specify how Christian the audience was.



Narcissus said:


> 2. His message was honest; your example isn't



Why is my example not honest?  People honestly believe this to be true, so there is nothing inherently dishonest about what I stated.  The problem that you have is that it accurately points out your hypocrisy and lack of objectivity.



Narcissus said:


> The situation you invented is different from what happened.



Not really.  My situation is a gratuitious attack on a group.  It is effectively bullying.  What Savage did is even worse than my example, because he's passing himself off as some sort of anti-bullying cruscader.  Curiously he wages his cruscade by bullying his audiences.



Narcissus said:


> Besides which, this wasn't your original point. You said he "turned the audience off." That was a blatant lie. He only "turned off" *PART* of the audience.



First, even if we accept your premise that's not a "blatant lie", that's just an argument I didn't specify.  Typically when speakers and performers talk about an audience they refer to it as if it is a monolithic body, so I used my performers lingo and didn't specify.

Secondly, we don't know how much of the argument he turned off.  Some applauded and some were so offended they left.  It's not inconceivable to believe that some stayed and were simply offended by what they heard but chose not to respond outwardly.



Narcissus said:


> And in your situation you would actually deserve the condemnation. Savage attacked a part of a book. You're attacking a group of people.



No, he's attacking people who believe in the entirety of the book.  He also attacked the group of people that walked out.


----------



## Spock (May 11, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> There is nothing to see except for what happened. The few who walked out were too thin-skinned to deal with the truth. They placed his style over his substance, so they're at fault, not him.


The few who left felt attacked because the message was handed to them in an aggressive vague way. He is not dealing with adults who know their bible, he's dealing with bunch of immature high schoolers who take that book seriously and cannot comprehend that it could be wrong.



> Either you haven't actually been reading what people write, or you're being intellectually dishonest. Either way, you're wrong, and I'm calling you out on it.The rest of your argument certainly says otherwise.


When I said no one I meant myself, and no I did not read what those guys wrote, both of them are Christians and they've been obviously defending Christianity I'm not interested in that, so refuting the notion of him offending his audience in general should be directed to them not me. 






> You're also directly ignoring the actual reasoning I gave. Concession accepted.Nothing you've just said actually refutes that fact that you are guilty of a fallacy


. 
No I'm not, you concurred that religion should be dealt with ridicule, hatred and contempt, you are defending Dans approach because he spoke the "truth" and you refuse to look at this from an objective point of view or at least consider how one might feel if he is called out in the crowd by a celebrity. 



> His substance was what was important. And the last part is your opinion on how he should be. But when people are dying, harsh criticism becomes necessary from somewhere, because bullies will not all respond to the gentle approach.And there is plenty of it out there. This wasn't the style he chose, and there isn't anything wrong with that


.
His substance was delivered in an aggressive way, and considering how the events played out it wasn't the best of approaches in that type of environment.




> Appeal to accomplishment requires I dismiss what you said on the basis that you have not accomplished anything on the level of the subject of your criticism (in this case, Savage). That was not my argument. I said that you do not have the authority to decide what style he should use, which I never based on your lack of accomplishments.And that approach works for them. But as I said, just because two are working towards the same goal, they don't have to use the same method.And I accept.


You kept say I had no athority, sorry but that's how I perceived it. Why shouldn't I have to decide if that specific incident lack quality ?

No they don't, DoS was merely for comparisons sake.



> A few of the people he was trying to reach out to. And they left because he attacked a portion of the Bible, not because he attacked them.I have said in this thread that the one thing he could be criticized for was the "pansy-ass" remark, and even then it is not the same level. He isn't making teens become depressed or commit suicide.


Hate the sin not the sinner. I'm not saying he attacked them, I'm saying due to the aggressive way he presented his critisim on something they ignorantly identify with strongly they felt attacked.

No he is not, he is making teens leave the room which is quite bad for a public speaker and an anti bullying activist.



> And the fact that he gave a real apology places him on a higher pedestal. Unlike the North Carolina preacher who told parents to punch the children for being gay, then tried to say he was joking...His style wasn't a slip, just the one remark he apologized for. But civility doesn't always work.Not interested in what you think about how his campaign will go. We're discussing the current issue, in which case, I am defending the style he used.



Why did you bring up that preacher? I do not represent nor do I defend Christianity. Civility is required in these type of subjects, if you don't think that civility is a good approach in some cases then that's your problem. As an anti bullying activist that's the least expected from you.


----------



## Narcissus (May 11, 2012)

Yes, I am removing the irrelevant drivel and responding to the key points, as your irrelevancy is escalating.





baconbits said:


> True.  That's why I made the poor argument - to point out that the association fallacy is the entirety of your argument.


No, you made the poor argument on your own. It's that simple.


> Not really.  The bible does not instruct teens to bully gays.  Theology would not endorse this and this can be proven biblically.  Thus what you've done is simply associate bullying and Christianity without proving the connection logically and without discussing the method Savage used to deliver this argument.




Leviticus says those who engage in homosexual acts are to be put to death. People interpret the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as the result of homosexuality. People use Biblical quotation when rallying against homosexuality. It is sophistry on your part to claim that Christianity has not been used in bullying against homosexuals.





> (What you said in parenthises is irrelevant to this discussion.  It is more like an unnecessary shot, just like Savage's speech.)


No, it is another reason why your analogy does not work.





> Clearly the argument was framed to point out that I wouldn't be justified, so there isn't a need to point out the obvious.  Savage is completely unjustified because he is simply condemning all Christians by associating them with the bullying of a small minority of society.


Except that wasn't my point. The point was that while you wouldn't be justified, Savage would be. Meanwhile, you straw man what Savage said into an attack on Christians when he really only attacked one part of the Bible (which does happen to be bullshit).





> What a ridiculous counter.  Why would you include a gratuituous attack in an argument that is completely unrelated to the subject you're attacking?


Don't care about your opinion.

You have failed to demonstrate how the two are unrelated, because they are. As I already said, people use Biblical quotes to bully homosexuals.





> Not really.  First, I think it stupid that he spend so much time focusing on a very small amount of the bullying that goes on.  Many kids are bullied, few of them are gay.


I couldn't care less what you think is stupid. However, gay kids are bashed viciously, kicked out of their own homes, and commit suicide. It's dishonest for you to try and downplay this.





> Secondly, he's discussing the bullying of homosexuals, which is not approved by the Bible.


Which is the bullshit he said could be ignored, and he is right.





> And you know this how?  The articles I've read didn't specify how Christian the audience was.


Then you need to increase your reading comprehension (that, or stop being dishonest).

​


> Why is my example not honest?  People honestly believe this to be true, so there is nothing inherently dishonest about what I stated.


Appeal to popularity. It's irrelevant what people believe, there is not proof of it being true. A bunch of people could believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is going to descend and drown homosexuals in sauce for their sins. That wouldn't make it true.





> The problem that you have is that it accurately points out your hypocrisy and lack of objectivity.


Appeal to motive, I have not demonstrated hypocrisy, and you have deliberately distorted what Savage said. If anyone is lacking objectivity, it's you.





> Not really.  My situation is a gratuitious attack on a group.  It is effectively bullying.  What Savage did is even worse than my example, because he's passing himself off as some sort of anti-bullying cruscader.  Curiously he wages his cruscade by bullying his audiences.


Yes, really.

What he said was honest and it wasn't bullying. The fact that you're sitting here saying that his comment was worse is ridiculous too. Attacking a portion of a book and referring to the reaction as pansy-ass is nowhere near as awful as claiming someone is an abomination and going to be tortured for all eternity.





> First, even if we accept your premise that's not a "blatant lie", that's just an argument I didn't specify.  Typically when speakers and performers talk about an audience they refer to it as if it is a monolithic body, so I used my performers lingo and didn't specify.


lie verb \ˈlī\
liedlying 

Definition of LIE

intransitive verb
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression

You're guilty of the second definition,, and I'm not interested in your excuses.





> Secondly, we don't know how much of the argument he turned off.  Some applauded and some were so offended they left.  It's not inconceivable to believe that some stayed and were simply offended by what they heard but chose not to respond outwardly.


Irrelevant as Savage still did not turn off the entire audience. Furthermore, you're beginning to venture into guesswork, and I'm not interested in your suppositions.





> No, he's attacking people who believe in the entirety of the book.  He also attacked the group of people that walked out.


This is more direct dishonest. He specifically attacked a part of the Bible. When the kids left, he then attacked their reaction (the only thing he could take any real criticism for).

So you're still wrong.





Eli said:


> The few who left felt attacked because the message was handed to them in an aggressive vague way. He is not dealing with adults who know their bible, he's dealing with bunch of immature high schoolers who take that book seriously and cannot comprehend that it could be wrong.


Nothing Savage said was vague, it was straightforward.

And it is still they're fault. Again, "think of the children" is a version of the appeal to emotion fallacy.





> When I said no one I meant myself, and no I did not read what those guys wrote, both of them are Christians and they've been obviously defending Christianity I'm not interested in that, so refuting the notion of him offending his audience in general should be directed to them not me.


Then it is your fault for your poor word choice. Vynjira already had to point out something similar to you about this. I don't know what you "meant." I know what you wrote. Even now, this seems like backpedaling on your part after you got called out and proven wrong. I suggest to take more care with your word choice.





> No I'm not, you concurred that religion should be dealt with ridicule, hatred and contempt, you are defending Dans approach because he spoke the "truth" and you refuse to look at this from an objective point of view or at least consider how one might feel if he is called out in the crowd by a celebrity.


Yes you are. From an objective point, the students are at fault because they ignored Savage's content. Savage isn't at fault for his style of criticism, and I'm not going to appeal to emotion the way you are.





> His substance was delivered in an aggressive way, and considering how the events played out it wasn't the best of approaches in that type of environment.


No, he was justified in his presentation, regardless of how a few reacted.





> You kept say I had no athority, sorry but that's how I perceived it.


Yes, and you were wrong.





> Why shouldn't I have to decide if that specific incident lack quality ?


Because you are not viewing it objectively. There is a risk that he would've insulted someone no matter what approach he used, and sometimes harsh criticism is required. You cannot always take the safe route.





> Hate the sin not the sinner. I'm not saying he attacked them, I'm saying due to the aggressive way he presented his critisim on something they ignorantly identify with strongly they felt attacked.


Which is a clear distortion of what actually happened on their part as he never attacked them, which only furthers the notion that they were the ones at fault.





> No he is not, he is making teens leave the room which is quite bad for a public speaker and an anti bullying activist.


No it wasn't. What would have bad for an anti-bullying activist would be for him to make them leave by giving a hateful speech. He gave a harsh yet honest criticism. Their reaction doesn't make him any less of an anti-bullying activist.


> Why did you bring up that preacher?


Because it shows that Savage did not "stoop to their level." Their level is far, far lowed than his comment, and he at least had the decency to make a real apology rather than claim to be joking.





> Civility is required in these type of subjects, if you don't think that civility is a good approach in some cases then that's your problem. As an anti bullying activist that's the least expected from you.


There is a time for civility and a time for some real criticism. Savage chose to give some real criticism as he had the right to do, despite the reaction.


----------



## Petes12 (May 11, 2012)

don't bother narcissus. on this issue particularly baconbits has already proved time and again he is both wholly unreasonable and totally lacking in any compassion.


and eli's just being dumb. high schoolers cant take criticism of any kind boohoo!


----------



## Spock (May 12, 2012)

Says the guy who thinks bullying anyone who is not gay is less important. 



Narcissus said:


> So you're still wrong.Nothing Savage said was vague, it was straightforward.
> 
> And it is still they're fault. Again, "think of the children" is a version of the appeal to emotion fallacy.


It was vague, let's ignore the bullshit was hardly a clear explanation of why they should ignore it the only thing he bothered explaining of why to ignore it was the message to Paul. 

Think of the children you are trying to reach out to, yes it is not a fallacy in this context.



> Then it is your fault for your poor word choice. Vynjira already had to point out something similar to you about this. I don't know what you "meant." I know what you wrote. Even now, this seems like backpedaling on your part after you got called out and proven wrong. I suggest to take more care with your word choice.


Vynjira complained about a typo. Refuting the notion of him not offending his entire audience still should not have been directed to me as I've never claimed that nor have I been associating myself with others that do. So you inserting that notion was irrelevant.



> Yes you are. From an objective point, the students are at fault because they ignored Savage's content. Savage isn't at fault for his style of criticism, and I'm not going to appeal to emotion the way you are.No, he was justified in his presentation, regardless of how a few reacted.


They ignored Savages content because of his aggressive style and presentation so he is at fault as well. You mean you are not going to consider how they might have felt anyway because of the "truth" I see, what great objectivity.  




> Yes, and you were wrong.Because you are not viewing it objectively. There is a risk that he would've insulted someone no matter what approach he used, and sometimes harsh criticism is required. You cannot always take the safe route.


I am viewing objectively, it is you who is picking sides because to you religion should be dealt with ridicule hatred and contempt regardless of the type of audience and regardless if they were well informed or not.  



> Which is a clear distortion of what actually happened on their part as he never attacked them, which only furthers the notion that they were the ones at fault


.
You are not considering the environment nor the condition they were in. You are not even considering their teenage mindset. They felt attacked because they identify strongly with that text and it was called bullshit blatantly while the rest of the crowd applauded. That's not exactly a pleasant situation to be in and considering their age it should be obvious to you why they felt attacked.



> No it wasn't. What would have bad for an anti-bullying activist would be for him to make them leave by giving a hateful speech. He gave a harsh yet honest criticism. Their reaction doesn't make him any less of an anti-bullying activist.


Their reaction was proof that he cannot give a public speech as an anti bullying activist without offending a portion of his audience and making them leave.



> Because it shows that Savage did not "stoop to their level." Their level is far, far lowed than his comment, and he at least had the decency to make a real apology rather than claim to be joking.There is a time for civility and a time for some real criticism. Savage chose to give some real criticism as he had the right to do, despite the reaction.


So I should group all gays in Savage group and all Christians in that preachers group ? 
Sorry, but there are people who name call without having to pinch someone so he stooped to their level. His attitude was aggressive and if really wanted to reach out to them with that "real critisim" he should have at least made it constructive instead of blatantly calling what they identify with bullshit and later describing their reaction as pansy assed.


----------



## Narcissus (May 12, 2012)

Eli said:


> Says the guy who thinks bullying anyone who is not gay is less important.


Ignoring his central point though. Just because they're high school students, doesn't mean they can't be subject to criticism.





> It was vague, let's ignore the bullshit was hardly a clear explanation of why they should ignore it the only thing he bothered explaining of why to ignore it was the message to Paul.


No, it wasn't vague. The Bible has very clear passages on homosexuality, which he called bullshit and said we can ignore. He didn't have to specifically quote it to know what he was referring to.





> Think of the children you are trying to reach out to, yes it is not a fallacy in this context.


Dismissing it doesn't make it any less of a fallacy. It appeals to emotion.





> Vynjira complained about a typo. Refuting the notion of him not offending his entire audience still should not have been directed to me as I've never claimed that nor have I been associating myself with others that do. So you inserting that notion was irrelevant.


Yes, pointing out the fact that if you're not clear then people wouldn't know what you're saying. This is the case again. 

Saying "No one had the concept of him offending the entire audience to begin with" is a clear general statement. When I called you on it, you backpedaled and said that you were only talking about yourself. So no, it wasn't irrelevant.





> They ignored Savages content because of his aggressive style and presentation so he is at fault as well. You mean you are not going to consider how they might have felt anyway because of the "truth" I see, what great objectivity.


No, the fault remains on them for reacting in an illogical way. And yes, I am being objective because I am not making assumptions about how the students felt the way you are.





> I am viewing objectively, it is you who is picking sides because to you religion should be dealt with ridicule hatred and contempt regardless of the type of audience and regardless if they were well informed or not.


First of all, you're appealing to motive again. I never said religion should be treated that way, I quoted Hitchens to point out that sometimes it should be, and I think Savage was justified in doing so in this case. So no, you are not viewing this objectively.





> You are not considering the environment nor the condition they were in. You are not even considering their teenage mindset. They felt attacked because they identify strongly with that text and it was called bullshit blatantly while the rest of the crowd applauded. That's not exactly a pleasant situation to be in and considering their age it should be obvious to you why they felt attacked.


 Pleasant or not, it is a distortion of what Savage said to claim he attacked them, because he didn't, regardless of how they felt. He told the truth.





> Their reaction was proof that he cannot give a public speech as an anti bullying activist without offending a portion of his audience and making them leave.


This isn't your original claim though. You said this showed that he wasn't qualified to be an anti-bullying activist (which you later receded). Offending people doe not make him any less of an anti-bullying activist.





> So I should group all gays in Savage group and all Christians in that preachers group ?
> Sorry, but there are people who name call without having to pinch someone so he stooped to their level.


You made a vague reference to who's level Savage stooped to, hence you made it about Christians. What he said is no on the level as what Christians who use the Bible to justify bullying say and do.





> His attitude was aggressive and if really wanted to reach out to them with that "real critisim" he should have at least made it constructive instead of blatantly calling what they identify with bullshit and later describing their reaction as pansy assed.


It's dishonest to claim that Savage did not offer "real criticism." He did. His aggressive attitude was justified, and he wouldn't have reached everyone even if he took the nice approach. Besides which, he did reach most of his audience and later apologized for the "pansy-ass" comment, which is more than what most Christians who use the Bible to bully will do.


----------



## Vynjira (May 12, 2012)

Eli said:


> Says the guy who thinks bullying anyone who is not gay is less important.


Something no one is actually saying, we're saying what you're equivocating to bullying is "less important". Just like yelling at a kid for doing something wrong, isn't necessarily child abuse and it certainly isn't comparable to a drunk father beating his kid.





> It was vague, let's ignore the bullshit was hardly a clear explanation of why they should ignore it


This is you arguing against the criticism about the Bible. You know, what you said earlier that you weren't doing.





> Vynjira complained about a typo.


I said had no clue what you meant to write because "He says he is an anti bullying activist, yet he demonstrate it quite the show." isn't a sentence. I can't even guess what the right words would have been. Your response was hostile, even tho you admit it was a typo. Even now, you're bringing this up as an attack against me.





> Their reaction was proof that he cannot give a public speech as an anti bullying activist without offending a portion of his audience and making them leave.


*THIS IS VERY TELLING.*

Can you make a valid argument? or are you just going to keep equivocating and dismissing your bias?





> So I should group all gays in Savage group and all Christians in that preachers group ?


Another point you said you weren't trying to make earlier... interesting. Are you gonna stop pretending you didn't say things we accused you of saying now?

The point you're trying to make implies that Dan Savage was attacking Christians and Christianity as a whole, which you said you weren't doing.

So my question becomes why are you actually posting? because it's very fucking obvious that you're not being honest in this discussion.





> Sorry, but there are people who name call without having to pinch someone so he stooped to their level.


Who did he pinch?

Stop making shit up, at least now you're admitting what we've been saying about name calling.





> His attitude was aggressive and if really wanted to reach out to them with that "real critisim" he should have at least made it constructive instead of blatantly calling what they identify with bullshit and later describing their reaction as pansy assed.


No it wasn't. He was laughing at the hypocrisy of Christians walking out because they didn't want to hear him criticize the use of the Bible to bully people. Especially ironic considering that he's been on the receiving end of biblical bullies.

Replace Atheist with Homosexual.


----------



## Nihonjin (May 12, 2012)

baconbits said:


> The question is silly.  *If these kids believe the bible in its totality* any attack on the bible is an attack on their views.  Characterize the Bible as you will.



But they _don't._



> Their move cannot have been the first move, since they were reacting to words he said.



So if I say: "Hey Bacon" and you punch me in the face as a reaction to that, I've made the first move? I think not.

If your reaction makes no sense based on what the other person said, you can't say the other person had the first move.



> Then why else spend a portion of the speech addressing it?  I was mocking the speech because it addresses a portion of bullying that, even if we accept your premise, isn't even close to being significant.



Bacon, you're being blatantly dishonest here, I'm not even sure how to address this.

There are plenty of Christians who bully gay people because they believe their God finds them disgusting.

There are plenty of people who even though they don't bully gays themselves (for what ever reason), wouldn't step in to help one being bullied because they believe their God finds them disgusting.

These bullied gay people sometimes end up taking their as a result, but you don't think this is a significant problem because?



> Then the people who use those passages to justify bullying are idiots.  *Their idiocy has nothing to do with the text.*



*Leviticus 20:13 *

Grab your bible and post what it says here, word for word.



> I didn't say it was.  I meant that the highroad was sitting through the speech.



Sitting through the speech wasn't the highroad either, it was the normal road.



> How does that follow?



It's key to you understanding my point.



> Many find the whole book sacred.  Many theologians and many philosphers do.  *I find the Bible sacred in its totality*, but the views of these kids is only somewhat relevant.
> 
> What different views are on the bible really don't matter.



So you're in favor of all the murder in there?



> Actually he did.  Read the transcript.



I've seen the actual video. And unlike you, I'm not emotionally attached to what he's criticizing, so I'd say I have a better view on things than you do.



> Lol.  I hate being in the position of defending Gingrich because I can't stand him but that isn't a correct description of his views.  He stands against gay marriage.  I myself disagree with homosexuality, but I don't want to take anyone's rights away.



Right. You can't disagree with something unless there is choice or opinion involved. So you can't actually disagree with homosexuality, that's as retarded as saying you disagree with trees or stars.



> In most states gays can't marry so there isn't anything to take away.



You couldn't get more dishonest and disgusting if you tried Bacon.

*Slave owners:* _I'm not taking away your freedom, you were never free to begin with, I'm just making sure it stays that way._



> That shows you don't know the context of that verse.



In what context does "kill your wife if she's not a virgin" turn into something that's not "kill your wife if she's not a virgin"?

Educate me.



> If you were objective you'd sense the gratuituous nature of the attack since the Gingrichs would probably tell any bully to knock it off if they saw them acting out of line.



What attack? He never attacked Gingrich.




> Actually it is because the part about a girl who isn't a virgin being stoned is completely false no matter how you wish to interpret the passage.



*Deuteronomy  22:20-21*

Again, open your bible and see for yourself.



> No, its because if people followed this verse they wouldn't be bullying people.  Also if he looked at that verse he wouldn't have a basis to launch random attacks on Christianity.



He didn't attack Christianity. He didn't attack the bible as a whole. He didn't attack that verse. 

He attacked hateful verses that encourage bigotry and murder. Are you really going to deny that those are in there?



> He also talked about Philemon and Timothy, which do not even address homosexuality and don't fit the narrative he was trying to create.



Who cares?



> Don't pull a Vynjira on me, man.  That was all legitimate.



No, it wasn't. I can't debate you if you keep pulling out straw men.


----------



## Vynjira (May 12, 2012)

He said he only read the transcript, instead of watching the video.
A transcript we tore apart several pages ago..

In fact several Christians who were arguing based on the Transcript have said after watching the video, they no longer had any complaints about what he said. Tho, I don't hope that baconbits can actually change his mind. Since he's already established that you cannot just Criticize part of the Bible without attacking Christianity and Christians as a whole.


----------



## baconbits (May 13, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> I couldn't care less what you think is stupid. However, gay kids are bashed viciously, kicked out of their own homes, and commit suicide. It's dishonest for you to try and downplay this.



I downplay it because these things have nothing to do with a proper understanding of the bible.  It's also irrelevent since these kids obviously aren't kicking gay kids out of their homes.  Sob stories don't make good arguments.

Secondly, don't try to ignore the real point: gay kids are a very small minority of those being bullied.  Focusing on gay bullying in an anti-bullying speech is like focusing on gay conservatives in a liberal speech - even though there are gay conservatives the numbers don't justify the focus.



Narcissus said:


> Which is the bullshit he said could be ignored, and he is right.Then you need to increase your reading comprehension (that, or stop being dishonest).



If its not in the bible the bible shouldn't be ignored.  Please respond to what I wrote, not your emotional reaction to what I wrote.



Narcissus said:


> ​



This apology isn't legitimate.  He continues to insult "religious conservatives" in his apology.  He clearly isn't remorseful.



Narcissus said:


> Appeal to popularity. It's irrelevant what people believe, there is not proof of it being true. A bunch of people could believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is going to descend and drown homosexuals in sauce for their sins. That wouldn't make it true.



I never said it did.  You pointed out that most of the audience wasn't offended, which is the very argument I mocked and said that I could accomplish the same feat if I packed the audience with fundamentalists.  



Narcissus said:


> Appeal to motive, I have not demonstrated hypocrisy, and you have deliberately distorted what Savage said. If anyone is lacking objectivity, it's you.



Lol.  You've resorted to the "I know you are but what am I" argument.  I've pointed out your hypocrisy by showing how quick you are to jump on my examples but how unwilling you are to make the same judgments when someone agrees with you philosophically.  I'm almost getting the notion that you would have agreed with anything this man said if it bashed Christians.  (Note the "almost".)

You haven't shown where I've distorted anything, you've simply claimed that I've distorted something.  Below you deliberately distort your original argument in an attempt to look intelligent (the lie argument).



Narcissus said:


> Yes, really.
> 
> What he said was honest and it wasn't bullying. The fact that you're sitting here saying that his comment was worse is ridiculous too. Attacking a portion of a book and referring to the reaction as pansy-ass is nowhere near as awful as claiming someone is an abomination and going to be tortured for all eternity.



So now we get to the crux of the issue.  You're problem isn't bullying, but beliefs.  The fact that Christians believe in a hell is the real reason you're bothered and accept any abuse towards Christianity.  Very enlightening, but also very sad.

It demonstrates your bigotry.  He's attacking a sacred book, not just any book; a book people view as the Words of God.  In his attack he claims that the book is worthless because it got the most important moral question of our age wrong, yet in his argument he shows an ignorance that proves he doesn't understand one word of Philemon or a verse of Pauline doctrine.  Savage is an idiot when it comes to the bible; I caution you not to follow in his footsteps.

And as he attacks the bible you defend him.  When he attacks these kids, you defend him.  No one has attacked him, yet this man thinks he's "defending himself".  Looking at Savage's history I can say that Savage has attacked Christians and the right far harsher than many Christians have attacked him.  He's more of a bully than the most stupid fundamentalist.



Narcissus said:


> lie verb \ˈlī\
> liedly?ing
> 
> Definition of LIE
> ...



You're guilty of the second definition,, and I'm not interested in your excuses.[/QUOTE]

Lol.  I suppose the word "blatant" wasn't used in your original accusation... wait, it was!



> That was a *blatant* lie. He only "turned off" PART of the audience.



So all of a sudden your argument becomes a lot less forceful than it was. Secondly, I never said that he turned every individual in the audience off.  You're making up an argument I've never stated.  What's the definition of liar?



Narcissus said:


> Irrelevant as Savage still did not turn off the entire audience. Furthermore, you're beginning to venture into guesswork, and I'm not interested in your suppositions.



No one said he did turn off the entire argument.  Also if we're going to eliminate guesswork then most of your friends arguments would fall flat, since they try to guess how much of the audience was Christian and how much of those who walked out believe in the entirety of the bible.



Narcissus said:


> This is more direct dishonest. He specifically attacked a part of the Bible. When the kids left, he then attacked their reaction (the only thing he could take any real criticism for).
> 
> So you're still wrong.



No, he attacked people who use the entirety of the book, or more specifically those who believe in the sections Savage doesn't like.  He also attacked the kids reaction, so you're still off base.


----------



## baconbits (May 13, 2012)

Nihonjin said:


> But they _don't._



You know this how?



Nihonjin said:


> So if I say: "Hey Bacon" and you punch me in the face as a reaction to that, I've made the first move? I think not.
> 
> If your reaction makes no sense based on what the other person said, you can't say the other person had the first move.



...Normally you don't argue this badly.  I don't even know how to respond to this.

How can this not be a reaction when they were sitting in the audience and reacted to his words?  I don't even know how this point is even up for discussion.



Nihonjin said:


> Bacon, you're being blatantly dishonest here, I'm not even sure how to address this.



I'm not being dishonest.  The reason you can't address it is because it's a solid argument for which there is no good reply but a concession.



Nihonjin said:


> There are plenty of Christians who bully gay people because they believe their God finds them disgusting.



And those Christians would be wrong for doing so.  Yes, even according to the Bible.



Nihonjin said:


> There are plenty of people who even though they don't bully gays themselves (for what ever reason), wouldn't step in to help one being bullied because they believe their God finds them disgusting.



And they would also be wrong.  And yes, the Bible would condemn their actions.



Nihonjin said:


> These bullied gay people sometimes end up taking their as a result, but you don't think this is a significant problem because?



I don't see this as a significant portion of bullying as a whole.  I also don't see how people misusing the Bible is any more significant than people misusing evolution, or secular humanism, or survival of the fittest.  Things happen and they ought to be decried, but I don't throw the misused philosophy idiots use to justify their actions into the same boat.



Nihonjin said:


> *Leviticus 20:13 *
> 
> Grab your bible and post what it says here, word for word.



No need to.  I know the verse.  Explain how that governs a Christians action when Christianity no longer attempts to establish a government on this earth.  Also go to biblegateway.com and read the second half of 1st Corinthians 5.  When you do I'll explain to you what that means.  You can VM me any questions about slavery as well.



Nihonjin said:


> Sitting through the speech wasn't the highroad either, it was the normal road.



It was the highroad because when I'm talking with a person and they start insulting everything I believe in my normal reaction is to tune that person out.



Nihonjin said:


> It's key to you understanding my point.



Typically people interpret "how does that follow" as "please expound on your point so that I can get a better understanding of it".

So I'll repeat: how does that follow?



Nihonjin said:


> So you're in favor of all the murder in there?



It depends on the context.  Some murder, like the murder of Jesus and Stephen, is unjustified.



Nihonjin said:


> I've seen the actual video. And unlike you, I'm not emotionally attached to what he's criticizing, so I'd say I have a better view on things than you do.



Not really.  It's pedantic to argue that you have some better understanding than I do simply because you watched the video (and at the time I couldn't watch the video because I was at work) and I read the transcript.  Secondly I've watched the video and learned nothing that I didn't already know from reading the transcript, which makes sense since the transcript is simply the _written version of what occurred on the video_.

Secondly, while I do have an attachment to Christianity I'm very accustomed to taking heat for my beliefs.  I don't mind attacks; I just don't like when people try to mask those attacks and make it into something it isn't.  This wasn't a talk on bullying; this was an attack on orthodox Christianity.



Nihonjin said:


> Right. You can't disagree with something unless there is choice or opinion involved. So you can't actually disagree with homosexuality, that's as retarded as saying you disagree with trees or stars.



Lol.  You don't choose who you have sex with?

I also note that you're not being honest enough to concede that he did in fact attack Calista Gingrich.



Nihonjin said:


> You couldn't get more dishonest and disgusting if you tried Bacon.
> 
> *Slave owners:* _I'm not taking away your freedom, you were never free to begin with, I'm just making sure it stays that way._



There's nothing dishonest about it.  Slaveowners took away freedom because we once were free and then weren't.  Gay people don't have the right to marry.  Now they want society to give them that right.  It's illogical to describe that as taking something away.



Nihonjin said:


> In what context does "kill your wife if she's not a virgin" turn into something that's not "kill your wife if she's not a virgin"?
> 
> Educate me.



Educate me on where in the bible women are killed for not being virgins.  When you get tired of looking for what's not there read the account of Rahab the harlot getting married.  Then check back in with me.



Nihonjin said:


> What attack? He never attacked Gingrich.



Sigh.  Read the transcript.  If you're not going to educate yourself on the subject then you shouldn't debate the topic.



Nihonjin said:


> *Deuteronomy  22:20-21*
> 
> Again, open your bible and see for yourself.



I know the bible backwards and forwards.  I don't need you to educate me on what is and isn't in there.



Nihonjin said:


> He didn't attack Christianity. He didn't attack the bible as a whole. He didn't attack that verse.
> 
> He attacked hateful verses that encourage bigotry and murder. Are you really going to deny that those are in there?



You don't understand their context so you can never understand what they mean.



Nihonjin said:


> Who cares?



It illustrates the fact that he was in fact trying to attack the bible.  It also proves he doesn't know what he's talking about.



Nihonjin said:


> No, it wasn't. I can't debate you if you keep pulling out straw men.



This coming from the man that interprets OT law as NT dictates...


----------



## Nihonjin (May 13, 2012)

*Me:* _I can't debate you if you keep pulling out straw men._
*Baconbits:* _This coming from the man that interprets OT law as NT dictates.._

There you go, this is _exactly_ what I mean.

But yeah, Bacon, I'm not going to reply until you quote those verses.


----------



## Vynjira (May 13, 2012)

Nihonjin said:


> *Me:* _I can't debate you if you keep pulling out straw men._
> *Baconbits:* _This coming from the man that interprets OT law as NT dictates.._
> 
> There you go, this is _exactly_ what I mean.
> ...


The guy is pro-torture and thinks that criticism(regardless of how rational it is) is somehow equivalent to the verbal and physical abuse that leads to suicide or physical trauma that is sometimes fatal.

He has divorced himself from reality, so reasoning with him is out of the question. All you can hope to do is expose how fallacious his arguments are.

He's flat out stated that he doesn't care what the facts are, unless it fits with his beliefs (because he believes contradicting facts will eventually be found as wrong). So even if he watched the video(which he admitted he didn't do) there isn't any point in arguing with him.


----------



## Basilikos (May 13, 2012)

^In other words, all you can do is resort to a poisoning the well fallacy.

Well done.

No pun intended.


----------



## Golden Circle (May 14, 2012)

Okay guys this all looks rather silly.



Narcissus said:


> Yes, I am removing the irrelevant drivel and responding to the key points, as your irrelevancy is escalating.


Sounds like you're trying to build a strawman.




Petes12 said:


> don't bother narcissus. on this issue particularly baconbits has already proved time and again *he is both wholly unreasonable and totally lacking in any compassion.*
> 
> 
> and *eli's just being dumb*. high schoolers cant take criticism of any kind boohoo!


Seems like you're trying to insult the opposition rather than refuting their posts.





Basilikos said:


> ^In other words, all you can do is resort to a poisoning the well fallacy.


He really has to change his sig. **


----------



## Basilikos (May 14, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> He really has to change his sig. **


You mean "she". But yes, yes she does.**


----------



## Golden Circle (May 14, 2012)

Basilikos said:


> You mean "she". But yes, yes she does.**


My bad.**


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 14, 2012)

It was already made clear it was the passages in the Bible he was attacking; I find it stupid Christians would take that so personally considering most don't even read the Bible, and even moreso, don't actually abide by its teachings. You guys have selectively interpreted passages of the Bible and excluded many others long before he said anything on it, so to act like he took a personal jab at followers for recommending that they ignore the "bullshit" in the Bible is simply ridiculous. You guys have _always_ done that, at your own convenience of course.


----------



## Vynjira (May 14, 2012)

Basilikos said:


> ^In other words, all you can do is resort to a poisoning the well fallacy.
> 
> Well done.
> 
> No pun intended.


We've actually spent a good deal of time correcting him (pointing out the fallacy of equivocation in his argument). Further the arguments are being repeated ad nauseam (he's repeating the same fallacies of his argument).

Pointing out that there is no reason to continue a discussion with someone like this, is not the same as dismissing anything/everything he says as invalid.

So congratulations on demonstrating yet again, that you don't actually understand the fallacies you keep citing.
*Spoiler*: _As for my sig_ 



several ass-hats (not naming anyone) on this forum have called several of the Atheists on this forum Militant Atheists. Further stating they're no better than the Militant Theists we claim to be against. Now I've never killed anyone (but I suppose you'll have to take that on faith), but I find it funny that I've never called *YOU* or Bacon or Superstars or any of the Christians on this forum Militant Christians. When have I ever implied that specific members on this forum have ever or are willing to kill for your beliefs?

In fact it's become common policy for several members of your faith gang to make similar accusations (you specifically accused me of saying that I would ban religion), or you simply agree with someone who's said it. So I'll change it when the people guilty of that nonsense get the message or when more Christians point out that it is wrong to do that.

The fact you're attacking my sig instead of correcting Christians who make these bullshit claims, says a lot about you.


----------



## Petes12 (May 14, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> Seems like you're trying to insult the opposition rather than refuting their posts.



I laid out my thoughts pretty clearly here:





Petes12 said:


> The passages in the bible savage quoted are bad.
> 
> Selective fundamentalism is bad.
> 
> Ignorant bigotry is bad whether it's written into the bible or not.



I think anyone who disagrees with these 3 points is basically an idiot and I have no problem saying that.

I don't need to write a thousand more paragraphs on a subject that is so fucking simple there shouldn't be any argument at all.


----------



## Narcissus (May 14, 2012)

baconbits said:


> I downplay it because these things have nothing to do with a proper understanding of the bible.  It's also irrelevent since these kids obviously aren't kicking gay kids out of their homes.  Sob stories don't make good arguments.


Thanks for admitting to downplaying the bullying of gay kids.

It doesn't matter what these things have to do with a "proper understanding of the Bible." The fact of the matter is that the Bible condemns homosexuals, and people use the Bible to justify their bullying, proper understanding or not. It's also dishonest to dismiss the suffering of these kids as "sob stories" as their suffering does justify criticism of the Bible.





> Secondly, don't try to ignore the real point: gay kids are a very small minority of those being bullied.  Focusing on gay bullying in an anti-bullying speech is like focusing on gay conservatives in a liberal speech - even though there are gay conservatives the numbers don't justify the focus.


Except that's not a real point. First of all, it shows that you're ignorant of who Savage is. The man started the It Gets Better movement, a campaign to stop the suicide of gay kids. It is perfectly fine for him to focus on the bullying of gay kids, regardless of who gets bullied. Secondly, gay kids have a high statistic of suicide, so yes, his focus on it is justified.





> If its not in the bible the bible shouldn't be ignored.  Please respond to what I wrote, not your emotional reaction to what I wrote.


Or you could actually try to make a good argument for once.

The bible condemns homosexuality, which is bullshit. People use that to justify bullying. Savage said we can ignore the bullshit, and he is right.





> This apology isn't legitimate.  He continues to insult "religious conservatives" in his apology.  He clearly isn't remorseful.


First, I don't care about your opinion on his apology; it's an unsupported opinion and you are biased. Second, try responding properly to what I write. I posted that in response to you asking how I knew the majority of the audience was Christian and even bolded the relevant lines. Either improve your reading comprehension, or stop being dishonest.





> I never said it did.  You pointed out that most of the audience wasn't offended, which is the very argument I mocked and said that I could accomplish the same feat if I packed the audience with fundamentalists.


You said that your comment wasn't dishonest because many people believed it to be true. That is appealing to popularity and it doesn't make your claim honest. While I pointed out that the most of the crowd wasn't offended and that Savage's claim is honest





> .Lol.  You've resorted to the "I know you are but what am I" argument.  I've pointed out your hypocrisy by showing how quick you are to jump on my examples but how unwilling you are to make the same judgments when someone agrees with you philosophically.  I'm almost getting the notion that you would have agreed with anything this man said if it bashed Christians.  (Note the "almost".)


No, I've demonstrated that you are guilty of fallacious arguments and baseless accusations. I don't care what notions you get, they're subjective and unfit for argumentation.I could sit here and say that I get the feeling you'd disagree with almost anything that criticized Christianity, but I'm not because it has not place here.

It is also dishonest of you to continue warping what he said into an attack on Christians. He didn't.

You have been deliberately dishonest, hypocritical, and guilty of poor reasoning in this argument.





> You haven't shown where I've distorted anything, you've simply claimed that I've distorted something.  Below you deliberately distort your original argument in an attempt to look intelligent (the lie argument).


Now this is clear sophistry (amusing to, considering I demonstrated the distortion above). You've distorted this into an attack on all Christians, when he attacked an specific part of a book. You're also using another appeal to motive fallacy.





> So now we get to the crux of the issue.  You're problem isn't bullying, but beliefs.  The fact that Christians believe in a hell is the real reason you're bothered and accept any abuse towards Christianity.  Very enlightening, but also very sad.




Nothing in what I said can be construed to me not having a problem with bullying. You're making wild assumptions with any real basis. I said that his comment isn't anywhere near as bad as theirs. 





> It demonstrates your bigotry.  He's attacking a sacred book, not just any book; a book people view as the Words of God.


That's an opinion on their part, and they have the right to it. Just as he has the right to harshly criticize it. If anything, you're the bigot for attacking him for expressing his right.





> And as he attacks the bible you defend him.


Because he had the right to criticize it, regardless of who was offended.





> When he attacks these kids, you defend him.


His comment referred to their reaction.





> Looking at Savage's history I can say that Savage has attacked Christians and the right far harsher than many Christians have attacked him.  He's more of a bully than the most stupid fundamentalist.


We are not discussing his history, we are discussing the particular even that occurred. 





> Lol.  I suppose the word "blatant" wasn't used in your original accusation... wait, it was!




The definition doesn't make it any less blatant. It was a lie on your part, and you even tried to make excuses to defend it.





> Secondly, I never said that he turned every individual in the audience off.  You're making up an argument I've never stated.  What's the definition of liar?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've already given the definition, and the shining example would be you.





> No one said he did turn off the entire argument.  Also if we're going to eliminate guesswork then most of your friends arguments would fall flat, since they try to guess how much of the audience was Christian and how much of those who walked out believe in the entirety of the bible.


Now you're missing my point, which was that it's pointless for you to sit there and throw your own guesses into the equation. And in Savage's statement he says most of the audience was Christian.





> No, he attacked people who use the entirety of the book, or more specifically those who believe in the sections Savage doesn't like.  He also attacked the kids reaction, so you're still off base.


This is a further show of distortion. Savage directly attacks a portion of the book, saying we can ignore the bullshit in it. As for the kids, he attacked their reaction, not them directly.

And what's interesting, bacon, is the you've been dancing around the real issue here. You're not touching the topic of whether or not the Bible is right regarding homosexuality, even when I specifically assert that Savage was right regarding it. Because it is bullshit, regardless of who got their feeling hurt by hearing it.





Rainbow Dash said:


> Sounds like you're trying to build a strawman.


You've already proven you don't know how fallacies work. If you can't actually argue, be quiet rather than embarrass yourself further.


----------



## Golden Circle (May 14, 2012)

> We've actually spent a good deal of time correcting him (pointing out the fallacy of equivocation in his argument). Further the arguments are being repeated ad nauseam (he's repeating the same fallacies of his argument).


Argument ad nauseum.



> Pointing out that there is no reason to continue a discussion with *someone like this,* is not the same as dismissing anything/everything he says as invalid.


Personal attack. Cue the professor saying, "the freshman has his facts wrong."



> So congratulations on demonstrating yet again, that you don't actually understand the fallacies you keep citing.


Appeal to Spite



> As for my sig, several ass-hats (not naming anyone) on this forum have called several of the Atheists on this forum Militant Atheists. Further stating they're no better than the Militant Theists we claim to be against. Now I've never killed anyone (but I suppose you'll have to take that on faith), but I find it funny that I've never called *YOU* or Bacon or Superstars or any of the Christians on this forum Militant Christians. When have I ever implied that specific members on this forum have ever or are willing to kill for your beliefs?


Two Wrong make a Right.



> In fact it's become common policy for several members of your faith gang to make similar accusations, or you simply agree with someone who's said it. So I'll change it when the people guilty of that nonsense get the message or when more Christians point out that it is wrong to do that.


You assert that it is nonsense but where is your proof.



> The fact you're attacking my sig instead of correcting Christians who make these bullshit claims, says a lot about you


You assert that it is bullshit but where is your proof.





Petes12 said:


> I laid out my thoughts pretty clearly here:
> 
> I think anyone who disagrees with these 3 points is basically an idiot and I have no problem saying that.
> 
> I don't need to write a thousand more paragraphs on a subject that is so fucking simple there shouldn't be any argument at all.


X.
Therefore Y.


----------



## Petes12 (May 14, 2012)

lol what

**


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 14, 2012)

Like, wow. Deflection. Or probably not even that...it doesn't address anything relevant to her post!


----------



## Narcissus (May 14, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Like, wow. Deflection. Or probably not even that...it doesn't address anything relevant to her post!



Yeah... that was probably the worse attempt I've seen at an argument on this forum in weeks...


----------



## Golden Circle (May 14, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Like, wow. Deflection. Or probably not even that...it doesn't address anything relevant to her post!


According to Vynjira we can win arguments by pointing out the fallacies of their posts without addressing the content. 

Thought I'd do what Vynjira has been doing and see what you say. It's working.


----------



## Vynjira (May 14, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> Argument ad nauseum.


Two wrongs make a right.





> Personal attack. Cue the professor saying, "the freshman has his facts wrong."


Argumentum ad Nausam.





> Appeal to Spite


Appeal to motive.





> Two Wrong make a Right.


Straw Man Fallacy.





> You assert that it is nonsense but where is your proof.


You assert fallacies, but where is your proof?





> You assert that it is bullshit but where is your proof.


You assert hypocrisy, where is your proof?

Having fun embarrassing yourself?





Rainbow Dash said:


> According to her we can win arguments by pointing out the fallacies of their posts without addressing the content.
> 
> Thought I'd do what Vynjira has been doing and see what you say. It's working.


Stop projecting your faults onto other people, it works wonders.


----------



## Golden Circle (May 14, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> Two wrongs make a right.Argumentum ad Nausam.Appeal to motive.Straw Man Fallacy. You assert fallacies, but where is your proof?You assert hypocrisy, where is your proof?


Actually asserting that something is true without proof is called begging the question.



> Having fun embarrassing yourself?This is called projecting.


Having fun asserting your impression of others on the forum?



> Stop projecting your faults onto other people, it works wonders.


Nice edit. But actually, I had to project your faults on to myself for you to see the faults in your own argument.


----------



## Trism (May 14, 2012)

Put simply, Dan Savage didn't do anything wrong. So what if he called out the Bible on its BS? He's trying to fight against bullying, yet people are unfairly calling him a bully? That's real hypocrisy right there.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 14, 2012)

Brony is trying to come to the aid of his friend, and failing. 

Again though, Savage attacked specific passages in the Bible and urged Christians to ignore such texts. Considering they already do this when certain passages are incompatible with the laws of modern society, or when it's just personally inconvenient to them, it's stupid to act outraged about it or take it as a personal offense. Christians only hold value to the Bible on a superficial level. Again, most don't even read it or follow many of its teachings, and most are unaware of its content save for the most basic stories. Basically you could take it as an urge to do what they've always been doing when the Bible constantly reveals its antiquated nature. Just act like those passages don't exist, or re-interpret it through the aid of "Biblical scholars".


----------



## Vynjira (May 14, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> Actually asserting that something is true without proof is called begging the question.


I know reading is hard for you, but if you tried a bit harder you wouldn't look so foolish.





> Having fun asserting your impression of others on the forum?


I see you are, done projecting?


----------



## hammer (May 14, 2012)

if I post a popcorngif would it be spam?


----------



## Golden Circle (May 14, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Brony is trying to come to the aid of his friend, and failing.


That's your opinion.



> Again though, Savage attacked specific passages in the Bible and urged Christians to ignore such texts. Considering they already do this when certain passages are incompatible with the laws of modern society, or when it's just personally inconvenient to them, it's stupid to act outraged about it or take it as a personal offense. Christians only hold value to the Bible on a superficial level. Again, most don't even read it or follow many of its teachings, and most are unaware of its content save for the most basic stories.


Too true. And that's why I don't believe in mainstream Christianity.





Vynjira said:


> I know reading is hard for you, but if you tried a bit harder you wouldn't look so foolish.


>Saying I find reading hard (Personal Attack)
>Saying I look foolish (Appeal to Spite)


> I see you are, done projecting?


You projected your impression of me in your argument. I projected your arguments on to myself. I call you out for it. Who has done the projection here and is innocent of it? That's right, none.


----------



## Trism (May 14, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> >Saying I find reading hard (Personal Attack)
> >Saying I look foolish (Appeal to Spite)



Looking at your posts, it seems people are right to say you don't know how fallacies work. A personal attack is not a fallacy unless used in place of an argument. Vyn did not use her comment in place of an argument, but rather as an off-handed remark.


----------



## Golden Circle (May 14, 2012)

Trism said:


> Looking at your posts, it seems people are right to say you don't know how fallacies work. A personal attack is not a fallacy unless used in place of an argument. Vyn did not use her comment in place of an argument, but rather as an off-handed remark.


Actually, it does not matter when used in place of an argument or not. What matters is that it was used. Because apparently that's all part of a good healthy discussion.


----------



## Trism (May 14, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> Actually, it does not matter when used in place of an argument or not. What matters is that it was used. Because apparently that's all part of a good healthy discussion.





No, I am telling you that a personal attack is not a fallacy in and of itself. It has to be used in place of an argument to be considered as such. This is why people are telling you that you don't know how they work.


----------



## Vynjira (May 14, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> >Saying I find reading hard (Personal Attack)
> >Saying I look foolish (Appeal to Spite)
> 
> You projected your impression of me in your argument. I projected your arguments on to myself. I call you out for it. Who has done the projection here and is innocent of it? None.


Actually, you didn't. You jumped into a discussion on page 21 (which made references to various threads, so a context you're missing but the person I was addressing isn't), made a bunch of fallacious assertions setting up a straw man of my position. When I point out that you're embarrassing yourself you try to spin a real argument out of it.


----------



## Trism (May 14, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> Actually, you didn't. You jumped into a discussion on page 21, made a bunch of fallacious assertions setting up a straw man. When I point out that you're embarrassing yourself you try to spin a real argument out of it.



This as well. RD didn't rally make any actual arguments to begin with as well as improperly using fallacies.


----------



## Golden Circle (May 14, 2012)

^ All I did was point out that you were arguing it wrong.




Trism said:


> No, I am telling you that a personal attack is not a fallacy in and of itself. It has to be used in place of an argument to be considered as such. This is why people are telling you that you don't know how they work.


Well I must have been around too many other forums where simply using one is enough for one to lose the argument.


----------



## Vynjira (May 14, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> Well I must have been around too many other forums where simply using one is enough for one to lose the argument.


Suddenly, I realize why so many Christians think Hitchens is a terrible debater .


----------



## Petes12 (May 14, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> X.
> Therefore Y.



Seriously this was just not relevant at all. Was that really supposed to refute what I said or something?


----------



## Narcissus (May 14, 2012)

Guys, I'd ignore Rainbow Dash. He isn't contributing anything constructive to the thread and is making wild assumptions, poor arguments, and misusing fallacies.





Seto Kaiba said:


> Brony is trying to come to the aid of his friend, and failing.


This too.





> Christians only hold value to the Bible on a superficial level. Again, most don't even read it or follow many of its teachings, and most are unaware of its content save for the most basic stories. Basically you could take it as an urge to do what they've always been doing when the Bible constantly reveals its antiquated nature. Just act like those passages don't exist, or re-interpret it through the aid of "Biblical scholars".


There is so much truth to this it hurts. I still remember the recent thread where a Christian tried to tell me the Bible didn't even say anything about homosexuality. 

And the picking and choosing is ridiculous.


----------



## Trism (May 14, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> Well I must have been around too many other forums where simply using one is enough for one to lose the argument.



Apparently, yes, because those other forums are wrong.



Vynjira said:


> Suddenly, I realize why so many Christians think Hitchens is a terrible debater .



That also has to do with a particular sense of bias on their part too.


----------



## Vynjira (May 14, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> Guys, I'd ignore Rainbow Dash.


Oh no, now you're gonna be accused of what I was doing!! Quick find a scapegoat, Vynjira made you do it.





> And the picking and choosing is ridiculous.


What makes it worse, is they don't stop with the Bible.

Anyway, I find it interesting that several Christians have stated they see nothing wrong with what he said (after watching the video for themselves). Meanwhile the people who are upset with my sig, seem to be the same people who make the equivocation that my sig refers to and are the same people arguing that what Savage said was wrong.

I see a pattern here. BTW, what was the actual problem with the sig?


----------



## Golden Circle (May 14, 2012)

I see nothing wrong with what he said. God isn't against homosexuals; however he is against what they do. Also Christians are told not to judge others so blurgh, this is a storm in a teacup. It would be nice if Savage did the same though.


----------



## Narcissus (May 14, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> Oh no, now you're gonna be accused of what I was doing!! Quick find a scapegoat, Vynjira made you do it.




Well if he was actually making some valid arguments, they might be worth addressing. 


> What makes it worse, is they don't stop with the Bible.
> 
> Anyway, I find it interesting that several Christians have stated they see nothing wrong with what he said (after watching the video for themselves). Meanwhile the people who are upset with my sig, seem to be the same people who make the equivocation that my sig refers to and are the same people arguing that what Savage said was wrong.
> 
> I see a pattern here. BTW, what was the actual problem with the sig?


My guess is that your sig insults some people, despite there being truth to it. Somewhat similar to the situation with Savage, really.

But honestly, nothing is wrong with it.


----------



## Trism (May 14, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> I see nothing wrong with what he said. God isn't against homosexuals; however he is against what they do.


And that's where the bullshit comes in. What homosexuals do isn't wrong just because some book, or a God who hasn't been proven to exist, says so.

Yet this gets used to justify bullying the LGBT community...


----------



## Golden Circle (May 14, 2012)

Trism said:


> Yet this gets used to justify bullying the LGBT community...


I agree with you. Considering the standard that Christians are supposed to uphold, bullying doesn't fit in there anywhere. imo those who bully in the name of the bible should do some good looking at themselves.


----------



## Vynjira (May 14, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> My guess is that your sig insults some people, despite there being truth to it. Somewhat similar to the situation with Savage, really.
> 
> But honestly, nothing is wrong with it.


They are the ones that made the comparison tho.. so they're insulted because the sig perfectly demonstrates how their comparison not only fails but insults the Atheists they're arguing with?





> And that's where the bullshit comes in. What homosexuals do isn't wrong just because some book, or a God who hasn't been proven to exist, says so.


Just one thing, and I know you prolly agree.

Even if God did exist, and even if you had proof it was the God of the Bible, and God told everyone directly (so we weren't guessing which parts of the Bible were actually true) It still wouldn't be wrong just because God said so. That would be Might Makes Right, meaning if God commanded you to Rape all the virgin women and kill everyone else, that would be morally correct. Which we know isn't the case because every time it's pointed out Christians immediately argue that God would do that (or even worse that it was morally correct).


----------



## Golden Circle (May 14, 2012)

Also I would like to add that since Atheism is morally superior to the Bible we shouldn't bully the Christians or call them names like they do.


----------



## Vynjira (May 14, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> Also I would like to add that since Atheism is morally superior to the Bible we shouldn't bully the Christians or call them names like they do.


No, on *ALL COUNTS*. Atheism doesn't inform morality. Atheists may be morally superior to the Bible, but various Theists are also vastly morally superior to the Bible.

Savage didn't bully Christians, and nor have any of the Atheists on this forum.
The Christians that bully homosexuals, bully them for *BEING* homosexual.

The Atheists that you *ACCUSE* of bullying Christians, aren't "bullied" because they are Christian but because of specific views that we find abhorrent.

As for name-calling or swearing, this has been explained numerous times in greater detail but get the fuck over it. It's not fallacious and it's not sinking to their level (especially since their level includes dragging people by trucks from a noose around their neck). It's pandering and no one is obligated to do so, especially when people do it under false pretenses.


----------



## Trism (May 14, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> ?Just one thing, and I know you prolly agree.
> 
> Even if God did exist, and even if you had proof it was the God of the Bible, and God told everyone directly (so we weren't guessing which parts of the Bible were actually true) It still wouldn't be wrong just because God said so. That would be Might Makes Right, meaning if God commanded you to Rape all the virgin women and kill everyone else, that would be morally correct. Which we know isn't the case because every time it's pointed out Christians immediately argue that God would do that (or even worse that it was morally correct).



Absolutely, Vyn. I completely agree. If God told me to rape virgins or kill my child to prove my love, that wouldn't make it moral. And it's the same with homosexuality. Even if He were real, his word would make it immoral. Thanks for catching that. 



Rainbow Dash said:


> Also I would like to add that since Atheism is morally superior to the Bible we shouldn't bully the Christians or call them names like they do.



Savage didn't bully them though. And no one should ever bullied by anyone, regardless of their beliefs. Bullying for any reason is always wrong. However, name-calling isn't the same as bullying.


----------



## Golden Circle (May 14, 2012)

I'm mostly done with this thread, but I have to address the following.



Vynjira said:


> The Atheists that you *ACCUSE* of bullying Christians, aren't "bullied" because they are Christian but because of specific views that we find abhorrent.


I never accused any atheist of bullying. Maaayybe you are referring to this:



			
				Myself said:
			
		

> Also Christians are told *not to judge others* so blurgh, this is a storm in a teacup. It would be nice if Savage did the same though.


Note that there was no accusation of bullying on my part.





Trism said:


> Savage didn't bully them though. And no one should ever bullied by anyone, regardless of their beliefs. Bullying for any reason is always wrong. However, name-calling isn't the same as bullying.


You are so right. We're a bunch of confirmed ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) for taking this seriously.


----------



## Nihonjin (May 14, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> Argument ad nauseum.
> 
> Personal attack. Cue the professor saying, "the freshman has his facts wrong."
> 
> ...


----------



## Golden Circle (May 14, 2012)

You're late to the party. The party-goers have already left. Don't mind the stray confetti on the way out.


----------



## ~rocka (May 14, 2012)

I watched the video and I agree to some extent. He went on about it too long though, could've made his point in much less time. Walking out on something like this is just stupid, aren't these kids wanting to become journalists? If so you need to be able to take negative feedback just like positive ones. Otherwise you might as well look for a different study/occupation.


----------



## Nihonjin (May 14, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> God isn't against homosexuals; however he is against what they do.



Did God tell you this personally over a cup of tea or did you just pull it out of your fucking ass like everyone else does and fool yourself into believing you _know_ what a fucking creator of the universe would be for or against?


----------



## baconbits (May 14, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> The guy is pro-torture and thinks that criticism(regardless of how rational it is) is somehow equivalent to the verbal and physical abuse that leads to suicide or physical trauma that is sometimes fatal.



In other words you're making up things again.  While it is true that I agree with torturing terrorists (which is irrelevent to this topic) it is not true that I think that criticism is equivalent to physical abuse.  When you can find where I said anything like that I'll withdraw from the Christianity thread.



Vynjira said:


> He has divorced himself from reality, so reasoning with him is out of the question. All you can hope to do is expose how fallacious his arguments are.



You mean actually debate?  That's something you've seemed incapable of doing - all you've done is make up things.  Where was that definition for lies again?



Vynjira said:


> He's flat out stated that he doesn't care what the facts are, unless it fits with his beliefs (because he believes contradicting facts will eventually be found as wrong). So even if he watched the video(which he admitted he didn't do) there isn't any point in arguing with him.



I guess you didn't read this part of my reply:

*Not really. It's pedantic to argue that you have some better understanding than I do simply because you watched the video (and at the time I couldn't watch the video because I was at work) and I read the transcript. Secondly I've watched the video and learned nothing that I didn't already know from reading the transcript, which makes sense since the transcript is simply the written version of what occurred on the video.*

But that's not surprising.  You've demonstrated repeatedly that you don't read the posts of people you disagree with.



Seto Kaiba said:


> It was already made clear it was the passages in the Bible he was attacking; I find it stupid Christians would take that so personally considering most don't even read the Bible, and even moreso, don't actually abide by its teachings.



I don't think you can prove these points.  I would argue that many people don't know the entirety of biblical thought, but that would apply more to those attacking the bible, like Savage who doesn't understand the basics of Pauline doctrine, than those who walked out of this speech.

Secondly, I don't take this personally.  I find it silly to pretend this man is addressing bullying when he is clearly attacking Christianity instead.  Let's just call it for what it is and debate the real issue.



Seto Kaiba said:


> You guys have selectively interpreted passages of the Bible and excluded many others long before he said anything on it, so to act like he took a personal jab at followers for recommending that they ignore the "bullshit" in the Bible is simply ridiculous.  You guys have _always_ done that, at your own convenience of course.



First, who are "you guys"?  Secondly, please detail these selective interpretations.  Thirdly this is not a ridiculous claim.  He took a jab at those who believe that the Bible is divinely inspired.  Savage also exposes the fact that he doesn't understand how OT law relates to New Covenant believers.


----------



## baconbits (May 14, 2012)

Keep on cutting out parts of my posts.  It demonstrates your lack of honesty.



Narcissus said:


> Thanks for admitting to downplaying the bullying of gay kids.



That's very childish of you.  I put something in context, you pretend I'm making an absolute judgment.



Narcissus said:


> It doesn't matter what these things have to do with a "proper understanding of the Bible." The fact of the matter is that the Bible condemns homosexuals, and people use the Bible to justify their bullying, proper understanding or not.



So what.  The bible also condemns theivery.  If people murder starving kids who stole an apple from the grocery store and attempt to justify their murder with the bible should the bible be criticized?

This has everything to do with a proper understanding.  If the bible actually advocated this bullying you might have a small point.  (Small because, as I've pointed out repeatedly, gay bullying is likely a very small percentage of bullying as a whole, so addressing it is only addressing a small part of the problem.)  But the fact that the bible actually argues against this bullying means you don't have a foot to stand on.

If I say explicitly "don't bully gay kids" and some idiots say "he's speaking in code - beat up a gay kid" I'm not responsible for the beating of the gay kid, the idiots are.  Likewise since the bible actually advocates the opposite of beating the gay kid it is stupid to argue that the bible is at fault for gay bullying.



Narcissus said:


> It's also dishonest to dismiss the suffering of these kids as "sob stories" as their suffering does justify criticism of the Bible.



Their suffering alone does not justify criticism of the bible, it justifies criticism of those who made them suffer.  I would think this would be obvious, but it's clear that we have to break this argument down to 1 + 1 type of simplicity for you.



Narcissus said:


> Except that's not a real point. First of all, it shows that you're ignorant of who Savage is. The man started the It Gets Better movement, a campaign to stop the suicide of gay kids. It is perfectly fine for him to focus on the bullying of gay kids, regardless of who gets bullied. Secondly, gay kids have a high statistic of suicide, so yes, his focus on it is justified.



His argument is completely fallacious.  Some people thought this speech was going to be about bullying, not just gay bullying.



Narcissus said:


> Or you could actually try to make a good argument for once.



This coming from the man who uses every argument he condemns me for using in examples...



Narcissus said:


> The bible condemns homosexuality, which is bullshit. People use that to justify bullying. Savage said we can ignore the bullshit, and he is right.


 
That's idiocy.  The bible condemns x.  People then bully who do x.  Exactly how does that have anything to do with the bible condemning x?  That would be like saying the fact that we have laws against pollution means that the US government is responsible for environmental terrorism.  Yes, your argument is that bad.



Narcissus said:


> First, I don't care about your opinion on his apology; it's an unsupported opinion and you are biased.



And your opinions are somehow supported and objective?  For someone who doesn't care what I think you take a lot of time trying to disfigure my arguments.



Narcissus said:


> Second, try responding properly to what I write. I posted that in response to you asking how I knew the majority of the audience was Christian and even bolded the relevant lines. Either improve your reading comprehension, or stop being dishonest.



In other words you're accusing me of not being objective and making unsupported arguments so you proceed to take the word of the man who attacked the Christians in his audience to get proof on how many Christians were in his audience.  Your hypocrisy is astounding.

You cannot accuse me of not being objective when you simply site an opinion as your response.  Savage has absolutely no figures to back him up.  He has absolutely no proof.



Narcissus said:


> You said that your comment wasn't dishonest because many people believed it to be true.



Lol!  I said my example wasn't dishonest because the people in my example could realistically believe what they said.  Reading comprehension?



Narcissus said:


> That is appealing to popularity and it doesn't make your claim honest. While I pointed out that the most of the crowd wasn't offended and that Savage's claim is honest



In other words this entire argument trying to accuse me of being dishonest was based off of an extremely bad interpretation of my argument.  Just concede the argument and save us both the effort.



Narcissus said:


> No, I've demonstrated that you are guilty of fallacious arguments and baseless accusations.



Where?  Your claim doesn't create reality.



Narcissus said:


> I don't care what notions you get, they're subjective and unfit for argumentation.  I could sit here and say that I get the feeling you'd disagree with almost anything that criticized Christianity, but I'm not because it has not place here.
> 
> It is also dishonest of you to continue warping what he said into an attack on Christians. He didn't.



All you're arguing is that "he didn't".  Typically an argument takes a few good reasons to be accepted.

In other words I've argued that he has attacked Christians because he attacked the people who walked out personally (which you cannot deny and can only try to excuse with his unapologetic apology) and attacked the bible completely, which means he attacked their beliefs.  Your reply is "he didn't".  You're not going to win any awards for good debating in this thread.


----------



## baconbits (May 14, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> You have been deliberately dishonest, hypocritical, and guilty of poor reasoning in this argument.



Another unfounded assertion.  At least you're consistent.



Narcissus said:


> Now this is clear sophistry (amusing to, considering I demonstrated the distortion above). You've distorted this into an attack on all Christians, when he attacked an specific part of a book. You're also using another appeal to motive fallacy.



Lol.  Any address of your motives is not an appeal ot motive fallacy.  An appeal to motive fallacy is when I try to disprove your argument solely by appealing to your motives/intentions.  I didn't do that here.  (Demonstrating once again that you don't understand how to make a good argument.)



Narcissus said:


> Nothing in what I said can be construed to me not having a problem with bullying. You're making wild assumptions with any real basis. I said that his comment isn't anywhere near as bad as theirs.



Exactly what comment did the audience make towards him?  Exactly what comment was he responding to?  He's taking some verses out of context and pretending this represents so significant portion of people.  You're referring to some comments that you haven't even cited yet (unless you're referring to the biblical passages, which would be even more specious).

The reason what you're saying can be construed that way is that you are defending a person who is taking a group of people and bashing them in front of others.  He's also using hostile language and defames those who don't like his use of abusive and hostile language.

That's bullying.  You may not like it, but that's bullying.  If I were to take a gay kid and insult him in front of a group of his peers that would be psychological bullying.  The fact that you see Savage as any different shows that you're willing to accept something less from those you agree with philosophically.



Narcissus said:


> That's an opinion on their part, and they have the right to it. Just as he has the right to harshly criticize it. If anything, you're the bigot for attacking him for expressing his right.



Lol.  So he can attack but he can't be attacked back?  Right...

Please just give up.  It's clear you can't form a coherent argument.  There is no bigotry for responding to what he said in less abusive language than he used.  Unless you're arguing that any defense of Christianity is bigotry.



Narcissus said:


> Because he had the right to criticize it, regardless of who was offended.



Of course he has that right.  He even has the right to pretend he was addressing bullying when he wasn't.  Whether or not he has the "right" to do something was never something I was contending.



Narcissus said:


> His comment referred to their reaction.



And that responds to what I said how?  He still attacked the kids for walking out.



Narcissus said:


> We are not discussing his history, we are discussing the particular even that occurred.



Funny, we can bring in a random event - bullying supported by the bible that you don't even have the proof for - but we can't discuss the history of the person speaking.  Interesting.

Actually his history is relevent because it provides a context for his commentary.  For example, if MLK said something that sounded militant we can assume he meant it figuratively since he has a history of being against violence.



Narcissus said:


> The definition doesn't make it any less blatant. It was a lie on your part, and you even tried to make excuses to defend it.
> 
> I've already given the definition, and the shining example would be you.



Lol.  So you're just going to keep intentionally misinterpreting my argument and then debate that.  How honest of you.

I'll say this: if he wanted Christians to stop bullying gays then he did in fact turn off his intended audience.



Narcissus said:


> Now you're missing my point, which was that it's pointless for you to sit there and throw your own guesses into the equation. And in Savage's statement he says most of the audience was Christian.



In other words we should take Savage's opinion as objective even though he is part of this incident.



Narcissus said:


> This is a further show of distortion. Savage directly attacks a portion of the book, saying we can ignore the bullshit in it. As for the kids, he attacked their reaction, not them directly.



He attacked the "bible guys".  Saying he attacked "their reaction" is silly.



Narcissus said:


> And what's interesting, bacon, is the you've been dancing around the real issue here. You're not touching the topic of whether or not the Bible is right regarding homosexuality, even when I specifically assert that Savage was right regarding it. Because it is bullshit, regardless of who got their feeling hurt by hearing it.



I've danced around nothing.  First, we have the Christianity discussion thread for any questions on Chrisitanity itself.  Secondly, I've stated my opinions on homosexuality explicitly in this thread.  Thirdly, I've stated from the beginning that my point of posting was to criticize this man's methods and dishonesty.  The fact that he attacked Christianity/the bible is only incidental.



Narcissus said:


> You've already proven you don't know how fallacies work. If you can't actually argue, be quiet rather than embarrass yourself further.



Lol.  Every time you've tried to use a fallacy you've used it incorrectly.  You think that if I argue "x because of y and you're not that smart" that I've made an ad hominem.


----------



## Vynjira (May 14, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> I'm mostly done with this thread, but I have to address the following.
> 
> I never accused any atheist of bullying. Maaayybe you are referring to this:
> 
> ...


Funny how I quoted exactly what I was responding to and you decided to go back to some other comment.





Rainbow Dash said:


> Also I would like to add that since Atheism is morally superior to the Bible *we shouldn't bully the Christians* or call them names like they do.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 14, 2012)

baconbits said:


> I don't think you can prove these points.



I could use you as a specific example, as one whom was unaware of one of the more atrocious massacres God advocated in the Bible, unaware of the specific passages condemning homosexuality, and unaware that each of the Abrahamic religions worship the same god. 

But...:









> I would argue that many people don't know the entirety of biblical thought, but that would apply more to those attacking the bible, like Savage who doesn't understand the basics of Pauline doctrine, than those who walked out of this speech.



No. As a matter of fact it is the least religious that display the most knowledge of the Bible:





> Secondly, I don't take this personally.  I find it silly to pretend this man is addressing bullying when he is clearly attacking Christianity instead.  Let's just call it for what it is and debate the real issue.



No you are trying to shift the topic. He was attacking passages in the Bible that condemn homosexuality, not the followers. Again, they interpret the Bible on a selective basis as it is, so why not do so in this case?



> First, who are "you guys"?  Secondly, please detail these selective interpretations.



You are to kill non-believers, even family:



> *Deuteronomy 17:* If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.





> Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)





> If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)



You are entitled to take slaves from other nations.

You are to kill homosexuals:



> If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)



You are to kill adulterers:



> If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)



You are to exile a woman who is found menstruating by her lover: 



> If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)



I expect fervent denial from you.



> Thirdly this is not a ridiculous claim.  He took a jab at those who believe that the Bible is divinely inspired.  Savage also exposes the fact that he doesn't understand how OT law relates to New Covenant believers.



That's only emphasizing his point, and mine, of Christians selective interpretations. That only blows whatever refutation you are trying to make of him out of the water.


----------



## Kue (May 14, 2012)

baconbits said:


> I don't think you can prove these points.  I would argue that many people don't know the entirety of biblical thought, but that would apply more to those attacking the bible, like Savage who doesn't understand the basics of Pauline doctrine, than those who walked out of this speech.
> 
> Secondly, I don't take this personally.  I find it silly to pretend this man is addressing bullying when he is clearly attacking Christianity instead.  Let's just call it for what it is and debate the real issue.



This is a dishonest tactic you were also using in our debate in the Christianity thread.  Seto Kaiba was obviously talking about Christians in general, yet you still decide to talk about yourself.  Also Savage was attacking an ideology, not an individual.



> First, who are "you guys"?  Secondly, please detail these selective interpretations.  Thirdly this is not a ridiculous claim.  He took a jab at those who believe that the Bible is divinely inspired.  Savage also exposes the fact that he doesn't understand how OT law relates to New Covenant believers.



You are pretending as if you don't cherry pick how you interpret pessages in the Bible.  I'm sure you wouldn't be posting in this forum if you took everything in the Bible literally.  Slavery is supported in the New Testament as well by the way.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 14, 2012)

I suppose in b4, "NU-UH YOU HAVE TO USE "X" VERSION OF THE BIBLE" or some other long-winded response about interpretation. You know, that last part about killing your direct family members for deviancy from the faith is pretty blunt.


----------



## Kue (May 14, 2012)

There's also the passages about treating women as if they were a sub-human species.  All supported by the New Testament as well.


----------



## Judas (May 14, 2012)

Cold Dish said:


> There's also the passages about treating women as if they were a sub-human species.



Reminds me of the passage that commands a rapist to marry his victim...



			
				Deuteronomy said:
			
		

> *28 *If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, *29 *he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.





> All supported by the New Testament as well.



Jesus did say he came to fulfill the old laws in Matthew 5.


----------



## Vynjira (May 14, 2012)

baconbits said:


> In other words you're making up things again.  While it is true that I agree with torturing terrorists (which is irrelevent to this topic) it is not true that I think that criticism is equivalent to physical abuse.  When you can find where I said anything like that I'll withdraw from the Christianity thread.


So you didn't write this:





baconbits said:


> It is bullying because you have an adult attacking the views of a captive audience composed mainly of kids.  They came to hear him speak on bullying; he came armed with attacks on their religion.


Looks like you try to frame criticism as bullying. Which equivocates it to the physical abuse that bullying produces.

So I expect you're done posting here correct?
( nah, you're just going to evade and distort)

Have fun embarrassing yourself.



Judas said:


> Reminds of the passage that commands a rapist to marry his victim...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Matthew 5:18, "I tell you the truth, *until heaven and earth disappear*, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Are we not on the Earth?

Luke 16:17, "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void."

Earth again...

2 Timothy 3:16,  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So what it says about slavery is instruction for righteousness?

1 Peter 2:18, "You who are slaves must accept the authority of your masters with all respect. Do what they tell you--not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are cruel."

..and Jesus instructing slaves to be obedient.

Even if you argue that this was before his Crucifixion, all hasn't passed or been fulfilled. The Earth is still here, so this apparently refers to the Rapture as being the end of the law. While his Crucifixion is merely a PART of the events that he has come to fulfill.

Keep in mind that if you do think Jesus fulfilled the law, the 10 commandments are no longer binding. So you're using this as a loophole to ignore laws you don't like.


----------



## Narcissus (May 14, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Keep on cutting out parts of my posts.  It demonstrates your lack of honesty.


No it doesn't. 

I don't care about your irrelevant examples that you use for argumentum verbosium. What it dishonest is the things you've been saying, and I've been calling you out on them.





> That's very childish of you.  I put something in context, you pretend I'm making an absolute judgment.


I don't care about your opinion. However, no, it wasn't childish, it was honest because you admitted that you downplay it.





> So what.  The bible also condemns theivery.  If people murder starving kids who stole an apple from the grocery store and attempt to justify their murder with the bible should the bible be criticized?


This goes back to the picking and choosing. People choose what they want to obey from the Bible. Besides which, if you're example really happened, then yes, the Bible should be criticized and the people should be sent to jail.





> This has everything to do with a proper understanding.  If the bible actually advocated this bullying you might have a small point.  (Small because, as I've pointed out repeatedly, gay bullying is likely a very small percentage of bullying as a whole, so addressing it is only addressing a small part of the problem.)  But the fact that the bible actually argues against this bullying means you don't have a foot to stand on.


See, this is the dishonesty that you implement. You warp the arguments people make by saying the Bible doesn't advocate bullying, when we are clearly referring to the passages in the Bible that condemn homosexuality. Those passages are what we are discussing, and you are carefully evading the issue.





> If I say explicitly "don't bully gay kids" and some idiots say "he's speaking in code - beat up a gay kid" I'm not responsible for the beating of the gay kid, the idiots are.  Likewise since the bible actually advocates the opposite of beating the gay kid it is stupid to argue that the bible is at fault for gay bullying.


 

It is stupid to downplay the fact that the Bible denounced homosexuality and that people use it to justify their bigotry. Especially when the Leviticus chapters say that they should be put to death.





> Their suffering alone does not justify criticism of the bible, it justifies criticism of those who made them suffer.  I would think this would be obvious, but it's clear that we have to break this argument down to 1 + 1 type of simplicity for you.


It's not obvious because its dishonest. If the Bible never denounced homosexuality, *THEN* you could say it is wrong to criticize it. But it does, and people use it, hence both the Bible and the people using it deserve criticism.





> His argument is completely fallacious.  Some people thought this speech was going to be about bullying, not just gay bullying.


That doesn't make it fallacious, and false presuppositions are irrelevant.





> This coming from the man who uses every argument he condemns me for using in examples...


Except I directly explain why your examples are not the same as my arguments.





> That's idiocy.  The bible condemns x.  People then bully who do x.  Exactly how does that have anything to do with the bible condemning x?  That would be like saying the fact that we have laws against pollution means that the US government is responsible for environmental terrorism.  Yes, your argument is that bad.


Now this is stupid. This is a straw man of what I said. People simply bullying something the Bible condemns *IS NOT THE SAME* as people *DIRECTLY* using the Bible to justify their bullying, which happens to be the situation here.





> And your opinions are somehow supported and objective?  For someone who doesn't care what I think you take a lot of time trying to disfigure my arguments.


Yes, I actually am being objective, unlike you, who is sitting there distorting Savage's comment into an attack on all Christians. And I don't care about your personal opinions on the matter (in this case, regarding the legitimacy of Savage's apology) because you are clearly biased.





> In other words you're accusing me of not being objective and making unsupported arguments so you proceed to take the word of the man who attacked the Christians in his audience to get proof on how many Christians were in his audience.  Your hypocrisy is astounding.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He didn't attack the audience
My claim isn't unsupprted, as I'm providing the support right here
You said you hadn't even seen any specification to the number of Christians in te audience despite supposedly having read multiple articles

So this shows that you haven't even looked as fr into the issue as you're claiming (more dishonesty), and that I am being more objective because I am not making unfounded claims.





> You cannot accuse me of not being objective when you simply site an opinion as your response.  Savage has absolutely no figures to back him up.  He has absolutely no proof.


He directly references the number of people in his audience. You are essentially grasping at straws to discredit him after being exposed.





> Lol!  I said my example wasn't dishonest because the people in my example could realistically believe what they said.  Reading comprehension?


Which is an appeal to popularity fallacy. 

People believing something doesn't make it true.





> In other words this entire argument trying to accuse me of being dishonest was based off of an extremely bad interpretation of my argument.  Just concede the argument and save us both the effort.




It's not accusing you of being dishonest, it's showing you are dishonest. If you don't want to argue anymore, stop responding. It's that simple and still saves us both the effort.





> Where?  Your claim doesn't create reality.


Looking in a mirror? I've cited the fallacies you've been invoking.





> All you're arguing is that "he didn't".  Typically an argument takes a few good reasons to be accepted.


Yes, and I have provided reasons why he didn't. Meanwhile you merely make the unfounded claim that he did.





> In other words I've argued that he has attacked Christians because he attacked the people who walked out personally (which you cannot deny and can only try to excuse with his unapologetic apology) and attacked the bible completely, which means he attacked their beliefs.  Your reply is "he didn't".  You're not going to win any awards for good debating in this thread.


Actually, he attacked their reaction, not them personally. And his attacking their beliefs is not tantamount to attacking them. Hence, what he said is not an attack on Christians.

And you may very well win an award for debating in this thread. The "Worst Debater" award.


----------



## Narcissus (May 14, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Another unfounded assertion.  At least you're consistent.


Parroting what I've exposed you for doesn't make it true on my end. I've already demonstrated where you're guilty of these things.





> Lol.  Any address of your motives is not an appeal ot motive fallacy.  An appeal to motive fallacy is when I try to disprove your argument solely by appealing to your motives/intentions.  I didn't do that here.  (Demonstrating once again that you don't understand how to make a good argument.)


If anything, this demonstrates that you know how to evade points. Further, you said I distorted my argument to "look intelligent" and gave no further reasoning for it.





> Exactly what comment did the audience make towards him?  Exactly what comment was he responding to?  He's taking some verses out of context and pretending this represents so significant portion of people.  You're referring to some comments that you haven't even cited yet (unless you're referring to the biblical passages, which would be even more specious).


I wasn't referring to the audience. I said his comment is nowhere near as bad as what many Christians say about how people are going to be tortured for all eternity.





> The reason what you're saying can be construed that way is that you are defending a person who is taking a group of people and bashing them in front of others.  He's also using hostile language and defames those who don't like his use of abusive and hostile language.


He did not attack them. This is the dishonesty from you that I've been pointing out.





> That's bullying.  You may not like it, but that's bullying.  If I were to take a gay kid and insult him in front of a group of his peers that would be psychological bullying.  The fact that you see Savage as any different shows that you're willing to accept something less from those you agree with philosophically.


The difference in the example you're using is that you're directly insulting the gay kid. Savage criticized the Bible and referred to the kids' reaction.





> Lol.  So he can attack but he can't be attacked back?  Right...


Straw man. I said for attacking his right to express criticism. Not to mention that you are distorting what he actually said.





> Please just give up.  It's clear you can't form a coherent argument.  There is no bigotry for responding to what he said in less abusive language than he used.  Unless you're arguing that any defense of Christianity is bigotry.


Stop responding? 'Cause from my view, you cannot make any argument with changing what Savage said. But if you don't want to continue, stop replying. 


> Of course he has that right. He even has the right to pretend he was addressing bullying when he wasn't. Whether or not he has the "right" to do something was never something I was contending.


Stop. You have failed to demonstrate that his criticism of the Bible and bullying are unrelated, only asserted it, while it has been explained how people use the Bible to justify bullying homosexuals.





> And that responds to what I said how?  He still attacked the kids for walking out.


Because it shows he didn't actually insult them personally. It was a comment on their reaction.





> Funny, we can bring in a random event - bullying supported by the bible that you don't even have the proof for - but we can't discuss the history of the person speaking.  Interesting.


See, this deomstrates that you are not interested in having an honest discussion. No one is saying the Bible supports bullying, but that people use its passages that denounce homosexuality (the bullshit) to justify bullying. 





> Lol.  So you're just going to keep intentionally misinterpreting my argument and then debate that.  How honest of you.
> 
> I'll say this: if he wanted Christians to stop bullying gays then he did in fact turn off his intended audience.


Which is a lie on your part, as most of them remained and applauded what he said.





> In other words we should take Savage's opinion as objective even though he is part of this incident.


It certainly more reliable than you.





> He attacked the "bible guys".  Saying he attacked "their reaction" is silly.


"How pansy-ass some people can react..." Yes he attacked their reaction, and even says so in his apology.





> I've danced around nothing.  First, we have the Christianity discussion thread for any questions on Chrisitanity itself.  Secondly, I've stated my opinions on homosexuality explicitly in this thread.  Thirdly, I've stated from the beginning that my point of posting was to criticize this man's methods and dishonesty.  The fact that he attacked Christianity/the bible is only incidental.


The major issue stands on whether or not Savage is right in his criticism. And he is. You'll have to show me where you posted your view on homosexuality. The "we have the Christianity Thread" is a cop-out.


----------



## baconbits (May 14, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I could use you as a specific example, as one whom was unaware of one of the more atrocious massacres God advocated in the Bible, unaware of the specific passages condemning homosexuality, and unaware that each of the Abrahamic religions worship the same god.



That's an unfounded assertion.  The Abrahamic religions do not worship the same God because each one defines God differently, whether that be his person or the scope of his deity.



Seto Kaiba said:


> But...:



This link doesn't prove anything (it is also old).  It simply asks about Americans in general.  Half of those who believe the bible answers the basic questions of life read the bible regularly.  If we take your first claim literally - that most Christians don't read the bible, and we defined Christians as those who believe the bible answers the basic questions of life, we'd have to take this as proof that your argument is false.


This link is comparing Catholic reading to Protestant reading of the bible.  I don't see how it applies.  Now if you were referring to daily reading in your first post I could grant you this point, but as the author of the study says even Catholics, who don't read the bible much have 56% of its people who do read the bible.  That would qualify as "most".


All I need to do is mention this quote from this link:



> In fact, just 54% of Protestant adults read the Bible at least once a week.



While that number is quite sad - 100% should be reading the bible everyday - that number doesn't justify your argument that most Christians don't read the bible.



Seto Kaiba said:


> No. As a matter of fact it is the least religious that display the most knowledge of the Bible:



I was referring specifically to this thread when people like yourself expose their ignorance of biblical thought.  Secondly, the survey you listed isn't shown on Pew's pages anymore.  All we have to go on are a few isolated stats that show how ignorant people are, something I'd agree with since I teach biblical thought every week.



Seto Kaiba said:


> No you are trying to shift the topic. He was attacking passages in the Bible that condemn homosexuality, not the followers. Again, they interpret the Bible on a selective basis as it is, so why not do so in this case?



So because some idiots don't know how to interpret the bible Savage should interpret it it ignorantly as well?  That doesn't follow.

Secondly I'm not trying to shift the topic.  This discussion from my end has been mainly about Savage's tactics and the purpose of his speech.  Thirdly, you need to explain how people are interpreting anything selectively.



Seto Kaiba said:


> You are to kill non-believers, even family:
> 
> You are entitled to take slaves from other nations.
> 
> ...



First, I think it hilarious that you don't understand the second to last passage about menustration.  The passage doesn't condemn "discovering" that someone is menustrating.  The passage condemns sleeping with a woman while she is.  This could have something to do with a pagan rite or an admonition against forced sex even in marriage.

Second, the passages you cite are OT law.  OT law is important as a guide to morality, not as a prescription for action.  Thus we know because of the OT that homosexuality is wrong.  The NT Christian is not supposed to execute non believers or homosexuals - you can see this in the NT if you read it with the slightest bit of reading comprehension.

Thus there is no "selective interpretation".  You simply don't understand biblical thought.



Seto Kaiba said:


> That's only emphasizing his point, and mine, of Christians selective interpretations. That only blows whatever refutation you are trying to make of him out of the water.



Not really.  The fact that you listed those passages shows that you don't know anything about biblical thought.


----------



## baconbits (May 14, 2012)

Cold Dish said:


> This is a dishonest tactic you were also using in our debate in the Christianity thread.  Seto Kaiba was obviously talking about Christians in general, yet you still decide to talk about yourself.  Also Savage was attacking an ideology, not an individual.



CD, if you spent more time trying to understand and less time launching attacks you'd probably find that there is room to discuss this topic.  There was nothing dishonest in my statment.  Let's go over what I said again.

*I don't think you can prove these points.*

His own links disagreed with him.

*I would argue that many people don't know the entirety of biblical thought, but that would apply more to those attacking the bible, like Savage who doesn't understand the basics of Pauline doctrine, than those who walked out of this speech.

Secondly, I don't take this personally. I find it silly to pretend this man is addressing bullying when he is clearly attacking Christianity instead. Let's just call it for what it is and debate the real issue. *

Where in here did I talk about myself?  He said that Christians, and he did not specify who, are taking this personally.  Since I happen to be a Christian, I inferred that he was launching this accusation against me.  If I'm wrong about what I inferred then I'll accept a simple correction.  But stop throwing around these random accusations.



Cold Dish said:


> You are pretending as if you don't cherry pick how you interpret pessages in the Bible.  I'm sure you wouldn't be posting in this forum if you took everything in the Bible literally.  Slavery is supported in the New Testament as well by the way.



I take everything in the spirit in which it was written.  I've stated that countless times before.


----------



## Vynjira (May 14, 2012)

Stop right there bacon, you said you'd withdraw if you said anything like that (referring to criticism being equivalent to physical abuse). I just quoted you saying something to that effect and you're still posting.

What's going on? Granted you said Christianity Thread, so perhaps you're withdrawing there? Okay, I'll go check.


----------



## Bit Sean (May 14, 2012)

Aren't you the one who's been going on about hate the sin, love the sinner?

Savage was attacking the belief. Or specifically, specific aspects of the belief that a large quantity of believers ignore, and the evident hypocricy of such an act.

This does not = him attacking Christians.

Furthermore, criticism/pointing out facts does not = bullying. If I told the world's fattest man he could stand to lose some weight, I would not be bullying him. In the same vein, pointing out that parts of the Bible advocate abuse or murder of homosexuals is not bullying.

And if you think advocating the abuse or murder of homosexuals doesn't qualify as bullshit, then I have nothing to say to you.


----------



## Judas (May 14, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> Matthew 5:18, "I tell you the truth, *until heaven and earth disappear*, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
> 
> Are we not on the Earth?
> 
> ...



What?

I was referencing that verse to reinforce the point that Jesus didn't have the slightest issue with old laws, not to say that they no longer apply. I'm already aware of those verses. Including the one where he condones a slave being beat so long as he/she isn't killed.

I apologize for the choice of words in Jesus "fulfilling the law" since that must've prompted the response.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 14, 2012)

baconbits said:


> That's an unfounded assertion.  The Abrahamic religions do not worship the same God because each one defines God differently, whether that be his person or the scope of his deity.



That is a clear and basic fact. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity worship the SAME GOD, IE, the God of Abraham. Regardless of how they may each interpret him, the fact remains that they all worship the same deity.



> This link doesn't prove anything (it is also old).  It simply asks about Americans in general.  Half of those who believe the bible answers the basic questions of life read the bible regularly.  If we take your first claim literally - that most Christians don't read the bible, and we defined Christians as those who believe the bible answers the basic questions of life, we'd have to take this as proof that your argument is false.



Ah, just as I thought. Backtracking and denial. Each stated that most Christians are not Bible-literate, and that many do not read it at all. Many cannot name all ten commandments nor the gospels they claim to abide by. Most only read it during held sermons. 



> This link is comparing Catholic reading to Protestant reading of the bible.  I don't see how it applies.  Now if you were referring to daily reading in your first post I could grant you this point, but as the author of the study says even Catholics, who don't read the bible much have 56% of its people who do read the bible.  That would qualify as "most".



The article states that for both, the believers do not really read the Bible, and are not Bible-literate. Moreso, a lot less than their predecessors. 



> All I need to do is mention this quote from this link:
> 
> 
> 
> While that number is quite sad - 100% should be reading the bible everyday - that number doesn't justify your argument that most Christians don't read the bible.



Cherrypicking. That once a week is during held sermons, when a select few quotes are read aloud usually. Which is pointed out. Nice try though.



> I was referring specifically to this thread when people like yourself expose their ignorance of biblical thought.  Secondly, the survey you listed isn't shown on Pew's pages anymore.  All we have to go on are a few isolated stats that show how ignorant people are, something I'd agree with since I teach biblical thought every week.



I seem to be just as well-versed as you despite not being a Christian anymore. Biblical thought as it stands now is merely cherry-picking and selective interpretation of the Bible's passages. 



> So because some idiots don't know how to interpret the bible Savage should interpret it it ignorantly as well?  That doesn't follow.



Nearly all modern-day Christians selectively interpret the Bible, because many of its teachings are incompatible with functioning in a modern society.



> Secondly I'm not trying to shift the topic.  This discussion from my end has been mainly about Savage's tactics and the purpose of his speech.  Thirdly, you need to explain how people are interpreting anything selectively.



You are trying to shift it. He attacked the passages in the Bible, and you are trying to make it as an attack on the followers to avoid the clear fact that Christians selectively interpret passages of the Bible.

Well, the condemnation of homosexuality is one. You guys condemn homosexuality as a sin, yet you do not recognize the other ordinances God apparently commanded the faithful to do. 



> First, I think it hilarious that you don't understand the second to last passage about menustration.  The passage doesn't condemn "discovering" that someone is menustrating.  The passage condemns sleeping with a woman while she is.  This could have something to do with a pagan rite or an admonition against forced sex even in marriage.



It plainly states that a lover whom uncovers a menstruating women is to be condemned alongside her. There's no dispute in this, and yet another example of Christians' selective interpretation of the Bible.



> Second, the passages you cite are OT law.  OT law is important as a guide to morality, not as a prescription for action


.  

God's word is law according to all Abrahamic faiths, so this is untrue. I'd expect a Biblical scholar to know that. This is what I meant by selective intrepretation though.



			
				Matthew 5 said:
			
		

> 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
> 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
> 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
> 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
> 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.





> Thus we know because of the OT that homosexuality is wrong.  The NT Christian is not supposed to execute non believers or homosexuals - you can see this in the NT if you read it with the slightest bit of reading comprehension.



Selective interpretation. You pick and choose what laws you want to follow, and what laws you don't and even more specifically how you want to follow the laws you do choose to keep.



> Thus there is no "selective interpretation".  You simply don't understand biblical thought.



YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND. Nice to see you being backed into a corner over this. 



> Not really.  The fact that you listed those passages shows that you don't know anything about biblical thought.



Nice to see you made no attempt in refuting their contents.


----------



## Trism (May 14, 2012)

Not to mention the fact that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is constantly said to have resulted from homosexual activity. How anyone can say that people don't use the Bible in their bullying is beyond me.


----------



## Narcissus (May 14, 2012)

Judas said:


> What?
> 
> I was referencing that verse to reinforce the point that Jesus didn't have the slightest issue with old laws, not to say that they no longer apply. I'm already aware of those verses. Including the one where he condones a slave being beat so long as he/she isn't killed.
> 
> I apologize for the choice of words in Jesus "fulfilling the law" since that must've prompted the response.



I don't think she was disagreeing with you Judas, but rather reinforcing the point you were making


----------



## Judas (May 14, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> I don't think she was disagreeing with you Judas, but rather reinforcing the point you were making



I just want to keep all bases covered just in case.


----------



## Kue (May 14, 2012)

"Launching attacks."

Lol.


----------



## Banhammer (May 14, 2012)

A twenty five pages long gay bible thread huh

Why have I been missing this shitstorm of a thread?



baconbits said:


> While it is true that I agree with torturing terrorists (which is irrelevent to this topic)




Oh.

I imagine shit statements like these are why.

Seriously, how can anyone be this ass minded?
You do realize that by doing this you give an open invitation to the whole world to torture americans, a number none too shy of which are at this moment in danger overseas?


ITT baconbits hates our troops


----------



## baconbits (May 14, 2012)

*The anti-baconbits FC: now accepting new applications...*



Vynjira said:


> So you didn't write this:
> 
> 
> 
> > It is bullying because you have an adult attacking the views of a captive audience composed mainly of kids. They came to hear him speak on bullying; he came armed with attacks on their religion.



I did in fact write that.  So let's understand properly what was written.

1. I argue that this is an adult attacking the views of a captive audience.
2. I describe this audience mainly as highschool kids.
3. I claim they came to hear Savage speak on bullying.
4. Savage attacked religious views.

This is what you understood:



Vynjira said:


> Looks like you try to frame criticism as bullying. Which equivocates it to the physical abuse that bullying produces.



You're making some strange leaps here.  First, there is no need to say "looks like" - what I wrote is very clear.  Second, I did not frame all criticism as bullying; I framed this criticism as bullying - that's an important distinction.  In other words my argument is _specific_ and you've _generalized_ it.

This in no way "equivocates it to the physical abuse that bullying produces".  First of all the phrase hardly makes sense.  Bullying isn't always physical and doesn't always produce physical abuse.  Secondly there's no way that a clear reading of what I stated says anything like your argument.  I want you to use dictionary.com and see if you can understand the terms _specific_ and _generalize_.



Vynjira said:


> So I expect you're done posting here correct?
> ( nah, you're just going to evade and distort)



This is what is properly called a random attack or unfounded assertion.  If I've distorted or evaded something the proper place to detail what I've distorted or evaded would be here.  Since you didn't detail what I've distorted or evaded you're essentially expecting me to take your words on faith.  This is why this is a poor argument - you've made a statement without reasoning.  Or in logic x because of x.



Vynjira said:


> Have fun embarrassing yourself.



I plan on having fun.  I'm not sure exactly how I'm going to embarrass myself by expounding on my views.



Vynjira said:


> Stop right there bacon, you said you'd withdraw if you said anything like that (referring to criticism being equivalent to physical abuse). I just quoted you saying something to that effect and you're still posting.
> 
> What's going on? Granted you said Christianity Thread, so perhaps you're withdrawing there? Okay, I'll go check.



Lol.  Vynjira sometimes I believe you live in a fantasyworld.  (And by the way I was posting my response while you posted yours, so even if I accepted your argument I wouldn't have seen it in time.)


----------



## baconbits (May 14, 2012)

*The anti-baconbits FC: owner - Vynjira; co-owner - Trism*



Narcissus said:


> No it doesn't.



Actually it does.  If my examples are that stupid you should destroy them and expose their stupidity for all to see.  The fact that you don't implies that you can't.



Narcissus said:


> I don't care about your irrelevant examples that you use for argumentum verbosium. What it dishonest is the things you've been saying, and I've been calling you out on them.



Yes, it's clear you don't care about anything I say and that you think everything I state is dishonest.  What's also clear is that you can't really prove the dishonesty accusation.  You also like to use fallacies even though you don't really understand how to use them properly.

When I use examples I use them to help people like yourself properly understand the argument.  You would do well to respond to them - they'd help you properly understand my responses.



Narcissus said:


> I don't care about your opinion. However, no, it wasn't childish, it was honest because you admitted that you downplay it.



No, it was quite childish because my response had context that you chose not to respond to.  It would be like if you started a phrase by saying "True, but..."  and I responded "thanks for saying I'm right".



Narcissus said:


> This goes back to the picking and choosing. People choose what they want to obey from the Bible. Besides which, if you're example really happened, then yes, the Bible should be criticized and the people should be sent to jail.



So in other words you really will defend any attack on the bible because even if the bible doesn't suggest something but people try to use it to justify their actions, you think this is grounds to attack it.

That's a terrible argument, which doesn't surprise me, but it exposes a lack of objectivity.  If I used evolution to defend genocide would you decry evolution (this actually happened by the way).  What about using evolution to defend racism?  Or survival of the fittest to defend murder?

The examples, which I have no doubt you'll delete, expose the fact that you'd be unwilling to criticize those philosophies because you know they'd be used improperly.  The same should be said about someone who reads "thou shalt not steal" and defends killing the kid (my example above).



Narcissus said:


> See, this is the dishonesty that you implement. You warp the arguments people make by saying the Bible doesn't advocate bullying, when we are clearly referring to the passages in the Bible that condemn homosexuality. Those passages are what we are discussing, and you are carefully evading the issue.



I am not evading the issue at all.  Perhaps you need to read more carefully: the bible condemns actions; these condemnations are what we call the Moral Law.  This moral law determines morality.  What you ignore is how NT christians ought to react to those who break the moral law.

This is why the bible says this:



> 9 I wrote to you in my letter  not to associate with sexually immoral people? 10   not at all meaning  the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters,  since then you would need to go out of the world.



and this:



> 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you,  live peaceably with all.



and this:



> Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.



In other words we respect all men.  This is a direct command.  The problem with your argument is not that the OT law isn't something we should respect - we do - but that you've conflated OT law with NT dictates.

So I'm not "evading" the question.  I'm answering it.



Narcissus said:


> It is stupid to downplay the fact that the Bible denounced homosexuality and that people use it to justify their bigotry. Especially when the Leviticus chapters say that they should be put to death.



Actually it isn't stupid.  It is stupid to pretend that an OT law applies to NT saints.  When you make this argument you repeat an ignorant argument.

Nice picture, btw.  But while a picture may be a thousand words it doesn't necessarily make a good argument.



Narcissus said:


> It's not obvious because its dishonest. If the Bible never denounced homosexuality, *THEN* you could say it is wrong to criticize it. But it does, and people use it, hence both the Bible and the people using it deserve criticism.



Here we actually agree somewhat.  Those using the bible in that fashion deserve criticism; the bible does not deserve criticism.  It would be like criticizing a rock because I threw it at you.



Narcissus said:


> That doesn't make it fallacious, and false presuppositions are irrelevant.



Actually they are not irrelevent.  They were invited to a speech on bullying.  Their expectations led to their response.



Narcissus said:


> Except I directly explain why your examples are not the same as my arguments.



Not really.  I think you're responses range from "I don't care" to "that's dishonest".  It's good you have two responses, but in this case two responses isn't enough.



Narcissus said:


> Now this is stupid. This is a straw man of what I said. People simply bullying something the Bible condemns *IS NOT THE SAME* as people *DIRECTLY* using the Bible to justify their bullying, which happens to be the situation here.



True.  Just like if I directly use a book to smack you in the head, that book should also be criticized, since I used it directly to attack you... right?



Narcissus said:


> Yes, I actually am being objective, unlike you, who is sitting there distorting Savage's comment into an attack on all Christians. And I don't care about your personal opinions on the matter (in this case, regarding the legitimacy of Savage's apology) because you are clearly biased.



So you have absolutely no bias?  I find this unbelievable.  Neither of us is objective because we're both taking sides in this discussion.  Also you've stated you don't care for the 99th time - I commend your consistency.



Narcissus said:


> He didn't attack the audience
> My claim isn't unsupprted, as I'm providing the support right here
> You said you hadn't even seen any specification to the number of Christians in te audience despite supposedly having read multiple articles



Actually your claim doesn't have any objective support.  We could all claim we have support if someone partisan decided to agree with us.  Typically when I make an argument that is substantiated I don't mean that basilikos chimed in and agreed with me.



Narcissus said:


> So this shows that you haven't even looked as fr into the issue as you're claiming (more dishonesty), and that I am being more objective because I am not making unfounded claims.



This shows this how?  The fact that you, after I challenged you for not supporting your argument, then went and found something the person in question said proves that I'm dishonest and that your argument was supported?  That's a funny way of thinking.

If I challenge you and say "you just made an unfounded assertion" (accepting your premise) it's illogical to then return with some backing and claim that my challenge was dishonest, unless you presume I'm omniscient.



Narcissus said:


> He directly references the number of people in his audience. You are essentially grasping at straws to discredit him after being exposed.



Not really.  He simply makes a general statement about the composition of the audience.  What supports his claim?


----------



## baconbits (May 14, 2012)

*the anti-baconbits FC: VIP from the shadows - Narcissus*



Narcissus said:


> Which is an appeal to popularity fallacy.



When people actually believe what they say how is this an appeal to popularity fallacy?

This is a proper appeal to popularity fallacy: "the rest of the audience wasn't bothered by what he said".  You'd be correct if you labeled that as a fallacious argument.



Narcissus said:


> People believing something doesn't make it true.



Agreed.



Narcissus said:


> It's not accusing you of being dishonest, it's showing you are dishonest. If you don't want to argue anymore, stop responding. It's that simple and still saves us both the effort.



Lol.  Repeating my own line is reminiscent of some squabbles I've had on the playground - good times.

I do notice that you don't address the point: the only reason you think I'm dishonest is because you didn't understand what I meant.  An honest debater would ask for clarification.



Narcissus said:


> Looking in a mirror? I've cited the fallacies you've been invoking.



You've cited fallacies.  I've never invoked them.



Narcissus said:


> Yes, and I have provided reasons why he didn't. Meanwhile you merely make the unfounded claim that he did.



The claim isn't unfounded.  I've listed his attacks and what he said.  I've also listed how he refers to the bible generally repeatedly.  It seems you have a propensity for ignoring this.



Narcissus said:


> Actually, he attacked their reaction, not them personally. And his attacking their beliefs is not tantamount to attacking them. Hence, what he said is not an attack on Christians.



If they are the people who react then how is that any different than attacking them?



Narcissus said:


> And you may very well win an award for debating in this thread. The "Worst Debater" award.



This isn't my best debate, true.  But I've set a high standard over time.



Narcissus said:


> Parroting what I've exposed you for doesn't make it true on my end. I've already demonstrated where you're guilty of these things.



Yes, just keep repeating that line.  It becomes more convincing with repetition.



Narcissus said:


> If anything, this demonstrates that you know how to evade points. Further, you said I distorted my argument to "look intelligent" and gave no further reasoning for it.



I gave much more reasoning for it.  I see no reason to repeat what you can scroll up and read.



Narcissus said:


> I wasn't referring to the audience. I said his comment is nowhere near as bad as what many Christians say about how people are going to be tortured for all eternity.



That's debatable.  This is simply a statement of consequence.  If I say "if you go to Texas and murder someone you could be executed" is that hateful?  The fact that there is a consequence for certain actions does not imply hate from the person detailing the consequences.  It actually implies care.



Narcissus said:


> He did not attack them. This is the dishonesty from you that I've been pointing out.



What you call "dishonesty" is what I call "the contention on the topic we're discussing".  Basically any disagreement with you is dishonest.  You've named yourself aptly.



Narcissus said:


> The difference in the example you're using is that you're directly insulting the gay kid. Savage criticized the Bible and referred to the kids' reaction.



Not really.  In my example I simply said that all homosexuals were going to hell.  In that example I never mentioned the gay kid directly - I simply raised a statement of belief that may or may not apply to the audience.  If I criticize anyone that walked out I'm not criticizing them personally, only their reaction.  If I criticize the gay kid I'm only criticizing his homosexuality, not him.



Narcissus said:


> Straw man. I said for attacking his right to express criticism. Not to mention that you are distorting what he actually said.



I raise your straw man a straw man.  When did I ever attack his right to attack his audience?  He has that right and I have the right to respond.



Narcissus said:


> Stop responding? 'Cause from my view, you cannot make any argument with changing what Savage said. But if you don't want to continue, stop replying.



We are both stubborn men (I assume you're a man, so don't be offended if you aren't).  But it seems to me that when you make an argument that terrible you should make some type of recognition that you made a mistake of some kind.

Most people claim it was a spelling error.



Narcissus said:


> Stop. You have failed to demonstrate that his criticism of the Bible and bullying are unrelated, only asserted it, while it has been explained how people use the Bible to justify bullying homosexuals.



First, I'm glad you're agreeing that he did in fact attack the bible.  Secondly you later argue that no one ever argued that the bible calls for bullying.  I don't know how you can balance this point and that point.

Thirdly, I address the suppose connection between the bible and bullying above, which will probably be deleted and never responded to.



Narcissus said:


> Because it shows he didn't actually insult them personally. It was a comment on their reaction.



Yes.  And if I insult you it is merely a comment on your posting.  If someone bullies gays they're simply bullying the homosexuality.



Narcissus said:


> See, this deomstrates that you are not interested in having an honest discussion. No one is saying the Bible supports bullying, but that people use its passages that denounce homosexuality (the bullshit) to justify bullying.



Like I said this argument contradicts ones made above.

Second, you did (and many others have) argued that the bible supports bullying.  Thirdly, if you acknowledge that the bible does not support bullying then you should be standing with me and saying that Savage shouldn't be attacking the bible and calling it "bullshit"; he should be saying that people who use the bible erroneously are idiots, something I do occasionally.  Then we could all agree.



Narcissus said:


> Which is a lie on your part, as most of them remained and applauded what he said.



Most of those who walked out?



Narcissus said:


> It certainly more reliable than you.



It would be easier to understand your argument if you used proper English.

Also, please explain how Savage, who is part of this fiasco, can be objective.  I'm interested to hear the logic behind that one.



Narcissus said:


> "How pansy-ass some people can react..." Yes he attacked their reaction, and even says so in his apology.



Yes, I saw his non-apology apology.



Narcissus said:


> The major issue stands on whether or not Savage is right in his criticism. And he is. You'll have to show me where you posted your view on homosexuality. The "we have the Christianity Thread" is a cop-out.



It isn't a cop out.  Everyone knows I think homosexuality is wrong - even you know it, so pretending otherwise is dishonest.

Secondly, the major issue is not whether Savage is right about the bible.  The main issue was whether he had to be so abrasive and whether he was even addressing bullying.


----------



## Golden Circle (May 14, 2012)

I don't really care for the others, but I will say this:



Nihonjin said:


> Did God tell you this personally over a cup of tea or did you just pull it out of your fucking ass like everyone else does and fool yourself into believing you _know_ what a fucking creator of the universe would be for or against?
> 
> [sp][/sp]




1 Corinthians 6:9-12
9What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God?s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God?s kingdom. 11 And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.

Interpret it as you will.


----------



## Vynjira (May 14, 2012)

baconbits said:


> I did in fact write that.


Then I don't see why you're still responding. You flatly asserted that the Criticism itself was bullying.

I don't care how you try to spin that into something different. You already know that I don't think you're honest (and I'm not the only one as you've noticed). The fact that you've stated you're going to believe things regardless of what the Science says, demonstrates you're not someone who can have an honest discussion.


----------



## Narcissus (May 15, 2012)

baconbits said:
			
		

> The anti-baconbits FC: now accepting new applications...
> The anti-baconbits FC: owner - Vynjira; co-owner - Trism
> the anti-baconbits FC: VIP from the shadows - Narcissus


Well, I've certainly got a hold on your maturity (or lack of) level now. 


baconbits said:


> Actually it does.  If my examples are that stupid you should destroy them and expose their stupidity for all to see.  The fact that you don't implies that you can't.


No, that's the delusion you get from it. And I'm fine with that, seeing as you're delusional in general anyway. However, it doesn't show dishonesty, just that I choose not to respond to it.





> Yes, it's clear you don't care about anything I say and that you think everything I state is dishonest.  What's also clear is that you can't really prove the dishonesty accusation.  You also like to use fallacies even though you don't really understand how to use them properly.


Parroting what I've said to others doesn't help your case. 

And I have directly shown where you've been dishonest and used fallacious logic.





> No, it was quite childish because my response had context that you chose not to respond to.  It would be like if you started a phrase by saying "True, but..."  and I responded "thanks for saying I'm right".


It is your opinion that it was childish, and I don't care what you think. But the fact is that you admitted to downplaying it and tried to justify it, only your justification was not sufficient.





> So in other words you really will defend any attack on the bible because even if the bible doesn't suggest something but people try to use it to justify their actions, you think this is grounds to attack it.


I will defend an attack on the Bible when it is justified. As I already said, Savage was justified in his claims, and in your example, if the Bible say to execute thieves and someone uses that to justify killing starving children, then yes, that Biblical verse deserves criticism and the people deserve to be jailed.





> That's a terrible argument, which doesn't surprise me, but it exposes a lack of objectivity.  If I used evolution to defend genocide would you decry evolution (this actually happened by the way).  What about using evolution to defend racism?  Or survival of the fittest to defend murder?


I've already explained to you why this comparison fails. Repeating it won't make it any more true. Evolution does not tell people how to live their lives, as such, those people would be misusing it. The Bible however instructs people how to live, and has clear passages about homosexuality. This is the key difference, and the reason both the person using the Biblical quotation and the person can both be criticized.





> The examples, which I have no doubt you'll delete, expose the fact that you'd be unwilling to criticize those philosophies because you know they'd be used improperly.  The same should be said about someone who reads "thou shalt not steal" and defends killing the kid (my example above).


Does the Bible directly say to execute thieves, rather than "Thou shalt not steal?" If not, then yes, the people are using the Bible incorrectly.





> I am not evading the issue at all.  Perhaps you need to read more carefully: the bible condemns actions; these condemnations are what we call the Moral Law.  This moral law determines morality.  What you ignore is how NT christians ought to react to those who break the moral law.
> 
> This is why the bible says this:*snip*
> 
> ...


This is clear evasion, because we are not discussion those parts of the Bible. We are discussing the parts that denounce homosexuality, because that is what Savage criticized. You don't get to sit there and ignore the actual issue by posting other portions of the Bible just because they contradict one another.





> Actually it isn't stupid.  It is stupid to pretend that an OT law applies to NT saints.  When you make this argument you repeat an ignorant argument.
> 
> Nice picture, btw.  But while a picture may be a thousand words it doesn't necessarily make a good argument.


Yes, it is stupid, because people still use the OT laws to justify the bullying. And the picture itself isn't an argument, it is an example of how people still use the Bible to attack homosexuals.


> Here we actually agree somewhat.  Those using the bible in that fashion deserve criticism; the bible does not deserve criticism.  It would be like criticizing a rock because I threw it at you.


The rock doesn't have words on it telling you to throw it at me for some reason, so it wouldn't offer you any justification. The Bible has words denouncing homosexuality, and people use it as justification. Again, your examples do not work because the circumstance are different. The Bible deserves criticism for those passages.





> Actually they are not irrelevent.  They were invited to a speech on bullying.  Their expectations led to their response.


And that's their fault, not Savage's.





> Not really.  I think you're responses range from "I don't care" to "that's dishonest".  It's good you have two responses, but in this case two responses isn't enough.


When I say I don't care, it's in response to some irrelevant opinion you've made that doesn't contribute to the discussion (and you've made a lot of them). When I show you're dishonestly, I take the time to explain how you've been dishonest, which usually involves you distorting what Savage said or shifting the issue to other parts of the Bible when we're talking about specific parts, or downplaying the suffering of homosexuals. I have explained why your examples are not the same as my arguments by pointing out the significant differences (like the fact the a rock or evolution do not tell people how to live their lives, unlike the Bible).





> True.  Just like if I directly use a book to smack you in the head, that book should also be criticized, since I used it directly to attack you... right?


And here is another example that doesn't work. The book is the same as the rock. You're using it to physically assault me, rather than quoting it to justify your attack.





> So you have absolutely no bias?  I find this unbelievable.  Neither of us is objective because we're both taking sides in this discussion.  Also you've stated you don't care for the 99th time - I commend your consistency.


Want it to stop? Then stop shoehorning your irrelevant opinions into the discussion.





> Actually your claim doesn't have any objective support.  We could all claim we have support if someone partisan decided to agree with us.  Typically when I make an argument that is substantiated I don't mean that basilikos chimed in and agreed with me.


My claim has more support than yours (considering you have none at all). Savage was the speaker, so he knew his audience better than you do, and he is not some random person like Basilikos. So yes, I have more objectivity than you regarding this.





> This shows this how?  The fact that you, after I challenged you for not supporting your argument, then went and found something the person in question said proves that I'm dishonest and that your argument was supported?  That's a funny way of thinking.
> 
> If I challenge you and say "you just made an unfounded assertion" (accepting your premise) it's illogical to then return with some backing and claim that my challenge was dishonest, unless you presume I'm omniscient.


You claimed to have read multiple articles on the incident, yet said you didn't see any reference to how much of the audience was Christian. It's pretty telling that you're saying you read these articles, yet missed one of the most significant ones regarding the situation (the apology). So yes, it shows that you haven't looked as far into it as you're claiming.





> Not really.  He simply makes a general statement about the composition of the audience.  What supports his claim?


The fact that he was the speaker. He clearly has information you don't, considering he knew the number of people there.


----------



## Narcissus (May 15, 2012)

baconbits said:


> When people actually believe what they say how is this an appeal to popularity fallacy?


That wasn't you're claim. You said that you're example wasn't dishonest because people actually believe it. That doesn't make it true, and I went on to explain that there is no evidence for the claim.





> This is a proper appeal to popularity fallacy: "the rest of the audience wasn't bothered by what he said".  You'd be correct if you labeled that as a fallacious argument.


This shows that you don't know how the fallacy works. If someone said Savage was right because most of the audience agreed with him, that would be an appeal to popularity. That isn't the case, as it was said to debunk the notion that the general audience was turned off.





> I do notice that you don't address the point: the only reason you think I'm dishonest is because you didn't understand what I meant.  An honest debater would ask for clarification.


You didn't have any point to make. All you did was make an assertion.





> You've cited fallacies.  I've never invoked them.


Considering the explanation above, this would be incorrect.





> The claim isn't unfounded.  I've listed his attacks and what he said.  I've also listed how he refers to the bible generally repeatedly.  It seems you have a propensity for ignoring this.


You have yet to show him actually launching an attack on Christians. What you have done is distorted his criticism into that. Attacking the Bible is not tantamount to attacking Christians, and the Bible can be subject to criticism.





> If they are the people who react then how is that any different than attacking them?


Because it doesn't directly insult them.





> This isn't my best debate, true.  But I've set a high standard over time.


This is an example of the type of thing I say I don't care about. Your statements of deluded self-gratification don't contribute anything to the discussion, other than a sense of unwarranted arrogance.





> Yes, just keep repeating that line.  It becomes more convincing with repetition.


This is not a point of refutation.





> That's debatable.  This is simply a statement of consequence.  If I say "if you go to Texas and murder someone you could be executed" is that hateful?  The fact that there is a consequence for certain actions does not imply hate from the person detailing the consequences.  It actually implies care.


No, it implies a false sense of care. And honestly, you're missing the point. It is hypocritical for Christians to attack Savage over his comment when it is nowhere near as bad as what they claim. Furthermore, it's arrogant to assert your "statement of consequence" when you have no evidence for it, unlike your Texas/murder/execution example.


> What you call "dishonesty" is what I call "the contention on the topic we're discussing".  Basically any disagreement with you is dishonest.  You've named yourself aptly.


Discussion of what he said is not the same as completely distorting what he said into an attack on Christianity. That's what you're doing, and it is dishonest on your part. And thank-you, I take that as a compliment (though the irony of you saying it is not lost on me). 


> Not really.  In my example I simply said that all homosexuals were going to hell.  In that example I never mentioned the gay kid directly - I simply raised a statement of belief that may or may not apply to the audience.  If I criticize anyone that walked out I'm not criticizing them personally, only their reaction.  If I criticize the gay kid I'm only criticizing his homosexuality, not him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I suggest you remember what you write, because you directly say that if you insulted the gay kid (which is different from what Savage did).





> I raise your straw man a straw man.  When did I ever attack his right to attack his audience?  He has that right and I have the right to respond.


You have the right to respond, but that's not what you've done. You've distorted what he said and then attacked that.





> We are both stubborn men (I assume you're a man, so don't be offended if you aren't).  But it seems to me that when you make an argument that terrible you should make some type of recognition that you made a mistake of some kind.
> 
> Most people claim it was a spelling error.


You want me to recognize a mistake I've made, when I haven't seen you do this at all? Really now?





> First, I'm glad you're agreeing that he did in fact attack the bible.  Secondly you later argue that no one ever argued that the bible calls for bullying.  I don't know how you can balance this point and that point.


Now it's my turn to lol. He clearly refers to specific parts of the Bible. You're the one making it an attack on all of it. I was referring to the parts he criticized. Stop with the distortion. And I've already explained that the Bible doesn't advocate bullying.

*Does the Bible have passages advocating bully?
The answer is "No."
This means the Bible doesn't DIRECTLY advocate bullying.*​
*Does the Bible denounce homosexuality?
The answer is "Yes."
People use this denouncement as justification for their bullying of homosexuals.*​
The denouncement is the bullshit that Savage said we could ignore.





> Yes. And if I insult you it is merely a comment on your posting. If someone bullies gays they're simply bullying the homosexuality.



*A: "You are an idiot."
B: "This post is idiotic."
Is B an insult of the person?
No. You are attacking something they wrote, not them personally.*​
Criticizing something someone does isn't the same as insulting the person.





> Like I said this argument contradicts ones made above.
> 
> Second, you did (and many others have) argued that the bible supports bullying. Thirdly, if you acknowledge that the bible does not support bullying then you should be standing with me and saying that Savage shouldn't be attacking the bible and calling it "bullshit"; he should be saying that people who use the bible erroneously are idiots, something I do occasionally. Then we could all agree.


No, I have said the Bible is used to justify bullying and that its passages regarding homosexuality are bullshit. So yes, Savage was justified in saying what he said.





> Most of those who walked out?


were a small portion of the audience who couldn't deal with honest criticism.





> Also, please explain how Savage, who is part of this fiasco, can be objective. I'm interested to hear the logic behind that one.


I've already explained it. He was the speaker, had info on his audience, and knew how many were there. You are doing guesswork.





> Yes, I saw his non-apology apology.


Then you should know that he was referring to their reaction, and not attacking them.





> It isn't a cop out. Everyone knows I think homosexuality is wrong - even you know it, so pretending otherwise is dishonest.


And you think homosexuality is wrong because? (and lol at the taking a stab at my English with poorly-worded sentences like this )





> Secondly, the major issue is not whether Savage is right about the bible. The main issue was whether he had to be so abrasive and whether he was even addressing bullying.


It's been explained to you that people use to Bible to justify bullying. So yes, by criticizing the passages of the Bible that people use to attack homosexuals, he is addressing bullying. And considering the way in which people use the Bible against homosexuals, harsh criticism is sometimes required.


----------



## Vynjira (May 15, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> Well, I've certainly got a hold on your maturity (or lack of) level now.


An Anti-baconbits fanclub would get a lot of members...


----------



## Narcissus (May 15, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> An Anti-baconbits fanclub would get a lot of members...



You'll get no argument from me on that.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 15, 2012)

> he anti-baconbits FC: now accepting new applications...



What the hell, dude?


----------



## Banhammer (May 15, 2012)

unlike the justice society of internet badasses which actually doesn't want anything to do with baconbits, but he went ahead and stole the title anyway


----------



## Kue (May 15, 2012)

Criticizing baconbit's statements is "lauching attacks" towards him.


----------



## Banhammer (May 15, 2012)

> Does the Bible have passages advocating bully?


actually the bible has several passages condemning bullies

Blessed be the meek for they shall inherit the earth or something


----------



## Banhammer (May 15, 2012)

not that dumb and hypocrite are relatively high on the priority list of a person character when you got violent and abusive in there too


----------



## Hand Banana (May 15, 2012)

Loving the taste of trollery in this thread.


----------



## baconbits (May 15, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> That is a clear and basic fact. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity worship the SAME GOD, IE, the God of Abraham. Regardless of how they may each interpret him, the fact remains that they all worship the same deity.



Not really.  You're simply begging the question.  You're simply stating there is no disagreement when there is.  Jews do not think that Jesus Christ is God; many don't think there is a real distinction between God the Father and God the Spirit, either.  Islam does not recognize the deity of Christ and Allah is a completely different personality than the God described in the Bible.

Now you may want to conflate the three but you're doing so based on ignorance, not knowledge or good arguments.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Ah, just as I thought. Backtracking and denial.



I'm not sure how you argue that, SK.  I went through each of your links and it's pretty clear from your replies that I read them more thoroughly than you did.  Did you just get them from google and hope I wouldn't check them?



Seto Kaiba said:


> Each stated that most Christians are not Bible-literate, and that many do not read it at all. Many cannot name all ten commandments nor the gospels they claim to abide by. Most only read it during held sermons.



In other words your claim about "most" was wrong and if you were a gracious person you'd just concede that point and ammend your argument.

But on your other points I agree with you.  I don't think it supports your larger argument about these kids though - we simply don't know enough about them to know what they knew when they walked out.



Seto Kaiba said:


> The article states that for both, the believers do not really read the Bible, and are not Bible-literate. Moreso, a lot less than their predecessors.



True.  Biblical knowledge has gone down - I've experienced this myself.  Again, this doesn't support your arguments or your claims that "most" Christians don't read the bible or know what it means.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Cherrypicking. That once a week is during held sermons, when a select few quotes are read aloud usually. Which is pointed out. Nice try though.



Cherrypicking?  I quoted stats from your own link, SK.  Let's not cry over spilled milk.



Seto Kaiba said:


> I seem to be just as well-versed as you despite not being a Christian anymore. Biblical thought as it stands now is merely cherry-picking and selective interpretation of the Bible's passages.



So you claim.  But a claim takes proof, SK.  I can't just take your word for it.  I know about proper exegesis and what I've stated is pretty orthodox and not difficult to understand.  You're not very well versed - I don't mean this to be an insult but I think you need to take a little chill pill and educate yourself on what Christians actually think instead of memories from your childhood days.

Selective interpretation means we simply ignore certain passages.  I've never ignored the OT or difficult passages.  The passages you mention are part of the larger body of biblical thought, and most be interpreted as part of a whole, not some individual piece that exists isolated from any other thought.

When you list a single verse here and there from OT law all you've proven is that these are laws that the OT established for Israel.  If you actually understand the NT you'll learn that these laws are important as a moral guide and that we follow the moral law, though not the legal code of the law.  Thus I could look at the law and learn that murder is wrong.  I cannot, as an NT saint, look at the law and then try and stone a murderer - that isn't an act that is consistent with biblical thought.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Nearly all modern-day Christians selectively interpret the Bible, because many of its teachings are incompatible with functioning in a modern society.



So you claim.  Since you're debating me you simply need to deal with what I believe.  I would never do what you're accusing Christians of doing.



Seto Kaiba said:


> You are trying to shift it. He attacked the passages in the Bible, and you are trying to make it as an attack on the followers to avoid the clear fact that Christians selectively interpret passages of the Bible.



Actually I'm not.  I already addressed the attacks on the bible specifically and showed that Savage doesn't really have a solid grasp on biblical thought.

I don't have a problem with people attacking the bible - you attack the bible everytime you and I debate, as do other atheists.  An attack on the bible is often the beginning of a nice debate.  My problem isn't the attack; my problem is first that people are pretending that the bible causes bullying and people are pretending that this man was addressing bullying properly, when he was not.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Well, the condemnation of homosexuality is one. You guys condemn homosexuality as a sin, yet you do not recognize the other ordinances God apparently commanded the faithful to do.



Not really.  Realize that Christ came to fulfill the law.  This truth is important to understanding Christianity.  Christ fulfilled the law - meaning there are no need for sacrifices, religious rites and celebrations that were mandated in the law.  Christ saved us as a spiritual people, not a physical people - meaning that laws about diet and circumcision no longer apply.  These things are explicitly stated in the NT.  There's nothing selective about it.

That's why I've stated that its clear that you simply don't know what you're talking about.  This isn't a cop out argument, it's simply a statement of fact.  If you don't know these simple truths then you don't know as much as you think you do about Christianity.



Seto Kaiba said:


> It plainly states that a lover whom uncovers a menstruating women is to be condemned alongside her. There's no dispute in this, and yet another example of Christians' selective interpretation of the Bible.



Not really.  This says not if you explicitly have sex with a woman you know is menstruating that this was something that is condemned.  This law no longer applies because this is once again a physical rite of cleanliness that applies to the physical people of God in the Old Covenant, not the spiritual people of God in the New Covenant.



Seto Kaiba said:


> God's word is law according to all Abrahamic faiths, so this is untrue. I'd expect a Biblical scholar to know that. This is what I meant by selective intrepretation though.



God's word is law.  Unfortunately you don't know which laws apply and which ones don't.  It shouldn't take a scholar to tell you that OT dietary restrictions no longer apply, yet I keep hearing arguments mentioning shellfish.  I think people need to get a clue, lol.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Selective interpretation. You pick and choose what laws you want to follow, and what laws you don't and even more specifically how you want to follow the laws you do choose to keep.



Well, I've answered this charge a few times in this post.  I doubt the answers will satisfy you but you tend to just leave threads once your arguments get trashed.



Seto Kaiba said:


> YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND. Nice to see you being backed into a corner over this.



Typically people would interpret "you just don't understand" as an assertion of ignoranace.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Nice to see you made no attempt in refuting their contents.



Actually I did.  I answered the passages specifically, highlighted that you have no clue what the passage about menstruation is saying, and dealt with the attacks generally as OT law that you're applying erroneously to the NT saints.  There - I just responded to the point again.



Banhammer said:


> unlike the justice society of internet badasses which actually doesn't want anything to do with baconbits, but he went ahead and stole the title anyway



Actually I was invited in.  They sent me the sig and suggested a few color schemes.  I accepted their nomination.


----------



## baconbits (May 15, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> Well, I've certainly got a hold on your maturity (or lack of) level now.



True, true.  I never claimed to be the wisest of sages.



Narcissus said:


> No, that's the delusion you get from it. And I'm fine with that, seeing as you're delusional in general anyway. However, it doesn't show dishonesty, just that I choose not to respond to it.



Lol.  I think you'd accuse me of anything so long as I disagreed with you.  That said your lack of response does show dishonesty because you're giving the illusion of responding to every point when you're not.  I'd prefer another "I don't care" to these deletions.



Narcissus said:


> Parroting what I've said to others doesn't help your case.



Yes, that's the proper way to characterize my arguments.  Since you don't seem to understand sarcasm (below) I'll have to insert this: /sarcasm.



Narcissus said:


> And I have directly shown where you've been dishonest and used fallacious logic.



Not really.  You've tried to prove it but your proofs end up showing that you simply don't like the fact that someone disagrees with you.  If someone believes that hell exists you claim this is dishonest.  If I say people actually believe that hell exists so even if they are wrong they can't be dishonest you claim I'm committing a fallacy.

What this shows is that you don't understand fallacies or dishonesty, which is clear since many of your arguments are dishonest or fallacies.  I'll point this out below.



Narcissus said:


> It is your opinion that it was childish, and I don't care what you think. But the fact is that you admitted to downplaying it and tried to justify it, only your justification was not sufficient.



Simply because you stated so?  Again you're making another argument that you want me to simply take your opinion as gospel, yet whenever I state my opinion you say "I don't care".  I don't mind that you don't care, but don't you find it hypocritical to selectively not care when I cite an opinion when at the same time your opinions are supposed to be arguments?

Hypcrisy is a bad thing, Narcissus.



Narcissus said:


> I will defend an attack on the Bible when it is justified. As I already said, Savage was justified in his claims, and in your example, if the Bible say to execute thieves and someone uses that to justify killing starving children, then yes, that Biblical verse deserves criticism and the people deserve to be jailed.



You need to read the example again.  I never said the bible called for execution of thieves because it doesn't.  I said that if the bible simply denounces stealing and people use that denounciation to excuse murdering thieves you'd still think its okay to attack the bible.  You then agreed with my assessment.  I think any question about how objective you are has been answered.

Now Savage is not justified at all, because when something is improperly used we ought to blame those who use it improperly, not the object that is improperly used.  This is a point I've stated repeatedly, yet you ignore it.  I suppose if I had a poorly constructed argument I'd ignore this point, too.  So I identify with you.



Narcissus said:


> I've already explained to you why this comparison fails. Repeating it won't make it any more true. Evolution does not tell people how to live their lives, as such, those people would be misusing it. The Bible however instructs people how to live, and has clear passages about homosexuality. This is the key difference, and the reason both the person using the Biblical quotation and the person can both be criticized.



Lol.  You've made another terrible argument.  Let's break it down logically.

"The bible tells people how to live their lives" - true: the bible says x.

But the bible does not tell people to bully gays.  Let us consider this to be y.  So if y is not included in x how is your argument even logically valid?  In other words your argument is "Y is bad.  The bible says X.  The bible is bad."  This is a terrible argument.

I tell people what to do as well.  But if people go and do something I explicitly didn't tell them to do I should not be blamed simply because I "tell people how to live their lives".

Secondly, your argument fails to address my argument.  Those who defended genocide argued that certain races were vestiges of the past that humanity was evolving from.  In other words blacks and Jews were less human than some of the European races.  Humanity would therefore benefit from eliminating those less fit types of humanity from the gene pool.

They used evolution to bolster their argument.  Address that, not your blanket assumption that this doesn't apply because "evolution doesn't tell people how to live their lives" since no one ever argued that evolution told anyone how to live their life.  That would be a strawman argument.



Narcissus said:


> Does the Bible directly say to execute thieves, rather than "Thou shalt not steal?" If not, then yes, the people are using the Bible incorrectly.



In other words you're not going to be honest in this discussion.



Narcissus said:


> This is clear evasion, because we are not discussion those parts of the Bible.



You're not discussing those parts, but I am because my argument has always been that Savage doesn't know what he is talking about and I needed to show the true biblical thought that he's not addressing.  Don't evade addressing these points simply because you want to dictate what we can and cannot discuss.



Narcissus said:


> We are discussing the parts that denounce homosexuality, because that is what Savage criticized. You don't get to sit there and ignore the actual issue by posting other portions of the Bible just because they contradict one another.



Lol.  In other words there can be no balance.  If I say "I would kill for a hamburger" would you think it right to say "baconbits said he would murder people"?  Yet this is exactly what you want to do with the bible.  You want to isolate single verses without identifying the entirety of the biblical thought on the issue, and then you want to use that to criticize the bible in its entirety.

And I didn't even address the book of Philemon yet.



Narcissus said:


> Yes, it is stupid, because people still use the OT laws to justify the bullying. And the picture itself isn't an argument, it is an example of how people still use the Bible to attack homosexuals.



Nice pictures, once again you are indeed trying to substitute pictures for arguments.

By the way your terrible argument has already been addressed before but I'll state it bluntly now: when people stupidly use the bible in ways it was not supposed to be used their stupidity should be criticized, not the bible.



Narcissus said:


> The rock doesn't have words on it telling you to throw it at me for some reason, so it wouldn't offer you any justification. The Bible has words denouncing homosexuality, and people use it as justification. Again, your examples do not work because the circumstance are different. The Bible deserves criticism for those passages.



Lol.  You're missing the point.  The rock has nothing to do with my throwing it and the bible has nothing to do with people misusing it.  That was the point.  The fact that the bible gives moral guidelines is irrelevant if it does not encourage the actions you've described (yet curiously claim that you don't argue for).



Narcissus said:


> And that's their fault, not Savage's.



Actually it's probably the fault of those who set up the event and Savage's, since he was brought in to discuss bullying and chose to attack the bible.



Narcissus said:


> When I say I don't care, it's in response to some irrelevant opinion you've made that doesn't contribute to the discussion (and you've made a lot of them). When I show you're dishonestly, I take the time to explain how you've been dishonest, which usually involves you distorting what Savage said or shifting the issue to other parts of the Bible when we're talking about specific parts, or downplaying the suffering of homosexuals. I have explained why your examples are not the same as my arguments by pointing out the significant differences (like the fact the a rock or evolution do not tell people how to live their lives, unlike the Bible).



Not really.  Most of the time you simply don't understand the point of the example, like the rock one for instance.  If you properly understood the example you'd realize what a terrible argument you've made.  It would be like (example alert!) if I told someone that the neighbors were idiots and that person decided to kill them.  My denounciation of the neighbors isn't the cause of the murders; the guy I told this to is the cause of the murders.

You don't recognize this simple logic, and so you're left to spit out accusations.  I understand the need to accuse, but it would help if you could land a single accusation.



Narcissus said:


> And here is another example that doesn't work. The book is the same as the rock. You're using it to physically assault me, rather than quoting it to justify your attack.



So if I just randomly started reading a page while I was attacking you you'd be justified in condemning the book?



Narcissus said:


> Want it to stop? Then stop shoehorning your irrelevant opinions into the discussion.



The argument that my opinions are irrelevant is itself an opinion.  I'll keep stating my opinions as long as you keep stating yours.


----------



## baconbits (May 15, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> My claim has more support than yours (considering you have none at all). Savage was the speaker, so he knew his audience better than you do, and he is not some random person like Basilikos. So yes, I have more objectivity than you regarding this.



Not really.  You're not objective because you don't meet any of the criteria of objectivity: you're in this discussion, you've taken a side, your opinions are up for discussion and you're quoting someone who is just as partisan as you are.



Narcissus said:


> You claimed to have read multiple articles on the incident, yet said you didn't see any reference to how much of the audience was Christian. It's pretty telling that you're saying you read these articles, yet missed one of the most significant ones regarding the situation (the apology). So yes, it shows that you haven't looked as far into it as you're claiming.



Nah.  I read the apology.  I didn't take Savage's words as the gospel truth like you did.



Narcissus said:


> The fact that he was the speaker. He clearly has information you don't, considering he knew the number of people there.



Not really.  He has an opinion and he was there.  We know there were Christians in the audience but we don't know how many or what percentage.  All we have a general statements about the composition of the audience, which we can't prove.  So I guess I'll repeat your line: I don't care about your suppositions.



Narcissus said:


> That wasn't you're claim. You said that you're example wasn't dishonest because people actually believe it. That doesn't make it true, and I went on to explain that there is no evidence for the claim.



I never said it made it true.  I said the fact that they believe what they said means it can't be "dishonest".  The standards for dishonesty and truth are different.  If I genuinely think that one plus one is three and state so I've given an honest opinion that happens to be false.



Narcissus said:


> This shows that you don't know how the fallacy works. If someone said Savage was right because most of the audience agreed with him, that would be an appeal to popularity. That isn't the case, as it was said to debunk the notion that the general audience was turned off.



Not really.  There are a number of posts ITT that state something to the effect that since most of the audience stayed what Savage said wasn't that offensive.  There's your fallacy.



Narcissus said:


> You didn't have any point to make. All you did was make an assertion.



Sigh.  I made a point and you ignored it.



Narcissus said:


> Considering the explanation above, this would be incorrect.



...because you said so, right?



Narcissus said:


> You have yet to show him actually launching an attack on Christians. What you have done is distorted his criticism into that. Attacking the Bible is not tantamount to attacking Christians, and the Bible can be subject to criticism.



Who said it shouldn't be?



Narcissus said:


> Because it doesn't directly insult them.



...I understand the distinction but it doesn't really apply here.



Narcissus said:


> This is an example of the type of thing I say I don't care about. Your statements of deluded self-gratification don't contribute anything to the discussion, other than a sense of unwarranted arrogance.



Lol.  How else did you expect me to respond to an insult of my debating skills?  Agree with you?



Narcissus said:


> This is not a point of refutation.



True, it wasn't.  And?



Narcissus said:


> No, it implies a false sense of care.



How so?



Narcissus said:


> And honestly, you're missing the point. It is hypocritical for Christians to attack Savage over his comment when it is nowhere near as bad as what they claim. Furthermore, it's arrogant to assert your "statement of consequence" when you have no evidence for it, unlike your Texas/murder/execution example.



Lol.  First of all there doesn't need to be evidence in my example.  I never argued whether or not hell was real.  I simply stated that if people actually believe in hell and they warn you against actions that would lead you there they care about you.  Whether it exists or not is irrelevant.

Just like if I think you're drinking poison when you're not my care is reflected by whether I say something.  If I think you're drinking poison and simply watch you drink it I've show a lack of care for your well being.


Another picture - awesome.



Narcissus said:


> Discussion of what he said is not the same as completely distorting what he said into an attack on Christianity. That's what you're doing, and it is dishonest on your part. And thank-you, I take that as a compliment (though the irony of you saying it is not lost on me).



Lol.  I've never said I'm not a confident individual.  Indeed I have an abundance of confidence.

Secondly, I've not distorted anything.  When he claims that we can ignore the bible on all kinds of topics when orthodox Christianity says we ought to follow the bible for our daily living he is in fact attacking Christianity.  There's nothign dishonest about it.



Narcissus said:


> I suggest you remember what you write, because you directly say that if you insulted the gay kid (which is different from what Savage did).



Do you understand the meaning of sarcasm, sir?  Once you recognize what sarcasm means reread that paragraph.



Narcissus said:


> You have the right to respond, but that's not what you've done. You've distorted what he said and then attacked that.



So you claim.  I claim otherwise, so exactly what rights have I taken away?



Narcissus said:


> You want me to recognize a mistake I've made, when I haven't seen you do this at all? Really now?



What mistakes have I made?  Secondly, the acknowledgment of a mistake doesn't take both of us, especially when we're discussing your mistake.



Narcissus said:


> Now it's my turn to lol. He clearly refers to specific parts of the Bible. You're the one making it an attack on all of it. I was referring to the parts he criticized. Stop with the distortion. And I've already explained that the Bible doesn't advocate bullying.



Lol.  Savage keeps mentioning the bible generally throughout his speech:



> We ignore bullshit in the Bible about all sorts of things.



Have you read the transcript?



Narcissus said:


> *Does the Bible have passages advocating bully?
> The answer is "No."
> This means the Bible doesn't DIRECTLY advocate bullying.*​



It doesn't encourage bullying directly or indirectly.  Please refer to the passages I've cited.



Narcissus said:


> *Does the Bible denounce homosexuality?
> The answer is "Yes."
> People use this denouncement as justification for their bullying of homosexuals.*​



So what.  People can use the bible for whatever they want.  I've heard people use the bible to defend being idiots in school, that doesn't mean its the bible's fault that they failed biology class.



Narcissus said:


> The denouncement is the bullshit that Savage said we could ignore.



Not really.  He said much more than that, as quoted above.



Narcissus said:


> *A: "You are an idiot."
> B: "This post is idiotic.
> Is B an insult of the person?
> No. You are attacking something they wrote, not them personally.*​
> Criticizing something someone does isn't the same as insulting the person.



Fine, I can accept that point.



Narcissus said:


> No, I have said the Bible is used to justify bullying and that its passages regarding homosexuality are bullshit. So yes, Savage was justified in saying what he said.



Not really.  Your opinions are irrelevent.  If the bible doesn't justify bullying directly or indirectly then it shouldn't be blamed for stupid actions.  Thus Savage is completely unjustifed.



Narcissus said:


> were a small portion of the audience who couldn't deal with honest criticism.



Which is your opinion which is somehow magically more relevant than my own.  It seemed to me like they didn't like being attacked at a speech that had nothing to do with their belief system, yet ended up being an attack against Christianity.



Narcissus said:


> I've already explained it. He was the speaker, had info on his audience, and knew how many were there. You are doing guesswork.



As is he and you.  Did he do some survey that would back up his claims?



Narcissus said:


> Then you should know that he was referring to their reaction, and not attacking them.



I saw his apology and I can accept that point.



Narcissus said:


> And you think homosexuality is wrong because? (and lol at the taking a stab at my English with poorly-worded sentences like this )



Irrelevent to this discussion.



Narcissus said:


> It's been explained to you that people use to Bible to justify bullying. So yes, by criticizing the passages of the Bible that people use to attack homosexuals, he is addressing bullying. And considering the way in which people use the Bible against homosexuals, harsh criticism is sometimes required.



I've already explained why this is a terrible argument.  Furthermore if Savage really wants to address bullying he should realize that gay bullying is a very small percentage of bullying and not all of gay bullying is caused by people using the bible in ways it was never intended to be used.  Why not criticize bullying as a whole?  That would be a lot more effective.


----------



## αce (May 15, 2012)

> my problem is first that people are pretending that the bible causes bullying



:sanji


*Spoiler*: __ 



:sanji


----------



## Vynjira (May 15, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> The guy is pro-torture and thinks that criticism(regardless of how rational it is) is somehow equivalent to the verbal and physical abuse that leads to suicide or physical trauma that is sometimes fatal.
> 
> 
> baconbits said:
> ...


Still waiting for you to withdraw.


----------



## Nihonjin (May 15, 2012)

baconbits said:


> I cannot, as an NT saint, look at the law and then try and stone a murderer.



In other words, you're ignoring the bullshit in the bible, you're doing exactly what Savage was telling your fellow Christians to do. Unless of course, you'd be stoning people if it wasn't for the NT telling you not to, in which case, you're fucking insane.

But I doubt that's the case, so who are you trying to fool Bacon?


----------



## baconbits (May 15, 2012)

Nihonjin said:


> In other words, you're ignoring the bullshit in the bible, you're doing exactly what Savage was telling your fellow Christians to do. Unless of course, you'd be stoning people if it wasn't for the NT telling you not to, in which case, you're fucking insane.
> 
> But I doubt that's the case, so who are you trying to fool Bacon?



Sigh.  I've explained this a number of times.  The NT does not tell me to ignore the OT.  I look at the OT law as a moral guide - homosexuality is wrong, rape is wrong, I should respect my parents, etc.  How I apply this moral law has changed.

I don't know how many different ways I can explain this.  The OT is still very important.  The NT expounds on the OT and applies it.  It creates a New Covenant, which leads to better promises.


----------



## Nihonjin (May 15, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Sigh.  I've explained this a number of times.  The NT does not tell me to ignore the OT.  I look at the OT law as a moral guide - homosexuality is wrong, rape is wrong, I should respect my parents, etc.  How I apply this moral law has changed.



In other words, you're ignoring the parts that specifically tell you to harm invidivuals who are gay. You're cherry picking, just like we said you are.

Also, We don't need 2000 year old stories written by people who didn't know a damn thing about morality to tell us what's moral at all. We know and can explain why rape is wrong. We know and can explain why murder is generally wrong. We know and can explain why stealing is generally wrong. We know and can explain why things that victimize other human beings are wrong.

Homosexuality is not part of that list. The only reason you think it is, is because you've somehow confused 2000 old bigotry with wisdom.

But that was completely and utterly off topic, so I'll drop it.


----------



## Basilikos (May 15, 2012)

Nihonjin said:


> In other words, you're ignoring the bullshit in the bible, you're doing exactly what Savage was telling your fellow Christians to do. Unless of course, you'd be stoning people if it wasn't for the NT telling you not to, in which case, you're fucking insane.
> 
> But I doubt that's the case, so who are you trying to fool Bacon?


You might want to....you know...actually read his posts.

The one to Seto Kaiba in particular.


----------



## Petes12 (May 15, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Nah.  I read the apology.  I didn't take Savage's words as the gospel truth like you did.



You mean he's not really sorry? So what? I wouldn't be sorry either, he didn't do anything wrong.

Of course he's just coddling their unentitled sensitivity


----------



## Nihonjin (May 15, 2012)

Basilikos said:


> You might want to....you know...actually read his posts.



You might want to be a little bit more specific.


----------



## Vynjira (May 15, 2012)

Basilikos said:


> You might want to....you know...actually read his posts.
> 
> The one to Seto Kaiba in particular.


You might want to....you know...stop posting.

Especially after reading his response to Seto Kaiba.

On some level, I might agree that there is some consistency in the view that the NT establishes that we're all sinners meaning we can't carry out the punishment for the law. However, if you're making such an argument, you're cherry picking.


----------



## baconbits (May 15, 2012)

Nihonjin said:


> In other words, you're ignoring the parts that specifically tell you to harm invidivuals who are gay. You're cherry picking, just like we said you are.



No, I'm not.  How many times do I have to explain this simple point to you, Nihonjin?  This is not beyond your understanding.

After Christ died Christians have a new covenant - in other words the people of God are different and are governed in a different way.  We are the spiritual people of God; we do not seek to establish a nation or establish laws to govern society (as a movement, not as individuals).

We do not ignore the OT.  It gives us our morality.  It tells us right and wrong and gives us the fundamentals of the faith (that's an oversimplification, but let's just stay with that for a moment); the NT tells us how to apply those Old Covenant laws in the New Covenant.

It would be like if you were dating someone and then got married and began to live with them.  Your relationship changes, the rules of the house have to be established, etc.  The same with the Old and New Covenant.  They have many things in common but there are some significant changes.

Now the OT does not dictate how to treat unbelievers; the NT does.  The NT explicitly states how we relate to the OT.  I can't repeat the same point to make this more clear for you.



Nihonjin said:


> Also, We don't need 2000 year old stories written by people who didn't know a damn thing about morality to tell us what's moral at all. We know and can explain why rape is wrong. We know and can explain why murder is generally wrong. We know and can explain why stealing is generally wrong. We know and can explain why things that victimize other human beings are wrong.



So what.  All you're doing is issuing a random attack on things you clearly don't understand.  Your attacks are irrelevent to the discussion - take your laundry list to the Christianity thread where it belongs.



Nihonjin said:


> Homosexuality is not part of that list. The only reason you think it is, is because you've somehow confused 2000 old bigotry with wisdom.



Such is your claim and your opinion.  You have nothing to validate it but your opinion, so I'll ignore it.



Nihonjin said:


> But that was completely and utterly off topic, so I'll drop it.



You didn't drop it, you expounded on it and proceeded to attack based off of it.  The entire last sentence is extremely disingenuous.



Nihonjin said:


> You might want to be a little bit more specific.



He explained which post he was referring to.


----------



## Banhammer (May 15, 2012)

Silly Narcissus, what with your photographed evidence of long known facts of the common sensed people


----------



## Nihonjin (May 15, 2012)

baconbits said:


> We do not ignore the OT.



Right.



> It gives us our morality.



No, it really doesn't. But that's besides the point.



> It tells us right and wrong and gives us the fundamentals of the faith (that's an oversimplification, but let's just stay with that for a moment); the NT tells us how to apply those Old Covenant laws in the New Covenant.
> 
> It would be like if you were dating someone and then got married and began to live with them.  Your relationship changes, the rules of the house have to be established, etc.  The same with the Old and New Covenant.  They have many things in common but there are some significant changes.
> 
> Now the OT does not dictate how to treat unbelievers; the NT does.  The NT explicitly states how we relate to the OT.  I can't repeat the same point to make this more clear for you.



Bacon, tell me. What do you do with these "old laws"?



> So what.  All you're doing is issuing a random attack on things you clearly don't understand.  Your attacks are irrelevent to the discussion - take your laundry list to the Christianity thread where it belongs.



It's an attack to say that you don't need an ancient book to tell you right from wrong?

Sure, it was off topic, I even said so iirc, but to call it an attack?



> Such is your claim and your opinion.  You have nothing to validate it but your opinion, so I'll ignore it.



I'll ask you a simple question in the atheism thread about this, see if you can actually answer it.



> Y*ou didn't drop it, you expounded on it and proceeded to attack based off of it.* The entire last sentence is extremely disingenuous.



Oh really? Where?



> He explained which post he was referring to.



Yes, because you only have one post addressed to SK in this thread, right?


----------



## Banhammer (May 15, 2012)

Jesus said Leviticus did not apply to those who follow him
To deny it is to hate jesus

ITT Baconbits hates our troops and jesus


----------



## Banhammer (May 15, 2012)

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
5:34
But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:
5:35
Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
5:36
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
5:37
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
5:38
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
5:39
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.


God how I love to stomp on bible thumpers

stomp stomp stomp
Into the ground you go


----------



## Kue (May 15, 2012)

You have to be either brainwashed, extremely selective, or sociopathic to see the Old Testament have any bearing on moral values.


----------



## Banhammer (May 15, 2012)

It does though.
You just have to put in context
For example, the old testament says you should put masturbators and gay *men* (not women) to death because back in the days where jews were little more than glorified neanderthals, it was believed by the wise elders that man's seed, his jizz was the whole baby, and a lady cave was nothing but the ground in which the baby would take shape
So you understand their horror once they realized the wanton amont of casual abortions they saw all around them. Dead babies everywhere.
So they put it in the bible
Now Jesus, being a smart non retard unlike just about every other bible thumper out there, realized that he wanted an evolved people, and being one of virgin birth itself, and therefore rendering himself nul and void regarding all maters of procreative unions, not only never went to the trouble of talking about homosexuality, he mentions how the hitchikers guide to Sodom and Gamorrah was all fine and dandy for people back then, but now, two millenia of humanity ago, was about damned time we all stopped being such retards about this things

However, some people around here hate jesus, so they name themselves after non-kosher food and shit all over our Lord's good work


----------



## Draffut (May 15, 2012)

> We do not ignore the OT. It gives us our morality.



So if the OT did not say that murder was bad, murder would be perfectly acceptible?  That honestly scares the fuck out of me, craziness like that leads to people to killing their children becuase 'god told them to'.


----------



## Narcissus (May 15, 2012)

Before I start, I just wanna take the time to say how nice it is to post in this type of thread without having to debunk Shima Tetsuo's trolling. Quite refreshing.





baconbits said:


> True, true.  I never claimed to be the wisest of sages.


And thank god (pun intended) for that, otherwise it would only increase your dishonesty.





> Lol.  I think you'd accuse me of anything so long as I disagreed with you.  That said your lack of response does show dishonesty because you're giving the illusion of responding to every point when you're not.  I'd prefer another "I don't care" to these deletions.


No, that's you perception of dishonesty. But it isn't, because I even said that I was removing the irrelevant portions of your post. It's be dishonest if I said I was responding to everything, but I didn't.





> Not really.  You've tried to prove it but your proofs end up showing that you simply don't like the fact that someone disagrees with you.  If someone believes that hell exists you claim this is dishonest.  If I say people actually believe that hell exists so even if they are wrong they can't be dishonest you claim I'm committing a fallacy.
> 
> What this shows is that you don't understand fallacies or dishonesty, which is clear since many of your arguments are dishonest or fallacies.


No, it shows that you don't understand fallacies, and simply denying that your dishonest doesn't make you honest. I said it was dishonest to claim people were going to Hell. You said it isn't dishonest because people really believe it to be true. Peoples' belief doesn't make it true, evidence does, and there is no evidence of the Hell they're claiming to exist (hence your appeal to popularity fallacy and dishonesty). This is also why your example was not the same what actually happened.





> Simply because you stated so?  Again you're making another argument that you want me to simply take your opinion as gospel, yet whenever I state my opinion you say "I don't care".  I don't mind that you don't care, but don't you find it hypocritical to selectively not care when I cite an opinion when at the same time your opinions are supposed to be arguments?
> 
> Hypcrisy is a bad thing, Narcissus.


No, your justification was not sufficient because it downplays the suffering homosexuals experience through bullying. 



If anything, it is sickening for you to admit to downplaying.





> You need to read the example again.  I never said the bible called for execution of thieves because it doesn't.  I said that if the bible simply denounces stealing and people use that denounciation to excuse murdering thieves you'd still think its okay to attack the bible.  You then agreed with my assessment.  I think any question about how objective you are has been answered.


The answer of your objectivity was answered a long time ago, but now it seems you have selective reading. I said "*IF* the Bible said to execute thieves." If it doesn't, your comparison fails, because it says that a man who lies with another man is to be put to death.





> Now Savage is not justified at all, because when something is improperly used we ought to blame those who use it improperly, not the object that is improperly used.  This is a point I've stated repeatedly, yet you ignore it.  I suppose if I had a poorly constructed argument I'd ignore this point, too.  So I identify with you.


Constantly claiming that Savage wasn't justified won't make it true. As I said, both the Bible and the person using it deserve criticism. It's funny how you are ignoring that the Bible says homosexuals are to be put to death. Nihonjin even asked you to post what those Bible verse say, and your response was "I don't need you to educate me on the Bible." You are evading the fact that Savage was referring to this, and that he was right.





> Lol.  You've made another terrible argument.


Funny, considering how everyone in this thread is shooting you down. 


> Let's break it down logically.
> 
> "The bible tells people how to live their lives" - true: the bible says x.
> 
> ...


This is the terrible argument. The Bible says those who commit homosexual acts are to be put to death. This is bullshit and it deserves criticism. People also use this to justify their attacks on homosexuals. Therefore, both are bad. Seriously, this is why your examples fail, because they do not address the words in the Bible. The Bible doesn't have to directly say, "Bully homosexuals" in order to be bad. What is written in it is still bad.





> Secondly, your argument fails to address my argument.  Those who defended genocide argued that certain races were vestiges of the past that humanity was evolving from.  In other words blacks and Jews were less human than some of the European races.  Humanity would therefore benefit from eliminating those less fit types of humanity from the gene pool.
> 
> They used evolution to bolster their argument.  Address that, not your blanket assumption that this doesn't apply because "evolution doesn't tell people how to live their lives" since no one ever argued that evolution told anyone how to live their life.  That would be a strawman argument.


Please learn what a straw man is before you further embarrass yourself. I didn't claim that you said evolution told people how to live their lives, I said that is the reason why people are using it incorrectly. However, the Bible tells people how to live, and has clear passages about condemning homosexuals. The key difference makes your argument fall apart.





> You're not discussing those parts, but I am because my argument has always been that Savage doesn't know what he is talking about and I needed to show the true biblical thought that he's not addressing.  Don't evade addressing these points simply because you want to dictate what we can and cannot discuss.


Then feel free to have a conversation with yourself, because I'm referring to what Savage was criticizing, which happens to be the passages of the Bible that refer to homosexuality. You can bring up other irrelevant Biblical quotes all you want, they won't negate what the Bible says in regards to this.





> Lol.  In other words there can be no balance.  If I say "I would kill for a hamburger" would you think it right to say "baconbits said he would murder people"?  Yet this is exactly what you want to do with the bible.  You want to isolate single verses without identifying the entirety of the biblical thought on the issue, and then you want to use that to criticize the bible in its entirety.


You've done an amazing job of circumventing the issue already, and I don't feel like repeating myself ad infinitum. We are talking about what Savage criticized, not other parts of the Bible. Other parts of the Bible also deserve criticism, while other parts spout passages of love and peace (which we don't even need the Bible for), but just because they contradict each other, that doesn't mean the Bible doesn't deserve criticism.





> Nice pictures, once again you are indeed trying to substitute pictures for arguments.


And this is why your arguments are so awful. You cannot distinguish between an argument and the posting of evidence to support an argument. These pictures demonstrate the religiously-fueled bigotry against homosexuals, Bible verses and all.





> By the way your terrible argument has already been addressed before but I'll state it bluntly now: when people stupidly use the bible in ways it was not supposed to be used their stupidity should be criticized, not the bible.


You haven't addressed it, you've evaded it. As I explained above, the Bible condemns homosexuality, and that deserves criticism along with the people who use it.





> Lol.  You're missing the point.  The rock has nothing to do with my throwing it and the bible has nothing to do with people misusing it.  That was the point.  The fact that the bible gives moral guidelines is irrelevant if it does not encourage the actions you've described (yet curiously claim that you don't argue for).


You didn't make a valid point. You tried to make a comparison and failed, as the two do not match. As I said, the Bible doesn't have to say, "Go bully gay people" to be wrong. What it says is already wrong. The rock doesn't tell you to do anything, so all criticism falls back onto you.





> Actually it's probably the fault of those who set up the event and Savage's, since he was brought in to discuss bullying and chose to attack the bible.


And he was justified in attacking the Bible. Further, the fault lies on the kids because they couldn't deal with the truth of what he said. Savage didn't do anything wrong.





> Not really.  Most of the time you simply don't understand the point of the example, like the rock one for instance.  If you properly understood the example you'd realize what a terrible argument you've made.  It would be like (example alert!) if I told someone that the neighbors were idiots and that person decided to kill them.  My denounciation of the neighbors isn't the cause of the murders; the guy I told this to is the cause of the murders.
> 
> You don't recognize this simple logic, and so you're left to spit out accusations.  I understand the need to accuse, but it would help if you could land a single accusation.


As explained above, I take the time to demonstrate why your examples do not work (and are thus irrelevant). You haven't used any logic here, but rather you don't realize why your examples logically do not work because they are not the same situation.





> So if I just randomly started reading a page while I was attacking you you'd be justified in condemning the book?




This is why you cannot make a good argument. If you read a page while attacking me, the page would still be irrelevant, *UNLESS* the page directly I deserved to be attacked for some reason. Then I'd be justified in condemning the book and you. However, in your example, the book isn't an instruction manual telling you I should be attacked. Yet another show of how your examples are not the same situation.


----------



## Narcissus (May 15, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Nah.  I read the apology.  I didn't take Savage's words as the gospel truth like you did.


You read the apology, but then claim you did not see *ANY* reference to the number of Christians... I'm disinclined to believe that you did read it.





> Not really.  He has an opinion and he was there.  We know there were Christians in the audience but we don't know how many or what percentage.  All we have a general statements about the composition of the audience, which we can't prove.  So I guess I'll repeat your line: I don't care about your suppositions.


Except it isn't a supposition, and it isn't a claim I made. Savage, the speaker, said that most of his audience was Christian.





> I never said it made it true.  I said the fact that they believe what they said means it can't be "dishonest".  The standards for dishonesty and truth are different.  If I genuinely think that one plus one is three and state so I've given an honest opinion that happens to be false.


You said that made it so it wasn't dishonest, which is false. Belief doesn't not determine honesty or dishonesty, evidence does. 1+1=3 is a lie, regardless of how many people believe it to be true.





> Not really.  There are a number of posts ITT that state something to the effect that since most of the audience stayed what Savage said wasn't that offensive.  There's your fallacy.


Posts by who? As I said, it was to demonstrate that he didn't offend the audience, just part of it. Whether or not what he said was offensive is subjective.





> ...because you said so, right?


No, as I said, "considering the explanation above."





> Who said it shouldn't be?


You're missing my point, which is that Savage was justified in his criticism.





> ...I understand the distinction but it doesn't really apply here.


Because you say so?





> Lol.  How else did you expect me to respond to an insult of my debating skills?  Agree with you?


I could sit here and list the high standards I've set for myself, but I'm not bothering because it doesn't contribute to the discussion.





> True, it wasn't.  And?


...and it's poor form on your part. More irrelevant tripe that contributes nothing.





> How so?


Preforming an exorcism on a gay person is done out of caring? Sending kids through ex-gay therapy, and shouting about how they'll be tortured for eternity is done out of care? Bullshit. People may hide malicious acts like this under a faade of caring, but it is not genuine.





> Lol.  First of all there doesn't need to be evidence in my example.  I never argued whether or not hell was real.  I simply stated that if people actually believe in hell and they warn you against actions that would lead you there they care about you.  Whether it exists or not is irrelevant.


This is false. If someone tells you that you're going to Hell, and they have no proof for it, I've no reason to believe you, and would be justified in considering it a lit. Just the same as I would ask for proof if someone told me the Flying Spaghetti Monster was going to drown me in sauce for my sins, and considered it a lie if they didn't provided. Yes, you would need proof.





> Just like if I think you're drinking poison when you're not my care is reflected by whether I say something.  If I think you're drinking poison and simply watch you drink it I've show a lack of care for your well being.


We have evidence that drinking poison is harmful, so you would be justified in trying to stop me, and I'd be foolish to ignore you. However, telling people they are going to Hell without any proof of it is arrogant, not caring, and I'm justified in not believing you.





> Another picture - awesome.


Yes, another picture as evidence of religious-based bigotry. You don't get to sit there and ignore proof because you don't like it.





> Lol.  I've never said I'm not a confident individual.  Indeed I have an abundance of confidence.


You weren't accusing me of confidence though, you were accusing me of narcissism.





> Secondly, I've not distorted anything.  When he claims that we can ignore the bible on all kinds of topics when orthodox Christianity says we ought to follow the bible for our daily living he is in fact attacking Christianity.  There's nothign dishonest about it.


No, it is a distortion. He attacked specific parts of the Bible and said we could ignore it. That is not an attack on all of Christianity, no matter how much you try to make it into one.





> Do you understand the meaning of sarcasm, sir?  Once you recognize what sarcasm means reread that paragraph.


This is some serious backpedaling. You don't get to cry "sarcasm" because you dot called out. You said what you said, and in your example you directly insult the gay kid.





> So you claim.  I claim otherwise, so exactly what rights have I taken away?


And you're wrong. And I never claimed you took away his rights.





> What mistakes have I made?



Distorting Savage's message
Making invalid examples and comparisons
General spelling and grammar mistakes 



> Secondly, the acknowledgment of a mistake doesn't take both of us, especially when we're discussing your mistake.


It shows your hypocrisy, considering you want me to acknowledge some mistake, but you won't even consider the possibility that you've made your own.





> Lol.  Savage keeps mentioning the bible generally throughout his speech
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, and specifies.





> It doesn't encourage bullying directly or indirectly.  Please refer to the passages I've cited.


But it does have hate-filled messages against homosexuals, which are bullshit.





> So what.  People can use the bible for whatever they want.  I've heard people use the bible to defend being idiots in school, that doesn't mean its the bible's fault that they failed biology class.


Because the Bible has clear passage condemning homosexuality, and those passages deserve criticism.





> Not really.  He said much more than that, as quoted above.


Stop evading the central point. Savage's main issue was ignoring the text about homosexuality, as we ignore all kinds of things in the Bible already.





> Fine, I can accept that point.


And I accept your concession on this point.





> Not really.  Your opinions are irrelevent.  If the bible doesn't justify bullying directly or indirectly then it shouldn't be blamed for stupid actions.  Thus Savage is completely unjustifed.


This isn't an opinion, it's a fact that I've explained. The Bible has bullshit regarding homosexuality. This deserves criticism. People used said bullshit to bully homosexuals. The people also deserved to be criticized.





> Which is your opinion which is somehow magically more relevant than my own.  It seemed to me like they didn't like being attacked at a speech that had nothing to do with their belief system, yet ended up being an attack against Christianity.


It isn't my opinion that they were a small number of the audience, and what Savage said is true.





> As is he and you.  Did he do some survey that would back up his claims?


If you're going to claim he did guesswork, then you'll need to provide evidence of that. Otherwise, it's an unfounded assertion on your part.





> I saw his apology and I can accept that point.


And I accept the concession.





> Irrelevent to this discussion.


More evasion? Why am I not surprised?





> I've already explained why this is a terrible argument.  Furthermore if Savage really wants to address bullying he should realize that gay bullying is a very small percentage of bullying and not all of gay bullying is caused by people using the bible in ways it was never intended to be used.  Why not criticize bullying as a whole?  That would be a lot more effective.


Stop. You gave an irrelevant, poorly-supported opinion against the argument. The fact is that his criticism is justified because the Bible's claim on homosexuality is bullshit, in addition to the way people use it. As for Savage's method of addressing anti-bullying, it's your opinion about what he should've spoken on. But when kids in the LGBT community are committing suicide, he is perfectly fine in addressing it.


----------



## Kue (May 15, 2012)

I don't think it really matters that almost everyone here disagrees with baconbits.  He will just see it as the end times coming sooner instead of just reconsidering his position.


----------



## Banhammer (May 15, 2012)

No, the heretic needs only to one day wake up and come to terms with the reality that the reason why everyone disdains what he says is not because he's actually just misunderstood.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 15, 2012)

Cold Dish said:


> I don't think it really matters that almost everyone here disagrees with baconbits.  He will just see it as the end times coming sooner instead of just reconsidering his position.



Why does he have to reconsider his position?


----------



## Kue (May 15, 2012)

Hand Banana said:


> Why does he have to reconsider his position?



Like I would take this question seriously.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 15, 2012)

Cold Dish said:


> Like I would take this question seriously.



Why aren't you taking this seriously? When you get into arguments, do you always expect people to bend to your will of thought?


----------



## Kue (May 15, 2012)

Hand Banana said:


> Qhy aren't you taking this seriously? When you get into arguments, do you always expect people to bend to your will of thought?



Where did I say or implied that I expect people to bend to my will of thought?


----------



## Hand Banana (May 15, 2012)

Cold Dish said:


> Where did I say or implied that I expect people to bend to my will of thought?



By refusing to answer my question.




Cold Dish said:


> Like I would take this question seriously.


----------



## Draffut (May 15, 2012)

Hand Banana said:


> By refusing to answer my question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ITT Long series of silly rhetorical questions and purposefully vague responses.


----------



## Kue (May 15, 2012)

Hand Banana said:


> By refusing to answer my question.



So it couldn't have been anything else, I just simply expect people to agree with me.  Nice to know.


----------



## Hand Banana (May 15, 2012)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> ITT Long series of silly rhetorical questions and purposefully vague responses.



And this coming from you out of all people. K.



Cold Dish said:


> So it couldn't have been anything else, I just simply expect people to agree with me.  Nice to know.



Well, I asked a question and you refused to answer.


----------



## baconbits (May 16, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> Before I start, I just wanna take the time to say how nice it is to post in this type of thread without having to debunk Shima Tetsuo's trolling. Quite refreshing.



ST was a pretty interesting guy.  Too bad I never got a chance to really know him - he seemed like he had a great sense of humor.



Narcissus said:


> And thank god (pun intended) for that, otherwise it would only increase your dishonesty.



Yes, because even honest opinions are dishonest according to you.  I'll detail that below.



Narcissus said:


> No, that's you perception of dishonesty. But it isn't, because I even said that I was removing the irrelevant portions of your post.



And I'm supposed to take this by faith?  I didn't hire you as my editor.



Narcissus said:


> It's be dishonest if I said I was responding to everything, but I didn't.



So you're not responding to all my arguments.  I appreciate the honesty.



Narcissus said:


> No, it shows that you don't understand fallacies, and simply denying that your dishonest doesn't make you honest.



And simply saying I'm dishonest doesn't make that true either, lol.



Narcissus said:


> I said it was dishonest to claim people were going to Hell. You said it isn't dishonest because people really believe it to be true. Peoples' belief doesn't make it true, evidence does, and there is no evidence of the Hell they're claiming to exist (hence your appeal to popularity fallacy and dishonesty). This is also why your example was not the same what actually happened.



Lol.  Once again you make a very stupid argument.  Dishonest means intentionally trying to lead someone to conclusion x when I know conclusion y is true.  When someone honestly believes conclusion x and tries to lead someone to conclusion x they are not dishonest by definition of the term.

In other words when I got a question wrong in school I wasn't dishonest, I was ignorant of the correct answer.  Please understand the difference between honest, true, false and dishonest - these concepts are very important when discussing reality.

Because you don't understand these simple concepts you're accusing people who simply have a different opinion than you of being dishonest.

Secondly, I never claimed that belief in hell is true because a majority believes it to be true - this would be an actual falacious argument.  I said that arguing for hell cannot be dishonest if I believe that hell actually exists.  So even if we accept your premise - that hell doesn't exist - I would still be honest, just honestly wrong.  The fact that you still don't get that exposes the limitations of your intellect.

So when you claim that people's belief doesn't make something true I agree with you.  Unfortunately our agreement doesn't matter because you introduced one good concept in the middle of an extremely misguided argument.



Narcissus said:


> No, your justification was not sufficient because it downplays the suffering homosexuals experience through bullying.



It put their suffering in perspective.  While gays may suffer their bullying is not a significant portion of bullying.  Thus even if we accept your premise Savage isn't really addressing the problem of bullying as it would apply to most situations.  That was the point of the statement.  I'm not surprised you missed that point.



Narcissus said:


> If anything, it is sickening for you to admit to downplaying.



And it's dishonest to act like gay bullying is somehow more important than other bullying.  Throughout your post and throughout this excerpt from Savage we don't see much of a mention to real bullying that goes on.  He's simply focused on this issue because he wants to attack some views he doesn't like.



Narcissus said:


> The answer of your objectivity was answered a long time ago,



Agreed.  I never claimed to be objective.  It's odd that you won't join me in this admission.



Narcissus said:


> ...but now it seems you have selective reading. I said "*IF* the Bible said to execute thieves." If it doesn't, your comparison fails, because it says that a man who lies with another man is to be put to death.



So what.  That law does not apply now, as I've stated again and again.  If the bible doesn't call for such an action anymore and we have people acting on a false premise the idiots should be attacked, not the bible.

This is why I've called this a gratuitious attack - because the bible has nothing to do with this bullying and people simply want to attack the bile because of their other views.



Narcissus said:


> Constantly claiming that Savage wasn't justified won't make it true.



Agreed.  I wonder who said it would?



Narcissus said:


> As I said, both the Bible and the person using it deserve criticism. It's funny how you are ignoring that the Bible says homosexuals are to be put to death. Nihonjin even asked you to post what those Bible verse say, and your response was "I don't need you to educate me on the Bible." You are evading the fact that Savage was referring to this, and that he was right.



Lol.  You're demonstrating a lack of reading comprehension again.  I have responded to that verse about a dozen times already.  I have never said that the verse doesn't exist.  He wanted me to post the verse, which is stupid - if he wanted to use it as evidence he could have posted it himself.  So what he wanted was to force me to post evidence for his argument and then pretend I didn't address his point.

Much as you're doing.  You're claiming that I'm evading, when I've addressed your points head on every time.  The OT says that the legal punishment for homosexuality is death - true.  Does that apply today?  No.  Does the moral pronouncement about homosexuality matter to Christians today?  Yes.


----------



## baconbits (May 16, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> Funny, considering how everyone in this thread is shooting you down.



Everyone else's disagreement is really meaningless to this discussion.  All that means is that I'm outnumbered.



Narcissus said:


> This is the terrible argument. The Bible says those who commit homosexual acts are to be put to death. This is bullshit and it deserves criticism.



Let's accept your premise and say that this passage does deserve criticism.  What does that have to do with bullying?

Second, let's look at your premise - your entire argument is simply based on your opinion.  I don't care about your opinions or presuppositions.



Narcissus said:


> People also use this to justify their attacks on homosexuals. Therefore, both are bad.



Lol.  

"Blood is more precious than gold" - _idiots use this to kill innocents and drain their blood_.

*Narcissus*: The statement and the killings are bad!

Your argument is about as valid as people saying weapons are bad because people use them to kill.



Narcissus said:


> Seriously, this is why your examples fail, because they do not address the words in the Bible. The Bible doesn't have to directly say, "Bully homosexuals" in order to be bad. What is written in it is still bad.



So what.  Even if we accept your premise you must logically admit that the bible does not encourage this bullying - idiocy encourages bullying.  Thus to address bullying we must address the idiotcy that leads to bullying, not what ever rationalization they make.



Narcissus said:


> Please learn what a straw man is before you further embarrass yourself.



Lol.  I'm glad all of you guys are concerned about my reputation but believe me, there's nothing to be embarrassed about.  You've continually attacked positions I don't take, and when you do that we have a name for that type of argument.



Narcissus said:


> I didn't claim that you said evolution told people how to live their lives, I said that is the reason why people are using it incorrectly. However, the Bible tells people how to live, and has clear passages about condemning homosexuals. The key difference makes your argument fall apart.



I already addressed this point and you ignored it - your argument doesn't make any sense because the two examples share this in common: neither one should have led to the action that followed.  Insert your own example if you want but when you misuse or misunderstand a philosophy and then do something stupid you can't blame the philosophy or worldview you misunderstood.

So when you raise up points that don't matter, don't get mad at me.  I'm just responding.



Narcissus said:


> Then feel free to have a conversation with yourself, because I'm referring to what Savage was criticizing, which happens to be the passages of the Bible that refer to homosexuality. You can bring up other irrelevant Biblical quotes all you want, they won't negate what the Bible says in regards to this.



In other words you're endorsing taking things out of context.  Well done.



Narcissus said:


> You've done an amazing job of circumventing the issue already, and I don't feel like repeating myself ad infinitum. We are talking about what Savage criticized, not other parts of the Bible. Other parts of the Bible also deserve criticism, while other parts spout passages of love and peace (which we don't even need the Bible for), but just because they contradict each other, that doesn't mean the Bible doesn't deserve criticism.



Theres so much stupid in this section that its hard to address it all.

First, I haven't circumvented anything.  I went through this argument repeatedly to several posters and showed the biblical reason why the argument falls apart.  Secondly, the other parts of the bible explain the context of the statement - to argue against my using them is to argue for an out of context interpretation of the bible and also insures that you'll never understand my point - which is that you're not applying this verse correctly and neither are those who use it to defending bullying gays.

Thirdly, whether or not other parts of the bible deserve cirticism is irrelevent.  I'd disagree with you, particularly since you don't have enough of a grasp on biblical thought to distinguish between concepts, but there isn't a need to cite all the reasons why you're wrong because this point doesn't apply.

Fourthly, your use of the words "contradict" is dishonest.  Contradict means to "say x" in one place and then to say "negation of x" later.  That doesn't happen.  We essentially have another dispensation, or explanation of what came before.



Narcissus said:


> And this is why your arguments are so awful. You cannot distinguish between an argument and the posting of evidence to support an argument. These pictures demonstrate the religiously-fueled bigotry against homosexuals, Bible verses and all.



No, these pictures are simply random Christians doing stuff.  I don't have to defend random Christians doing things, stupid as some of those acts may be, just like you don't have to defend random secular humanists doing stupid things.  The pictures don't have anything to do with this discussion.



Narcissus said:


> You haven't addressed it, you've evaded it. As I explained above, the Bible condemns homosexuality, and that deserves criticism along with the people who use it.



That's your opinion.  But the bible's condemnation does not encourage bullying, particualarly when the bible commands believers to honor all men and treat people with respect.  It also encourages peace with all people, when possible.  Oddly enough you're not addressing the totatlity of biblical thought so you really don't know what the bible is encouraging.



Narcissus said:


> You didn't make a valid point. You tried to make a comparison and failed, as the two do not match. As I said, the Bible doesn't have to say, "Go bully gay people" to be wrong. What it says is already wrong. The rock doesn't tell you to do anything, so all criticism falls back onto you.



Like I said, even accepting your premise the condemnation has no relation with bullying.



Narcissus said:


> And he was justified in attacking the Bible.



So you claim.



Narcissus said:


> Further, the fault lies on the kids because they couldn't deal with the truth of what he said. Savage didn't do anything wrong.



That's your opinion.  This is close to begging the question because you're simply assuming that your point, which I contest, is absolutely correct.  Secondly, if you can't even acknowledge the fact that something is wrong when the people invited to an event don't know the real reason for the speech you're just being obstinate.



Narcissus said:


> As explained above, I take the time to demonstrate why your examples do not work (and are thus irrelevant). You haven't used any logic here, but rather you don't realize why your examples logically do not work because they are not the same situation.



They are not the same situation, true, because they are examples.  An example is not the same situation, it is a different situation that sheds light on the situation under discussion.  That's the meaning of an example - I would think this would be honest.

Yes, I've used logic and you've mostly responded with dismissal and fallacies, as I've demonstrated throughout.



Narcissus said:


> This is why you cannot make a good argument.



Cannot?  You mean it's not possible for me to make a good argument?  Sounds kind of hyperbolic...


----------



## baconbits (May 16, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> If you read a page while attacking me, the page would still be irrelevant, *UNLESS* the page directly I deserved to be attacked for some reason. Then I'd be justified in condemning the book and you. However, in your example, the book isn't an instruction manual telling you I should be attacked. Yet another show of how your examples are not the same situation.



Lol.  So let's take your example - which is going to hang you by the way - at face value.  You state this "unless the page directly [said] I deserved to be attacked for some reason".  If the bible does not say homosexuals should be attacked your argument falls apart - understand?

That's why I brought up the other scriptures - to show that the bible does not say homosexual should be attacked.



Narcissus said:


> You read the apology, but then claim you did not see *ANY* reference to the number of Christians... I'm disinclined to believe that you did read it.



Let me ask you a simple question: what number of Christians did Savage say there were?  Be specific.



Narcissus said:


> Except it isn't a supposition, and it isn't a claim I made. Savage, the speaker, said that most of his audience was Christian.



No it's still a supposition because Savage's statement does not contain anything concrete that would support your argument.  His guess is not much better than ours.



Narcissus said:


> You said that made it so it wasn't dishonest, which is false. Belief doesn't not determine honesty or dishonesty, evidence does. 1+1=3 is a lie, regardless of how many people believe it to be true.



Lol.  Belief determines honesty; evidence determines the truth value.  Explained above.



Narcissus said:


> Posts by who? As I said, it was to demonstrate that he didn't offend the audience, just part of it. Whether or not what he said was offensive is subjective.



I don't view "offensive" as subjective; I view "being offended" as subjective, so I'd quibble with the words you used there.



Narcissus said:


> No, as I said, "considering the explanation above.



So what.  Your explanation had more holes than swiss cheese.



Narcissus said:


> "You're missing my point, which is that Savage was justified in his criticism.



And I argue that he wasn't.



Narcissus said:


> Because you say so?



Exactly.  I've provided absolutely no reasoning up to this point. /sarcasm



Narcissus said:


> I could sit here and list the high standards I've set for myself, but I'm not bothering because it doesn't contribute to the discussion....and it's poor form on your part. More irrelevant tripe that contributes nothing.



Lol.  But you did in fact mention that you set high standards for yourself, so in your dismissal of self commendation you commended yourself.  Clever.



Narcissus said:


> Preforming an exorcism on a gay person is done out of caring? Sending kids through ex-gay therapy, and shouting about how they'll be tortured for eternity is done out of care? Bullshit. People may hide malicious acts like this under a faade of caring, but it is not genuine.



True.  I disagree with most of the actions you cite, but what does this have to do with the current discussion?  I hope you're not expecting me to defend everything some random person who claims to be Christian does.



Narcissus said:


> This is false. If someone tells you that you're going to Hell, and they have no proof for it, I've no reason to believe you, and would be justified in considering it a lit. Just the same as I would ask for proof if someone told me the Flying Spaghetti Monster was going to drown me in sauce for my sins, and considered it a lie if they didn't provided. Yes, you would need proof.



Lol.  We're not arguing about the validity of hell.  Either way this point has been addressed above.



Narcissus said:


> We have evidence that drinking poison is harmful, so you would be justified in trying to stop me, and I'd be foolish to ignore you. However, telling people they are going to Hell without any proof of it is arrogant, not caring, and I'm justified in not believing you.



I guess you don't know how to see anything from another person's perspective, proving once again you deserve your name.

From the Christian's perspective he sees impending doom, just like the poison, which is real to him and is trying to warn you from it.  It would be like a person who thought someone was coming behind you to attack you and shouts a warning, not realizing that the person was just a friend playing a little joke.  The person could be wrong but that doesn't mean they were lying or didn't care.



Narcissus said:


> Yes, another picture as evidence of religious-based bigotry. You don't get to sit there and ignore proof because you don't like it.



It's not proof of anything but stupidity.



Narcissus said:


> You weren't accusing me of confidence though, you were accusing me of narcissism.



True.



Narcissus said:


> No, it is a distortion. He attacked specific parts of the Bible and said we could ignore it. That is not an attack on all of Christianity, no matter how much you try to make it into one.



Not all of Christianity, which is why at times I've specified and said it's an attack on orthodox Christianity, which takes the bible as God's Word.



Narcissus said:


> This is some serious backpedaling. You don't get to cry "sarcasm" because you dot called out. You said what you said, and in your example you directly insult the gay kid.



There is no backpeddling.  If you can't see the sarcasm in that section then you don't know how to read.



Narcissus said:


> And you're wrong. And I never claimed you took away his rights.



It seemed like you were.  Restate your original point.



Narcissus said:


> Distorting Savage's message
> Making invalid examples and comparisons
> General spelling and grammar mistakes



I contend the first two.  The last few posts haven't been spell checked because unlike you I'm debating more than one poster.



Narcissus said:


> It shows your hypocrisy, considering you want me to acknowledge some mistake, but you won't even consider the possibility that you've made your own.



It's possible that I've made mistakes, but you haven't made a good argument that I have yet.



Narcissus said:


> Yeah, and specifies.



And generalizes.



Narcissus said:


> But it does have hate-filled messages against homosexuals, which are bullshit.



That's your inference, not the actual proof.



Narcissus said:


> Because the Bible has clear passage condemning homosexuality, and those passages deserve criticism.



That's your opinion.  That has nothing to do with bullying.



Narcissus said:


> Stop evading the central point. Savage's main issue was ignoring the text about homosexuality, as we ignore all kinds of things in the Bible already.



I'm not ignoring anything, I've addressed this point repeatedly.



Narcissus said:


> And I accept your concession on this point.



You made a reasonable point.



Narcissus said:


> This isn't an opinion, it's a fact that I've explained. The Bible has bullshit regarding homosexuality. This deserves criticism. People used said bullshit to bully homosexuals. The people also deserved to be criticized.



That's an opinion.  You think that the bible's view is "bullshit"; I don't.  There isn't really anything factual about your opinion other than the fact that you believe that its true.

You believe this deserves criticism.  So what - your belief has no bearing on the factuality of your argument.



Narcissus said:


> It isn't my opinion that they were a small number of the audience, and what Savage said is true.



So you claim.



Narcissus said:


> If you're going to claim he did guesswork, then you'll need to provide evidence of that. Otherwise, it's an unfounded assertion on your part.



His own words reflect an imprecise measure of the audience.  I need no proof but to look at this own words.



Narcissus said:


> And I accept the concession.



Thank you.



Narcissus said:


> More evasion? Why am I not surprised?



If something is irrelevent we should discuss it simply because you want to?  I'm not interested in your views on that issue.



Narcissus said:


> Stop. You gave an irrelevant, poorly-supported opinion against the argument. The fact is that his criticism is justified because the Bible's claim on homosexuality is bullshit, in addition to the way people use it. As for Savage's method of addressing anti-bullying, it's your opinion about what he should've spoken on. But when kids in the LGBT community are committing suicide, he is perfectly fine in addressing it.



Lol.  Appeal to emotion.  Kids also commit suicide because they are fat, lonely, made fun of because of their appearance or family history.  The suicide of some is not meaningless, but it shouldn't be trumpeted as if gay kids are the only ones that suffer at the hands of bullies.  The way Savage addresses this topic it seems as if he's addressing the flea on the back of the monster in the room.


----------



## Vynjira (May 16, 2012)

Would you take some time to learn what the fallacies are please? and when you cite one, could you not do it with another fallacy?

No one is saying that fat kids aren't committing suicide.
He stated that it is perfectly valid, to address the issues directly relevant to suicide in particular groups. You're essentially getting upset over the fact that people do use your bible to condone their actions, and saying that people cannot criticize their actions. Which makes you part of the problem, and this is why people team up against you.

You take criticism personally, which only leads us to conclude that you're actually on their side, but don't want to admit it.


----------



## Narcissus (May 16, 2012)

baconbits said:


> ST was a pretty interesting guy.  Too bad I never got a chance to really know him - he seemed like he had a great sense of humor.


Shima was a troll who posted nonsense that got shot down at almost every turn, and it's nice to have threads free of him where I know he would've trolled. Besides, this wasn't part of our discussion, just an observation I was making.





> And I'm supposed to take this by faith?  I didn't hire you as my editor.


I don't need your say-so to determine what is or isn't relevant. what's more, you're guilty of the same thing, just in a different way.. You express what you think is irrelevant and refuse to answer it. Pretty hypocritical.





> So you're not responding to all my arguments.  I appreciate the honesty.


I said from the beginning that I was removing the irrelevant stuff. You've done the exact same thing (in terms of not responding).





> And simply saying I'm dishonest doesn't make that true either, lol.


Except I haven't just said it, I've shown it by explaining how you distorted what Savage said into an attack on all Christians.





> Lol.  Once again you make a very stupid argument.  Dishonest means intentionally trying to lead someone to conclusion x when I know conclusion y is true.  When someone honestly believes conclusion x and tries to lead someone to conclusion x they are not dishonest by definition of the term.


Funny how you're calling my arguments stupid when you're the one being forced to concede points. 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without the evidence, I am justified in calling your claim a lie, regardless of whether or not you truly believe in it, or how many people believe it. Refer to the definitions I posted, number 2 doesn't require it to be intentional for it to still be a lie.





> Because you don't understand these simple concepts you're accusing people who simply have a different opinion than you of being dishonest.


No, I call their claims dishonest because they are holding them as true without any proof.





> Secondly, I never claimed that belief in hell is true because a majority believes it to be true - this would be an actual falacious argument.  I said that arguing for hell cannot be dishonest if I believe that hell actually exists.  So even if we accept your premise - that hell doesn't exist - I would still be honest, just honestly wrong.  The fact that you still don't get that exposes the limitations of your intellect.


You said that it was honest because people believed it to be true. Furthermore, I've explained with a definition why it is still dishonest. Honestly believing something does not make the belief itself honest. The fact that you fail to realize this speaks volumes of what little intellect you have (though I've been aware of this long before this thread).





> It put their suffering in perspective.  While gays may suffer their bullying is not a significant portion of bullying.  Thus even if we accept your premise Savage isn't really addressing the problem of bullying as it would apply to most situations.  That was the point of the statement.  I'm not surprised you missed that point.


Facts? Statistics? Not just your claims about bullying, because I could sit here all day posting examples of bullying against them, hate crimes, and gay kids who suffer from their parents disapproval. What you fail to realize is that Savage is addressing a particular type of bullying.





> And it's dishonest to act like gay bullying is somehow more important than other bullying.  Throughout your post and throughout this excerpt from Savage we don't see much of a mention to real bullying that goes on.  He's simply focused on this issue because he wants to attack some views he doesn't like.


So gay bullying isn't "real bullying?" Nowhere did I say that it is more important, and neither did Savage. But he is perfectly entitled to focusing on a specific kind. the last part is a supposition on your part, as well as an appeal to motive fallacy.





> So what.  That law does not apply now, as I've stated again and again.  If the bible doesn't call for such an action anymore and we have people acting on a false premise the idiots should be attacked, not the bible.


The fact that the law *EVER* applied is immoral bullshit. Furthermore, it is still taken as the reason why homosexuality is considered immoral by Christians.





> This is why I've called this a gratuitious attack - because the bible has nothing to do with this bullying and people simply want to attack the bile because of their other views.


This blind refusal to accept the fact the the Bible is responsible for views of many people regarding homosexuality is staggering. When people use the passages from the Bible to justify their bullying, there is a direct connection. And those passages are bullshit.





> Lol.  You're demonstrating a lack of reading comprehension again.  I have responded to that verse about a dozen times already.  I have never said that the verse doesn't exist.  He wanted me to post the verse, which is stupid - if he wanted to use it as evidence he could have posted it himself.  So what he wanted was to force me to post evidence for his argument and then pretend I didn't address his point.


Once again you demonstrate hypocrisy. You get to decide what's stupid, or what can be ignored, in another's argument, but others can't do the same to you?





> Much as you're doing.  You're claiming that I'm evading, when I've addressed your points head on every time.  The OT says that the legal punishment for homosexuality is death - true.  Does that apply today?  No.  Does the moral pronouncement about homosexuality matter to Christians today?  Yes.


You've failed to actually address the problem. If you're going to admit that "the moral pronouncement about homosexuality" then you'll have to explain where these beliefs came from. Because if they're from the Bible, then they are still bullshit (the beliefs are still bullshit even if not from the Bible) and that Savage was justified.


----------



## Narcissus (May 16, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Everyone else's disagreement is really meaningless to this discussion.  All that means is that I'm outnumbered.


No, I said they were shooting you down, meaning their arguments were better than yours.





> Let's accept your premise and say that this passage does deserve criticism.  What does that have to do with bullying?
> 
> Second, let's look at your premise - your entire argument is simply based on your opinion.  I don't care about your opinions or presuppositions.


You mean besides the fact that this is what people use to justify bullying? And no, my argument isn't based on my opinion, it's based on morality. A book telling people that homosexuality is immoral, without any good reasoning, is bullshit.





> Lol.
> 
> "Blood is more precious than gold" - _idiots use this to kill innocents and drain their blood_.
> 
> ...


Your statement doesn't say anything negative about blood. Weapons do not tell people to kill. The Bible directly has passages condemning homosexuality. Your examples, yet again, are not the same thing as the actual situation. You're not very good at this (which is why your examples are so irrelevant).





> So what.  Even if we accept your premise you must logically admit that the bible does not encourage this bullying - idiocy encourages bullying.  Thus to address bullying we must address the idiotcy that leads to bullying, not what ever rationalization they make.


It doesn't have to directly encourage bullying for the two of them to still be connected to each other. As I said, what is written about homosexuals in the Bible deserves criticism for what it says alone, and people use it to justify bullying. So yes, both are bad.





> I already addressed this point and you ignored it - your argument doesn't make any sense because the two examples share this in common: neither one should have led to the action that followed.  Insert your own example if you want but when you misuse or misunderstand a philosophy and then do something stupid you can't blame the philosophy or worldview you misunderstood.


Evolution is not a philosophy, it is an observation with actual evidence that should not be misinterpreted. Religion does not have the evidence factor, and has multiple interpretations. I've explained that your example fails because religion tells people how to live, while evolution does not.





> So when you raise up points that don't matter, don't get mad at me.  I'm just responding.


I'm getting mad? lol. You were the one who told Basilikos that you were close to starting a flamewar. 

Your opinion doesn't mean my points don't matter, not when they explain key differences in your examples and the situation.





> Theres so much stupid in this section that its hard to address it all.


Not nearly as much stupid in all of your posts in general.





> First, I haven't circumvented anything.  I went through this argument repeatedly to several posters and showed the biblical reason why the argument falls apart.


And there is a reason none of them accepted your explanation (regardless of how deluded you are in thinking that refutes the argument). Because it ignores the fact that the Bible condemns homosexuality, which is what Savage was criticizing. 





> Secondly, the other parts of the bible explain the context of the statement - to argue against my using them is to argue for an out of context interpretation of the bible and also insures that you'll never understand my point - which is that you're not applying this verse correctly and neither are those who use it to defending bullying gays.


Unless you have a passage from the Bible that says not to condemn homosexuality, then the other quotes are irrelevant (I'll be interested in this).





> Thirdly, whether or not other parts of the bible deserve cirticism is irrelevent.  I'd disagree with you, particularly since you don't have enough of a grasp on biblical thought to distinguish between concepts, but there isn't a need to cite all the reasons why you're wrong because this point doesn't apply.


And I'd  disagree with you, because much of the Bible is highly immoral, regardless of any delusions otherwise





> .No, these pictures are simply random Christians doing stuff.  I don't have to defend random Christians doing things, stupid as some of those acts may be, just like you don't have to defend random secular humanists doing stupid things.  The pictures don't have anything to do with this discussion.


Hand-waving and dismissal is not a point of refutation. The pictures are examples of how the Bible is used to attack homosexuals, specifically with Bible verses and all. They are examples of the behavior Savage was talking about.





> That's your opinion.  But the bible's condemnation does not encourage bullying, particualarly when the bible commands believers to honor all men and treat people with respect.  It also encourages peace with all people, when possible.  Oddly enough you're not addressing the totatlity of biblical thought so you really don't know what the bible is encouraging.


No, that is honest. The Bible gives no good reason for condemning homosexuality, and this condemnation adds to confusion and unhappiness. That is why it deserves criticism, not because I say so. Furthermore, other passages about peace do not negate this condemnation. Hence the bullshit. You also cannot deny that people are using  this to justify bullying, hence the connection that justifies Savage.





> Like I said, even accepting your premise the condemnation has no relation with bullying.


Besides people using it to justify bullying?





> So you claim.


And rightfully so.





> That's your opinion.  This is close to begging the question because you're simply assuming that your point, which I contest, is absolutely correct.  Secondly, if you can't even acknowledge the fact that something is wrong when the people invited to an event don't know the real reason for the speech you're just being obstinate.


I'm not basing it off my opinion, what Savage said is true. The condemning of homosexuality in the bible is bullshit (as explained above) and the last part is your opinion.





> They are not the same situation, true, because they are examples.  An example is not the same situation, it is a different situation that sheds light on the situation under discussion.  That's the meaning of an example - I would think this would be honest.


An example has to actually be in the same context as the situation you're comparing it to. Your examples have key differences that make them fail.





> Yes, I've used logic and you've mostly responded with dismissal and fallacies, as I've demonstrated throughout.


No, you have been building your argument on fallacies and dishonesty (and you have been called out on this in other arguments as well), and you have been forced to concede several times already.


----------



## Narcissus (May 16, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Lol.  So let's take your example - which is going to hang you by the way - at face value.  You state this "unless the page directly [said] I deserved to be attacked for some reason".  If the bible does not say homosexuals should be attacked your argument falls apart - understand?


Homosexuals should be put to death... 

Sounds like it's saying to attack homosexuals. Yes, yes, OT Laws. The fact that this was ever in the Bible displays grave immorality, and in your example the pages aren't condemning me either.





> Let me ask you a simple question: what number of Christians did Savage say there were?  Be specific.


The answer is irrelevant, as it does disprove your dishonesty in any way. I said most of the audience was Christian, and you asked how I knew, because you saw no reference to the number of Christians. Savage said most of his audience was Christian.





> No it's still a supposition because Savage's statement does not contain anything concrete that would support your argument.  His guess is not much better than ours.


You have to demonstrate that he is guessing. As of now, the fact that he was the speaker means he has much more information on his audience than we do.





> I don't view "offensive" as subjective; I view "being offended" as subjective, so I'd quibble with the words you used there.


Quibble on. As of now, we're talking about whether or not if what he said was offensive, which is subjective (and I argue that it wasn't offensive).





> So what.  Your explanation had more holes than swiss cheese.


This coming from the person who has been conceding points and admitted that this wasn't his best debate?





> And I argue that he wasn't.


And you're not doing a very good job.





> Exactly.  I've provided absolutely no reasoning up to this point. /sarcasm


You certainly haven't provided any good reasoning. You've ignore that the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality deserves criticism, and say it has nothing to do with bullying when it is directly used to justify bullying gays.





> Lol.  But you did in fact mention that you set high standards for yourself, so in your dismissal of self commendation you commended yourself.  Clever.


In response to you doing it, to show that it is unnecessary and pointless. In other words, I'm not doing it to brag, unlike you.





> True.  I disagree with most of the actions you cite, but what does this have to do with the current discussion?  I hope you're not expecting me to defend everything some random person who claims to be Christian does.


They are all examples of what people claim to do because they care (as you said people warn of Hell as an act of caring). They are also examples of what people do because of the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, and the reason it deserves criticism. Funny how when a Christian does something immoral you say they're someone who "claims to be Christian."





> Lol.  We're not arguing about the validity of hell.  Either way this point has been addressed above.


No, we are not arguing the validity of Hell, we're arguing about the veracity peoples' claims, and how I am justified in believing someone is lying if they don't provide evidence.





> From the Christian's perspective he sees impending doom, just like the poison, which is real to him and is trying to warn you from it.  It would be like a person who thought someone was coming behind you to attack you and shouts a warning, not realizing that the person was just a friend playing a little joke.  The person could be wrong but that doesn't mean they were lying or didn't care.


Except the Christian has no evidence of Hell. I already explained why your poison example didn't work. The friend coming up behind me also fails, as there is visual evidence of that.





> It's not proof of anything but stupidity.


Yes, your own as well as the theirs.





> True.


I know.





> Not all of Christianity, which is why at times I've specified and said it's an attack on orthodox Christianity, which takes the bible as God's Word.


This does not serves as a point of refutation, as he still did not attack orthodox Christianity. He attacked parts of the Bible.





> There is no backpeddling.  If you can't see the sarcasm in that section then you don't know how to read.


In other words, backpedaling with a denial of backpedaling. Another concession accepted.





> It seemed like you were.  Restate your original point.


Considering that you do not have the authority to take away his rights (and thankfully never will 'cause you probably would if you could), no, I didn't claim that. My original point was that he simply has the right to criticize the Bible, and you're calling him an idiot for expressing that right (made even worse by your claim that you don't think the Bible deserves criticism).





> It's possible that I've made mistakes, but you haven't made a good argument that I have yet.


You haven't made any good arguments. 

Rather, you been dishonest, downplayed the suffering of homosexuals, and conceded certain points and evaded others, and denied the fact that the Bible deserves criticism.





> That's your inference, not the actual proof.


The fact that they are filled with hate is proof of them being bullshit.





> That's your opinion.  That has nothing to do with bullying.


No, it's not my opinion, it's a logical conclusion. The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is used to justify bullying, and it impedes on the happiness of others without good reasoning.





> I'm not ignoring anything, I've addressed this point repeatedly.


By quoting other parts of the Bible? By saying criticism of those passages are opinion? That is not addressing the point.





> That's an opinion.  You think that the bible's view is "bullshit"; I don't.  There isn't really anything factual about your opinion other than the fact that you believe that its true.
> 
> You believe this deserves criticism.  So what - your belief has no bearing on the factuality of your argument.


Read above; I've explained how it is a logical conclusion, not just my opinion.





> His own words reflect an imprecise measure of the audience.  I need no proof but to look at this own words.


Enough with the vague rambling. Which words?





> If something is irrelevent we should discuss it simply because you want to?  I'm not interested in your views on that issue.


Pretty much the way I don't respond to the irrelevant drivel you spew. Watch the double standards now.





> Lol.  Appeal to emotion.  Kids also commit suicide because they are fat, lonely, made fun of because of their appearance or family history.  The suicide of some is not meaningless, but it shouldn't be trumpeted as if gay kids are the only ones that suffer at the hands of bullies.  The way Savage addresses this topic it seems as if he's addressing the flea on the back of the monster in the room.


This is a straw man. No one ever said that gay kids are the only ones who commit suicide or bullied. However, Savage is justified in dealing with that specific area of bullying because it's something he specializes in, and if he can lessen the suicide of gay kids then he is perfectly fine in focusing on it.


----------



## baconbits (May 17, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> Shima was a troll who posted nonsense that got shot down at almost every turn, and it's nice to have threads free of him where I know he would've trolled. Besides, this wasn't part of our discussion, just an observation I was making.



Understandable.  I just recall someone saying they don't include their random observations in their posts.



Narcissus said:


> I don't need your say-so to determine what is or isn't relevant. what's more, you're guilty of the same thing, just in a different way.. You express what you think is irrelevant and refuse to answer it. Pretty hypocritical.



There's nothing hypocritical about it.  I respond to everything and cite why I think an argument is good or bad, relevant or irrelevant.  You just delete stuff.  The two are not the same.



Narcissus said:


> I said from the beginning that I was removing the irrelevant stuff. You've done the exact same thing (in terms of not responding).



Let's not equate us.  You're not as bad as Vynjira, but deleting something isn't the same as saying why it's irrelevant.



Narcissus said:


> Except I haven't just said it, I've shown it by explaining how you distorted what Savage said into an attack on all Christians.



In other words you've simply stated that your opinion was correct and then attempted to find reasons for that opinion.



Narcissus said:


> Funny how you're calling my arguments stupid when you're the one being forced to concede points.



Lol.  When I concede some minor point about whether he insulted them or their reaction that has no bearing on our larger points.  I'm conceding those points because I'm honest and reasonable - when someone I'm debating makes a good point I'll acknowledge it.  You don't acknowledge good points from me because you're biased against Christianity.  You think your opinions can create morality, something I'll demonstrate below.



Narcissus said:


> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without the evidence, I am justified in calling your claim a lie, regardless of whether or not you truly believe in it, or how many people believe it. Refer to the definitions I posted, number 2 doesn't require it to be intentional for it to still be a lie.



This was your second definition:



> 2: to create a false or misleading impression



Which is only the case if you beg the question.  In other words the only reason you can call the stance that hell exists a lie is if you beg the question that hell doesn't exist.

Secondly, you use the definition of lie because you found one definition that didn't mention intention.  But definitions of the words dishonest seem to all say something about intentions.  So you've used the definition of a lie and conflated that with your use of the word "dishonest" and attempted to accuse me with it.  Now _that's _dishonest.



Narcissus said:


> No, I call their claims dishonest because they are holding them as true without any proof.



And there's nothing dishonest about it.  Check out the definition for dishonest from dictionary.com:



> 1. not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief: a dishonest person.
> 2. proceeding from or exhibiting lack of honesty; fraudulent: a dishonest advertisement.



Now check out the definition for false:



> 1. not true or correct; erroneous: a false statement.
> 2. uttering or declaring what is untrue: a false witness.
> 3. not faithful or loyal; treacherous: a false friend.
> 4. tending to deceive or mislead; deceptive: a false impression.
> 5. not genuine; counterfeit.



It?s sad that I have to define lie, dishonest and false in a debate between adults but what this shows us is that you're making a dumb assertion.  When an argument lacks proof it is an unfounded assertion - basically like your entire argument - while dishonest describes what you did with those definitions.



Narcissus said:


> You said that it was honest because people believed it to be true.



Which is absolutely true.  You can honestly be wrong.  Hence the phrase "an honest mistake".



> 1. honorable in principles, intentions, and actions; upright and fair: an honest person.
> 2. showing uprightness and fairness: honest dealings.
> 3. gained or obtained fairly: honest wealth.
> 4. sincere; frank: an honest face.
> 5. genuine or unadulterated: honest commodities.



In other words I'm using definition one.  If someone has an actual belief that something is true stating that belief is by definition honest (though not necessarily true).  True measures whether or not the statement conforms with reality.

Thus someone can honestly believe that the earth is flat.  If you examine the truthfulness of their belief there view would be called false.  If I knew the earth was round and said it was false I?d be lying and you could describe me as dishonest.



Narcissus said:


> Furthermore, I've explained with a definition why it is still dishonest. Honestly believing something does not make the belief itself honest. The fact that you fail to realize this speaks volumes of what little intellect you have (though I've been aware of this long before this thread).



In other words because you've danced between definitions and different words (you define lie and accuse me of being dishonest) you're somehow justified in making a dumb assertion.  Not the best argument but it isn't your worst, either.

Then you insult me for taking your words literally.  Sometimes all I can do is shake my head.



Narcissus said:


> Facts? Statistics? Not just your claims about bullying, because I could sit here all day posting examples of bullying against them, hate crimes, and gay kids who suffer from their parents disapproval. What you fail to realize is that Savage is addressing a particular type of bullying.



I understand that.  What I don't understand is why he prioritizes this particular type of bullying over the others.



Narcissus said:


> So gay bullying isn't "real bullying?"



It is real bullying.  It isn't a significant portion of total bullying.



Narcissus said:


> Nowhere did I say that it is more important, and neither did Savage. But he is perfectly entitled to focusing on a specific kind. the last part is a supposition on your part, as well as an appeal to motive fallacy.



I'm simply deducing a reason because without some real reason to focus on this small area of bullying his speech doesn't make much sense.



Narcissus said:


> The fact that the law *EVER* applied is immoral bullshit.



Only because you say so.  Again you're stating your opinion and simply accepting that it is true, which is a real fallacy.



Narcissus said:


> Furthermore, it is still taken as the reason why homosexuality is considered immoral by Christians.



So what.  Viewing something as right or wrong has nothing to do with turning around and bullying that person.



Narcissus said:


> This blind refusal to accept the fact the the Bible is responsible for views of many people regarding homosexuality is staggering.



You're making another dumb assumption.  I never said the bible wasn't responsible for views on homosexuality.  What I've never got is how you can turn that into an encouragement of bullying.  I happen to think pornography is immoral as well, but I wouldn't go and bully someone who views it - I'd simply disagree with them.  Your inability to make this simple connection is the gaping hole in your argument.


----------



## baconbits (May 17, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> When people use the passages from the Bible to justify their bullying, there is a direct connection.



Only to their stupidity.  There is nothing to connect bullying to the bible.

Let me make this plain for you: you've proven that the bible views homosexuality as immoral.  You've proven that people bully and you've proven that people bully and use the bible to rationalize their bullying.  You haven't proven that people are justified in using the bible to rationalize their bullying - this is the whole in your argument and why every time you post Christians shake their heads at the ignorance.



Narcissus said:


> And those passages are bullshit.



You're just assuming this is the case, you're not making an argument.  This is what you've done ever since this debate started.



Narcissus said:


> Once again you demonstrate hypocrisy. You get to decide what's stupid, or what can be ignored, in another's argument, but others can't do the same to you?



Lol.  I can't call something stupid?  I still responded to it and gave my reasons why - that counterpoint is ridiculous and is simply whining.



Narcissus said:


> You've failed to actually address the problem. If you're going to admit that "the moral pronouncement about homosexuality" then you'll have to explain where these beliefs came from. Because if they're from the Bible, then they are still bullshit (the beliefs are still bullshit even if not from the Bible) and that Savage was justified.



Lol.  So because you think it's "bullshit" I have to as well?  You're logic is messed up.  I've already addressed how these verses do not apply to the modern saint.  You fail to address these points.

Instead you claim that I need to explain where these points come from, yet when I explain where these points point _to_ you claim "irrelevant".  There's no need to get into all the reasons I disagree with homosexuality - this post isn't about the morality of homosexuality, this is about Savage, his attacks and his display of ignorance.



Narcissus said:


> No, I said they were shooting you down, meaning their arguments were better than yours.



So you claim.  I'd argue that you're wrong.



Narcissus said:


> You mean besides the fact that this is what people use to justify bullying?



Just because people use it does not mean they are justified in using it.  The fact that you don't acknowledge that simple point astounds me.



Narcissus said:


> And no, my argument isn't based on my opinion, it's based on morality. A book telling people that homosexuality is immoral, without any good reasoning, is bullshit.



Actually it is based on your opinion.  All you've said is that a book that says a different opinion than yours is BS.  Your argument is essentially ?I?m not stating an opinion.  Here?s my opinion on the book.?



Narcissus said:


> Your statement doesn't say anything negative about blood. Weapons do not tell people to kill. The Bible directly has passages condemning homosexuality. Your examples, yet again, are not the same thing as the actual situation. You're not very good at this (which is why your examples are so irrelevant).



Lol.  My examples are actually very good - if you had a shred of objectivity you'd actually see the point.

The bible doesn't tell people to bully, so just like weapons that don't tell people to kill aren't responsible for killing a book that doesn't tell people to bully isn't responsible for bullying.

We both agree that some idiots use the bible in that way.  The verses that I listed prove that they're misusing the bible.



Narcissus said:


> It doesn't have to directly encourage bullying for the two of them to still be connected to each other. As I said, what is written about homosexuals in the Bible deserves criticism for what it says alone, and people use it to justify bullying. So yes, both are bad.



You're just begging the question.  You're only reason for saying the bible deserves criticism is your opinion that the bible is wrong about homosexuality and no further argumentation is provided.  I really don't care about your views on the bible, because it's clear you have no intention of understanding it, but what you do need to start to grasp is that people's use of something does not define the intention or purpose of something.



Narcissus said:


> Evolution is not a philosophy, it is an observation with actual evidence that should not be misinterpreted. Religion does not have the evidence factor, and has multiple interpretations. I've explained that your example fails because religion tells people how to live, while evolution does not.



Lol.  Evolution doesn't have many interpretations?

Religion may have many interpretations but many of those interpretations are wrong and demonstrably so.  Understanding how to interpret something takes a certain amount of logic and study that many do not have (the many includes a lot of Christians).

Secondly, your views of evidence are really irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  The validity of Christianity is the topic of another discussion.  What we're discussing is whether people are justified in using the bible in a way that supports bullying.  You have yet to demonstrate that this is so.

The evolution example is a good one because it explains that people can use a theory or worldview to defend/encourage actions that have nothing to do with that worldview.  Just as people stupidly used evolution to defend genocide people are stupidly using the bible to defend bullying.



Narcissus said:


> I'm getting mad? lol. You were the one who told Basilikos that you were close to starting a flamewar.



A joke between friends is not an indication of anger.  I'm still exasperated by your ignorance, but I'm not angry.  I think a good flame war might help me stuff a little understanding in between your ears.



Narcissus said:


> Your opinion doesn't mean my points don't matter, not when they explain key differences in your examples and the situation.



You've shown a repeated inability to understand simple examples.  Repeating that show of ignorance doesn't serve you well.  The examples are really just explaining the same point: these bullies are not justified in using the bible to excuse their bullying.  You cannot debunk this point.



Narcissus said:


> Not nearly as much stupid in all of your posts in general.



Lol.  Another childish comeback?  You're not very good at this.



Narcissus said:


> And there is a reason none of them accepted your explanation (regardless of how deluded you are in thinking that refutes the argument). Because it ignores the fact that the Bible condemns homosexuality, which is what Savage was criticizing. Unless you have a passage from the Bible that says not to condemn homosexuality, then the other quotes are irrelevant (I'll be interested in this).



In other words you're only interest in scriptures that confirm your opinion.

None of them actually interacted with my explanation.  Many just asked for me to repeat the explanation and some never replied again after I made the explanation.  The problem with your argument is that you equate condemnation with encouragement to bully.  These two things are not equal.



Narcissus said:


> And I'd disagree with you, because much of the Bible is highly immoral, regardless of any delusions otherwise



Another random assumption and assertion.



Narcissus said:


> Hand-waving and dismissal is not a point of refutation. The pictures are examples of how the Bible is used to attack homosexuals, specifically with Bible verses and all. They are examples of the behavior Savage was talking about.



I didn't simply dismiss your point, I addressed it: all you've done is show people doing things that could be construed as stupid.  Some of the pictures you show show things I'd agree with you on - they're stupid.  Others are simply pictures.  Either way the pictures don't have anything to do with the discussion - I never denied the existence of stupid Christians.

If this is what Savage was referring to he's even more stupid than I thought - the billboard you showed is most likely not put up by a highschooler.  Some church leader trying to be provocative probably did that.



Narcissus said:


> No, that is honest. The Bible gives no good reason for condemning homosexuality, and this condemnation adds to confusion and unhappiness.



Actually the bible does provide reasons.  The fact that you don't know where they are is not evidence that they do not exist.  Secondly you're once again simply stating an unfounded opinion.  Your terrible arguments also lead to confusion, but I don't think you deserve condemnation for it.



Narcissus said:


> That is why it deserves criticism, not because I say so.



The fact that people are unhappy about a certain position does not lead to the conclusion that this position is wrong.



Narcissus said:


> Furthermore, other passages about peace do not negate this condemnation.



I never said it did.



Narcissus said:


> Hence the bullshit.



Hence nothing.  You?ve proven nothing except that people don?t like the bible.  The fact that people don?t like something does not imply that it is ?BS?.


----------



## baconbits (May 17, 2012)

Narcissus said:


> Hence You also cannot deny that people are using  this to justify bullying, hence the connection that justifies Savage.



So what.  As I?ve stated repeatedly the bible does not justify bullying, so even if people do they really have nothing to do with the bible.



Narcissus said:


> Besides people using it to justify bullying?



What people use it for is irrelevant.  If people use the bible to smash in car windows will you condemn the bible for that?  The reason you wouldn?t is because that isn?t a proper use of the book just as bullying and defending bullies is not a proper use of the Scriptures.



Narcissus said:


> And rightfully so.



Another unfounded assertion.



Narcissus said:


> I'm not basing it off my opinion, what Savage said is true. The condemning of homosexuality in the bible is bullshit (as explained above) and the last part is your opinion.



You?ve explained nothing above, you simply assumed your argument to be correct because your opinion told you so.  Secondly the second part is illustrative of your bias ? it?s clear that people should have been warned before they came.  They didn?t know what this speech was about and someone should have told them that this was no speech on bullying; and that they would learn about bullying by being the victims of it.



Narcissus said:


> An example has to actually be in the same context as the situation you're comparing it to. Your examples have key differences that make them fail.



Not really.  Every example is defensible.



Narcissus said:


> No, you have been building your argument on fallacies and dishonesty (and you have been called out on this in other arguments as well), and you have been forced to concede several times already.



I conceded twice about whether he criticized them or their reactions.  That?s hardly several times.  You ought to be conceding the rest of the argument.



Narcissus said:


> Homosexuals should be put to death...







Narcissus said:


> Sounds like it's saying to attack homosexuals. Yes, yes, OT Laws. The fact that this was ever in the Bible displays grave immorality, and in your example the pages aren't condemning me either.



Lol.  You?re begging the question again.



Narcissus said:


> The answer is irrelevant, as it does disprove your dishonesty in any way. I said most of the audience was Christian, and you asked how I knew, because you saw no reference to the number of Christians. Savage said most of his audience was Christian.



Lol.  So you can?t answer that question.  This is an evasion. 



Narcissus said:


> You have to demonstrate that he is guessing. As of now, the fact that he was the speaker means he has much more information on his audience than we do.



He wasn?t specific.  He gave a very general answer, so it?s clear that he was uncertain about just how many Christians were there.



Narcissus said:


> Quibble on. As of now, we're talking about whether or not if what he said was offensive, which is subjective (and I argue that it wasn't offensive).



I don?t see how it isn?t offensive when he was vulgar, insulted people?s views and insulted their reaction to his vulgarities.  The lack of reading comprehension when it comes to the bible is enough to make me roll my eyes while watching.



Narcissus said:


> This coming from the person who has been conceding points and admitted that this wasn't his best debate?



And this proves that your explanation doesn?t have holes?



Narcissus said:


> And you're not doing a very good job.



According to my objective opponent. /sarcasm



Narcissus said:


> You certainly haven't provided any good reasoning. You've ignore that the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality deserves criticism, and say it has nothing to do with bullying when it is directly used to justify bullying gays.



You?re just illogical.  You?ve never argued that the bible deserves criticism, you?ve just assumed that this is so.  You?ve also ignored the fact that people aren?t justified for using the bible in that way.



Narcissus said:


> In response to you doing it, to show that it is unnecessary and pointless. In other words, I'm not doing it to brag, unlike you.



Lol.  You could have just said it was unnecessary and pointless.  Instead you bragged.



Narcissus said:


> They are all examples of what people claim to do because they care (as you said people warn of Hell as an act of caring). They are also examples of what people do because of the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, and the reason it deserves criticism. Funny how when a Christian does something immoral you say they're someone who "claims to be Christian."



What would you have me do: assume that all these people are Christians when I do not know this to be true?



Narcissus said:


> No, we are not arguing the validity of Hell, we're arguing about the veracity peoples' claims, and how I am justified in believing someone is lying if they don't provide evidence.



That?s an irrational viewpoint.



Narcissus said:


> Except the Christian has no evidence of Hell. I already explained why your poison example didn't work. The friend coming up behind me also fails, as there is visual evidence of that.



You?re simply assuming that we don?t have a valid reason for belief.



Narcissus said:


> Yes, your own as well as the theirs.



Whether or not we?re stupid has no bearing on the argument we?re having.



Narcissus said:


> I know.



?



Narcissus said:


> This does not serves as a point of refutation, as he still did not attack orthodox Christianity. He attacked parts of the Bible.



Orthodox Christianity sees all scripture as sacred.  Attacking parts of the bible is an attack against orthodox Christianity.



Narcissus said:


> In other words, backpedaling with a denial of backpedaling. Another concession accepted.



I guess you just don?t understand sarcasm.



Narcissus said:


> Considering that you do not have the authority to take away his rights (and thankfully never will 'cause you probably would if you could), no, I didn't claim that. My original point was that he simply has the right to criticize the Bible, and you're calling him an idiot for expressing that right (made even worse by your claim that you don't think the Bible deserves criticism).



You should concede your accusation.  I never would take away his right to speak idiocy because I believe in the freedom of speech.

The fact that I call someone an idiot is only indicative of the fact that I believe I also have the right to engage in free speech.



Narcissus said:


> You haven't made any good arguments.
> 
> Rather, you been dishonest, downplayed the suffering of homosexuals, and conceded certain points and evaded others, and denied the fact that the Bible deserves criticism.



Lol.  This summary is hilarious.  Your ability to write fiction is superb.



Narcissus said:


> The fact that they are filled with hate is proof of them being bullshit.



How is it filled with hate?  You?ve once again begged the question.



Narcissus said:


> No, it's not my opinion, it's a logical conclusion. The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is used to justify bullying, and it impedes on the happiness of others without good reasoning.



Impeding happiness?  What does that mean to our discussion?



Narcissus said:


> By quoting other parts of the Bible? By saying criticism of those passages are opinion? That is not addressing the point.



Actually it is.  The point I?m addressing is whether the bullies are justified in using the bible to defend or encourage their bullying.  If they are justified then you?re right, the bible should take criticism; if they are not justified then the bible doesn?t deserve criticism.



Narcissus said:


> Read above; I've explained how it is a logical conclusion, not just my opinion.



You mean where you begged the question repeatedly?  I noted that.



Narcissus said:


> Enough with the vague rambling. Which words?



His apology.



Narcissus said:


> Pretty much the way I don't respond to the irrelevant drivel you spew. Watch the double standards now.



Lol.  Again you misunderstand sarcasm.  I suppose I should put the ?/sarcasm? after every sarcastic bit.  I apologize for assuming a rudimentary level of intelligence on your part.



Narcissus said:


> This is a straw man. No one ever said that gay kids are the only ones who commit suicide or bullied.



I never said you did.  I simply said the way you are prioritizing the gay kids being bullied is as if the other problems don?t even exist.



Narcissus said:


> However, Savage is justified in dealing with that specific area of bullying because it's something he specializes in, and if he can lessen the suicide of gay kids then he is perfectly fine in focusing on it.



Now you?re just repeating your appeal to emotion again.  Savage?s savage attack on orthodox Christianity won?t save a single gay kid.


----------



## Vynjira (May 17, 2012)

> these bullies are not justified in using the bible to excuse their bullying. You cannot debunk this point.


Which is why Dan Savage was criticizing them. Now that you've repeated this same moot point ad nauseam fucking drop it.

You're not adding to the discussion and what the hell do you need 3 posts for just to dismiss most of what he said or ignore it and repeat yourself?


----------



## Golden Circle (May 17, 2012)

^ One could arguably same the same to you Vynjira. Funny that.

Ofc I never repeat myself on the internet too. 





> You're not adding to the discussion and what the hell do you need 3 posts for just to dismiss most of what he said or ignore it and repeat yourself?


Strange, looks to me that he is addressing his posts. Oh my.


----------



## hammer (May 17, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> Strange, looks to me that he is addressing his posts. Oh my.



yea because its not like there is a rule for doing that. Oh my


----------



## Vynjira (May 17, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> Strange, looks to me that he is addressing his posts. Oh my.





baconbits said:


> If the bible does not say homosexuals should be attacked your argument falls apart - understand?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That sure is a fun way of not addressing what he said.





> ^ One could arguably same the same to you Vynjira. Funny that.


You're funny, now go away.


----------



## Admiral Hakuryō (May 17, 2012)

I happen to think the Bible is a load of shit. In fact, I think religion altogether is a load of shit so...ah that's off topic.

Anyway, nice one, Dan


----------



## Golden Circle (May 18, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> That sure is a fun way of not addressing what he said.


Oh yeah. Facepalming because someone inisists on something even after being told that their argument will fall apart if they keep insisting on it isn't addressing it. And funnily enough, _you're_ the one that said she wasn't. I quote thus:


Vynjira said:


> Which is why Dan Savage was criticizing them. Now that* you've repeated this same moot point ad nauseam* *fucking drop it.*
> 
> *You're not adding to the discussion* and what the hell do you need 3 posts for just to dismiss most of what he said or ignore it and repeat yourself?



And I'll add now:


> dismiss most of what he said or ignore it


My what a long in-depth post of yours that was.



> You're funny, now go away.


Nice way of addressing my post man.


----------



## Vynjira (May 18, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> Oh yeah. Facepalming because someone inisists on something even after being told that their argument will fall apart if they keep insisting on it isn't addressing it. And funnily enough, you're the one that said she wasn't. I quote thus:


Come back when you can form more than 1 coherent sentence. You're trying to defend baconbits poor debating with sentences that don't make any sense. You're either missing words to finish these sentences or combining sentences in a way that makes them incomprehensible (or some other typo).

At best I know you're trying to disagree with me, and you're trying to be sarcastic and point out some contradiction. Unfortunately that doesn't tell me what you meant to write.





> My what a long in-depth post of yours that was.


I can see that you think you have some point, but it seems you're incapable of actually making it.





> Nice way of addressing my post man.


I did address your post, and after explaining that it was bullshit. I told you to go away because I'm not interested in your apparent trolling.

Here's a thought, spend a little more time focusing on what you want to say and less time jumping into conversations that you know little about.

I'm not trying to be mean here, because until I know exactly what you were trying to say I can't really tear it apart.


----------



## Golden Circle (May 18, 2012)

^ Instead of asserting that I don't know how to type because you can't understand me, maybe you're the one who should come back after learning basic reading and understanding skills. See what I did there?


----------



## baconbits (May 18, 2012)

Vynjira said:


> That sure is a fun way of not addressing what he said.



You're cherrypicking again, V.

I answered that point repeatedly throughout the post.  Realize that the response was three posts long (and close to the limit on all three) so when you take one little phrase out make sure the point wasn't answered before.

In other words do your homework.


----------



## Vynjira (May 18, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> ^ Instead of asserting that I don't know how to type


I didn't assert you don't know how to type, would you at least go back and proof read what you wrote before you say something this fucking stupid?


> Oh yeah. Facepalming because someone inisists on something even after being told that their argument will fall apart if they keep insisting on it isn't addressing it.


Whatever you're trying to say looks very fucking circular the way you wrote it. Are you intentionally trying to make bad arguments? Or did you just type to fast? 

The best I can guess is that you're accusing Narc of making an argument, that baconbits asserted was a "weak argument". So baconbits is justified in facepalming when Narc goes ahead and makes the argument.

If that is roughly what you meant, then I'm sorry because I was assuming you weren't that stupid and you actually had a valid point. So if that's what you meant, then here's why it's fucking wrong:

Baconbits asserted "*IF* Bible doesn't say homosexuals should be attacked Narc's argument falls apart", Narc pointed out the Bible says homosexuals should be put to death. Meaning even despite Baconbits' assertion Narc's argument hasn't fallen apart, he made a valid counterpoint and Baconbits dismissed it with a facepalm.​


> And funnily enough, *you're the one that said she wasn't.*


Who the fuck is she? and how does any of that follow from what you just said?





> I quote *thus*:


Did you mean "THUS I quote:" ? or "I quote THIS:" ? what you quoted doesn't follow from anything you just wrote. It's a non-sequitur which seems to be a growing pattern in your posts.

Also, can you manage to use a fallacy properly? Where did I assert nothing you say will ever be valid based on whatever faults I accused you of.

If I said you were a liar, and therefore nothing you say is true.
That would be poisoning the well.

If I said, you don't treat anyone with respect, therefore nothing you say is true.
That would be poisoning the well.

Saying, that doesn't make any fucking sense, come back when form more than 1 coherent sentence, is NOT poisoning the well. Why? because I haven't made the attempt to discredit you in order to ignore any unfavorable information you might provide.

Which if you fucking read the link, you'd understand. Further poisoning the well, is an attempt to preemptively dismiss things someone will say. That's why it's fallacious, because what you're saying may very well still be valid, regardless of any negative things I've said about you.





baconbits said:


> You're cherrypicking again, V.


You're asserting things again bacon. Fortunately, this gives me an opportunity to prove you wrong again.

I can't wait to see what you're going to try to prove was cherry picking. 


> I answered that point repeatedly throughout the post.


Thus why I said you made the same moot point ad nauseam. Repeating the same invalid argument doesn't mean you can start dismissing valid rebuttals.

..and who the fuck, do you think you're kidding with here? Do you think I'm not familiar with your argument?





> Realize that the response was three posts long


Yes, because your response was 3 posts long, and his response before that was 3 posts long etc.. etc..

You've gone and missed the point, Congratulations. I said if you're going to dismiss 90% of what he said, you don't need 3 posts to do it.





> so when you take one little phrase out make sure the point wasn't answered before.


Stop, first off let's not try to pretend that was the only instance you dismissed what he had to say. I was responding to a claim, that you were actually addressing Narc's post.


> In other words do your homework.


Do you really want to embarrass yourself some more Baconbits? Should I point out that you're trying to ignore the context of the specific claims I was responding to?


----------



## fantzipants (May 19, 2012)

This is the first time I look into the thread and all I see is people arguing about how they argue. I will say this when it comes to the bible certain rules have been written (may it be by men or other wise) that have been passed from generation to generation with in that group. If you don't pertain to that group then don't worry about it. On the other hand hatred (irrational more so)  is not a good thing. It's sad to see that people on both sides just don't seem to get it. Everyone has their own agenda to add and change the message and what could be a discussion into the hearts of men and women de-evolves into machine gun insults, self righteous stings and indirect attacks, and belittlement about different subjects not related to the article.


----------



## Narcissus (May 20, 2012)

baconbits said:


> There's nothing hypocritical about it.  I respond to everything and cite why I think an argument is good or bad, relevant or irrelevant.  You just delete stuff.  The two are not the same.


That it hypocritical. The only difference is that you're taking the extra effort to say that you think something is irrelevant. You're still making the same decision I am, just implementing a different means to deal with it.





> Let's not equate us.  You're not as bad as Vynjira, but deleting something isn't the same as saying why it's irrelevant.


 fully agree on not equating us. And your opinion on Vyn is a non-issue, considering I've seen her win arguments against you. However, all you merely said you something was irrelevant and moved on. I said from the start that I was removing irrelevant portions.





> In other words you've simply stated that your opinion was correct and then attempted to find reasons for that opinion.


If your interpretation of what I said mattered, I guess this may hold some weight. However, it doesn't.





> Lol.  When I concede some minor point about whether he insulted them or their reaction that has no bearing on our larger points.  I'm conceding those points because I'm honest and reasonable - when someone I'm debating makes a good point I'll acknowledge it.  You don't acknowledge good points from me because you're biased against Christianity.  You think your opinions can create morality, something I'll demonstrate below.


I'm amused that you're calling the points minor, considering that they were essential to the claim that Savage was bullying them. And seriously, stop with the appeal to motive.





> This was your second definition:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is only the case if you beg the question.  In other words the only reason you can call the stance that hell exists a lie is if you beg the question that hell doesn't exist.


Again, if you do not have evidence of your claim, I am justified in believing your claim to be a lie.





> Secondly, you use the definition of lie because you found one definition that didn't mention intention.  But definitions of the words dishonest seem to all say something about intentions.  So you've used the definition of a lie and conflated that with your use of the word "dishonest" and attempted to accuse me with it.  Now _that's _dishonest.


There is a contradiction here. "All" definitions cannot mention intention when I've clearly posted one that doesn't include it. Furthermore, because it is in the dictionary, it is not dishonest., and it's on you if you have an issue with the dictionary.





> In other words I'm using definition one.  If someone has an actual belief that something is true stating that belief is by definition honest (though not necessarily true).  True measures whether or not the statement conforms with reality.


So  you accuse me of choosing the definition that best suited my needs, and then you do the same thing?





> Thus someone can honestly believe that the earth is flat.  If you examine the truthfulness of their belief there view would be called false.  If I knew the earth was round and said it was false I?d be lying and you could describe me as dishonest.


If you ask someone whether or not the Earth is flat, and they say yes, the answer is is not honest. It may be unintentionally dishonest, but it is still the opposite of the truth. Peoples' belief do not make something true, the actual truth of the matter does (which is proven via evidence).





> Then you insult me for taking your words literally.  Sometimes all I can do is shake my head.


This is funny coming from you, considering you're backtracking in this thread by claiming to use sarcasm, and getting upset when I call you out for it.





> I understand that.  What I don't understand is why he prioritizes this particular type of bullying over the others.


Because he wants to? Because he has the right to? Because he is a gay man himself and knows what a lot of them go through, allowing him to identify more with this group of bullied kids than another?





> It is real bullying.  It isn't a significant portion of total bullying.


I'm still waiting for your data, not just your words. Regardless, it is something that needs to be addressed.





> I'm simply deducing a reason because without some real reason to focus on this small area of bullying his speech doesn't make much sense.


This does not serve as a justification for your fallacy (and it's more of an admission to it). You don't get to sit there and make up whatever reasons you like, especially when you've demonstrated clear bias on this issue.





> Only because you say so.  Again you're stating your opinion and simply accepting that it is true, which is a real fallacy.


Wrong. I've already explained why it was immoral, and it wasn't "because I say so." I said that it impedes on the happiness of others, calls for execution, and gives no real reasons for why it is immoral.





> So what.  Viewing something as right or wrong has nothing to do with turning around and bullying that person.


It does when that something is used to justify the bullying.





> You're making another dumb assumption.  I never said the bible wasn't responsible for views on homosexuality.  What I've never got is how you can turn that into an encouragement of bullying.  I happen to think pornography is immoral as well, but I wouldn't go and bully someone who views it - I'd simply disagree with them.  Your inability to make this simple connection is the gaping hole in your argument.


Your inability to make the connection between the bullying of gays and the Bible is the main problem with your argument, especially when you're admitting that it is responsible for the views of many people on the subject. Furthermore, this influence of peoples' views is the bullshit Savage said we could ignore (as it is bullshit for the reasons I explained).


----------



## Narcissus (May 20, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Only to their stupidity.  There is nothing to connect bullying to the bible.
> 
> Let me make this plain for you: you've proven that the bible views homosexuality as immoral.  You've proven that people bully and you've proven that people bully and use the bible to rationalize their bullying.  You haven't proven that people are justified in using the bible to rationalize their bullying - this is the whole in your argument and why every time you post Christians shake their heads at the ignorance.


This was what I needed from you to know for certain that you do not understand my argument.

I have said in this thread that the Bible does not have passages condoning bullying. That has never been what I was trying to prove. I was trying to prove the 3 things you mentioned, and that Savage was justified in his criticism because of the Bible's outlook on homosexuality, as it is nonsense.

And I couldn't care less if the Christians shook their heads until their necks snapped, considering none of them have constructed a decent argument in this thread. I could go into the many people nodding their heads in support of what I say, but it's irrelevant. 


> Lol.  I can't call something stupid?  I still responded to it and gave my reasons why - that counterpoint is ridiculous and is simply whining.


Of course you can (whether it's wrong or not), but I was pointing out a double standard. You did not legitimately address Nihonjin's arguments, but rather ignored it.





> Lol.  So because you think it's "bullshit" I have to as well?  You're logic is messed up.  I've already addressed how these verses do not apply to the modern saint.  You fail to address these points.
> 
> Instead you claim that I need to explain where these points come from, yet when I explain where these points point _to_ you claim "irrelevant".  There's no need to get into all the reasons I disagree with homosexuality - this post isn't about the morality of homosexuality, this is about Savage, his attacks and his display of ignorance.


I have addressed it. The fact that the Bible ever called for execution of homosexuals is immoral. I'm not going to ignore it just because it doesn't apply anymore.





> So you claim.  I'd argue that you're wrong.


A fool can argue all day with a genius and think he won , that doesn't make it true. Feel free to believe whatever you want. 


> Just because people use it does not mean they are justified in using it.  The fact that you don't acknowledge that simple point astounds me.


Because it's irrelevant. The Bible still has views of homosexuality being immoral without any justification, which is the bullshit Savage was talking about. So justified or not, the Bible is still wrong.





> Actually it is based on your opinion.  All you've said is that a book that says a different opinion than yours is BS.  Your argument is essentially “I’m not stating an opinion.  Here’s my opinion on the book.”


This shows that you're pretty good at setting up straw men. Read above, I've given reasoning, not just opinion. Your claim is more dishonesty.





> The bible doesn't tell people to bully, so just like weapons that don't tell people to kill aren't responsible for killing a book that doesn't tell people to bully isn't responsible for bullying.


I've already explained that the bible doesn't need to tell people to bully to be immoral. It tells people what to think about concepts like homosexuality. A gun doesn't do anything like this.





> We both agree that some idiots use the bible in that way.  The verses that I listed prove that they're misusing the bible.


If you are admitting that people use the Bible, whether right or wrong, to justify bullying, then you therefore concede that there is a connection. Therefore, Savage was addressing bullying when addressing the way in which people use it.





> Religion may have many interpretations but many of those interpretations are wrong and demonstrably so.  Understanding how to interpret something takes a certain amount of logic and study that many do not have (the many includes a lot of Christians).


the problem here is that none of them are demonstrably right.


> 1)Secondly, your views of evidence are really irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
> 2)The validity of Christianity is the topic of another discussion.
> 3)What we're discussing is whether people are justified in using the bible in a way that supports bullying. You have yet to demonstrate that this is so.



No, it isn't. It directly shows a significant difference between evolution and religion
It is, however it is relevant to your example because it shows that you don't realize why you can't compare evolution and Christanity
Read above. I don't have to prove that people are justified in doing so, only that they are doing it, and that the Bible's teaching is immoral



> The evolution example is a good one because it explains that people can use a theory or worldview to defend/encourage actions that have nothing to do with that worldview.  Just as people stupidly used evolution to defend genocide people are stupidly using the bible to defend bullying.


Again, evolution does not tell people how to make moral decisions regarding their life. We know people can misuse things, but that doesn't absolve the Bible of its own unjustified bullshit.





> A joke between friends is not an indication of anger.  I'm still exasperated by your ignorance, but I'm not angry.  I think a good flame war might help me stuff a little understanding in between your ears.


A joke eh? Seems like more backtracking. You accused me of being mad, when there is more evidence of you being the angry one here. The only ignorance here is what you're spouting out. 


> You've shown a repeated inability to understand simple examples.  Repeating that show of ignorance doesn't serve you well.  The examples are really just explaining the same point: these bullies are not justified in using the bible to excuse their bullying.  You cannot debunk this point.


You've shown an amazing ability to make poor examples. Further, I've already discussed this point extensively and why I don't need to debunk it.





> In other words you're only interest in scriptures that confirm your opinion. None of them actually interacted with my explanation.  Many just asked for me to repeat the explanation and some never replied again after I made the explanation.  The problem with your argument is that you equate condemnation with encouragement to bully.  These two things are not equal.


I've already said that nothing in the Bible condones bullying. I also said that people use the Bible to justify their bullying, and that its condemnation is bullshit.





> I didn't simply dismiss your point, I addressed it: all you've done is show people doing things that could be construed as stupid.  Some of the pictures you show show things I'd agree with you on - they're stupid.  Others are simply pictures.  Either way the pictures don't have anything to do with the discussion - I never denied the existence of stupid Christians.
> 
> If this is what Savage was referring to he's even more stupid than I thought - the billboard you showed is most likely not put up by a highschooler.  Some church leader trying to be provocative probably did that.


No, you did dismiss it. It shows that they're stupid, yes, but it also shows how they use bullshit verses from the Bible to bully, which is very relevant. 

I'm not interested in what you think is stupid, considering...





> Actually the bible does provide reasons.


Such as? and make sure it's a valid reason.





> The fact that people are unhappy about a certain position does not lead to the conclusion that this position is wrong.


The fact that it impedes on their happiness, which hurts no one else, is part of the reason it is wrong.


----------



## Narcissus (May 20, 2012)

baconbits said:


> So what.  As I?ve stated repeatedly the bible does not justify bullying, so even if people do they really have nothing to do with the bible.


This is a contradiction. It does have something to do with the Bible is they are using it, as well as the fact that it condemns homosexuality being wrong in itself.





> What people use it for is irrelevant.  If people use the bible to smash in car windows will you condemn the bible for that?  The reason you wouldn?t is because that isn?t a proper use of the book just as bullying and defending bullies is not a proper use of the Scriptures.


Except the Bible condemns homosexuals and called for their execution. It doesn't tell people to smash car windows, nor does it condemn automobiles (another terrible example).





> You?ve explained nothing above, you simply assumed your argument to be correct because your opinion told you so.  Secondly the second part is illustrative of your bias ? it?s clear that people should have been warned before they came.  They didn?t know what this speech was about and someone should have told them that this was no speech on bullying; and that they would learn about bullying by being the victims of it.


Dismissal is not a point of refutation. As for the second part, that is your opinion that it wasn't a speech on bullying, and a deluded one at that. Just because he addressed the Bible, which people use to justify bullying, doesn't mean he wasn't talking about bullying.





> I conceded twice about whether he criticized them or their reactions.  That?s hardly several times.  You ought to be conceding the rest of the argument.


Samantics do not make an argument, and I'm not concerned with your ill-formed opinions.





>


Cry all you want, the Bible called for the killing of homosexuals. This is immoral.





> Lol.  So you can?t answer that question.  This is an evasion.


No, it was an explaination of why your question was irrelevant.





> He wasn?t specific.  He gave a very general answer, so it?s clear that he was uncertain about just how many Christians were there.


He gave a very specific number of people in his audience, and then said most of them were Christian. He has more information on his audience than you do.





> I don?t see how it isn?t offensive when he was vulgar, insulted people?s views and insulted their reaction to his vulgarities.  The lack of reading comprehension when it comes to the bible is enough to make me roll my eyes while watching.


Which means it was offensive to you and the people who walked out. Meanwhile, there were people applauding him. Hence offensiveness is subjective, and I'd argue that it wasn't because he was honest, regardless of his vulgarities.





> And this proves that your explanation doesn?t have holes?


No, it shows how your trying to put your own faults onto me.





> You?re just illogical.  You?ve never argued that the bible deserves criticism, you?ve just assumed that this is so.  You?ve also ignored the fact that people aren?t justified for using the bible in that way.


The fact that people use the Bible to justify bullying means Savage was addressing bullying in his speech. Next, the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality deserves criticism. Both of these two points show how Savage was justified.





> What would you have me do: assume that all these people are Christians when I do not know this to be true?


They certainly think they are, and identify as such. But you're saying they're aren't because they don't agree with your view of what a Christian is?





> You?re simply assuming that we don?t have a valid reason for belief.


Then provide one if you have it...





> Orthodox Christianity sees all scripture as sacred.  Attacking parts of the bible is an attack against orthodox Christianity.


So launching any criticism at the Bible is to criticize orthodox Christianity?





> You should concede your accusation.  I never would take away his right to speak idiocy because I believe in the freedom of speech.
> 
> The fact that I call someone an idiot is only indicative of the fact that I believe I also have the right to engage in free speech.


You've yet to prove him an idiot.





> How is it filled with hate?


You mean other thank calling for the death of homosexuals?





> Impeding happiness?  What does that mean to our discussion?


It's part of why the biblical view on homosexuality is bullshit, because it impedes on the happiness of others.





> Actually it is.  The point I?m addressing is whether the bullies are justified in using the bible to defend or encourage their bullying.  If they are justified then you?re right, the bible should take criticism; if they are not justified then the bible doesn?t deserve criticism.


This is false.

Even if the bible doesn't tell people to bully, it still deserves criticism for it views on homosexuality (the bullshit Savage referred to). Already explained.





> His apology.


Which part of it? Be specific.





> Lol.  Again you misunderstand sarcasm.  I suppose I should put the ?/sarcasm? after every sarcastic bit.  I apologize for assuming a rudimentary level of intelligence on your part.


Well, at least you assumed a higher level than I assumed of you (I didn't even give you that much credit). 

And no, I'm not falling for the sarcasm excuse.





> I never said you did.  I simply said the way you are prioritizing the gay kids being bullied is as if the other problems don?t even exist.


Which is false. I said Savage is justified in focusing on it, and pointed out why. That doesn't mean I deny other problems (while you, however, downplay them).





> Now you?re just repeating your appeal to emotion again.  Savage?s savage attack on orthodox Christianity won?t save a single gay kid.


Not interested in our unfounded assertions.





Vynjira said:


> You're not adding to the discussion and what the hell do you need 3 posts for just to dismiss most of what he said or ignore it and repeat yourself?


From what I've seen of bacon, he seems to associate having the last word with winning an argument. This of course would demonstrate that he doesn't understand argumentation at all, as having the last word never means you've won.


----------



## Gunners (May 25, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> -Snip-


To be honest with you I feel like a tit in the sense that I didn't watch the video coming into the thread which resulted in me feeling like a sheep for being influenced by the out of context quotes in the news reports. 

Thanks for your time.


----------

