The Anti-Bully Speaker is a Bully

[mmhmm]

Apr 29, 2012 18:07:59 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

I probably would've walked out, too.

As I said, molly, so would I. I would have had nothing to do with the subject matter, however. I just can't picture myself sitting through somebody's rant. I don't want to listen to any group being demeaned, and I don't want to sit through a speech laced with obscenity. The kids that got up and left did what was right for them, as you and I would have. This whole thing is really a non-issue.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 29, 2012 16:57:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 29, 2012 15:28:19 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I came for an anti-bullying lecture, not an activist's opinion of my religion.

So thank you, Tenn, Weltz, DJ, Cereb. I show up in good faith to a school lecture, listen to a gay activist attack my God and my religion, and elect to leave. The presenter mocks me as a coward. Your reaction is, "Virgil, you deserve it." followed by "<<chuckle>>".

Better a coward than a hypocrite, I suppose.

Virgil- quick question: how much do you enjoy having words put into your mouth? not much, i am guessing. then why do you do it to me?

i never said anything of the sort. what i said is that a lecture is free speech. if he says "f*(K" repeatedly for 2 hours, that is his prerogative. if everyone walks out on him, that is theirs. if the audience BOOS for 2 hours, that is also free speech. there is no "right" to get your money's worth. if you don't like what the speaker does, DON'T PAY TO LISTEN.

My grievance is with the double standard on this board, not so much with the lecture itself.

mmhmm is right: Activists make objectionable speeches, people can elect to walk out, the world keeps on turning.

In this thread, we started off with a "thumbs up, Savage" from cereb. And fine. She's a known quantity.

This was followed by Weltz's "a great many stayed" apologism by populism. Then in reply #3, from you: "bully seems to be a popular term in the conservative vocabulary these days, used to describe anyone with an opinion" Followed by "WAAAAAH!"

What I got out of this was: "Suck it up, Christians." And fine. Free speech. Sticks and stones. That said, when somebody dumps the article "Healthy lifestyle lecturer proclaims to school 'gays will all die of AIDS'; mocks students who leave as 'pansies'.", I expect your contributions to that thread will read "Suck it up, gays. Free speech. Sticks and stones. WAAAAAAH."

If this is indeed what we can expect, I apologize for labeling you a hypocrite.

Tenn's contribution floored me. Here is a man who decries discrimination against gays, blacks, other minorities, with offenses ranging from politicians' bigoted statements to bisexuals on gay softball teams. His consistent message: treat people with respect; do not tolerate intolerance in inappropriate venues. I understood his position and respected it, despite that he and I would probably disagree on which venues were "inappropriate".

Today, we have a gay activist invited to a school to teach kids how not to bully. He instead spends the time cursing and demeaning Christians to the extent that even his student audience elects to leave. He mocks them and ostensibly tells them they deserve it.

And Tenn's reaction? Literally, "Meh." in reply #5, followed by "<<chuckle>>" in reply #7.

Boom. There went any faith I had that this was a man who legitimately cared about discrimination, bullying, respect, tolerance, or appropriate venues. What a sucker I was.

[cereb]

Virgil,
why on earth are you taking this so personally? It's a message board man, lighten up.



BTW, your expectation of tolerance is unreasonable. You want the kitty cat to wind around your feet despite the fact that many kicked that kitty cat. The fact that you personally didn't use your feet to kick the kitty is fairly meaningless in the scheme of things.

[Deleted]

It is unreasonable for some high school students to go to an anti- bullying lecture and not be the target of bullying? That is unreasonable?
Wow that's some logic you've got going on there.

[Tennesseer]

Virgil: "I've held that homosexuality is immoral since grade school. Not once have I bullied somebody about it. My parents, my grandparents, my sister hold that homosexuality is immoral. Not once have they ever bullied somebody about it."

Virgil-if Christianity only consisted of you, your parents, grandparents and sister then you could honestly say Christianity does not bash or bully homosexuals. But there are another two billion more Christians around the world (let alone other religions and their followers) with some of them, like you, stating homosexuality is immoral but then also some who believe it is their religious duty to condemn and bully homosexuals because the bible says homosexuality is wrong.

I told you a while back I was intolerant of the intolerant. If you thought I meant one should always turn the other cheek then you misunderstood me. As others have pointed out on other boards about bullies, those being harassed by bullies need to grow a pair and stand up for themselves and fight back. Dan Savage was speaking for himself and other gays, standing up to an institutional bully, and fighting back. I am a hypocrite because I agree it's all right to stand up to bullies. yep-I am a hypocrite.

A few of those attending the conference sponsored by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association (one held each season and it was held at a convention center but not a school) were unhappy with a portion of Savage's message. If these high students are going to be so easily offended by a speaker's comments then maybe they shouldn't be journalists. They are going to hear far worse in the future as journalists.

I heard Savage's exact comments. I agree with them. Nothing wrong with standing up to a bully. In this case, the bully is a book with several passages many of that particular faith find either true or false.

Here is Dan Savage at the conference and the portion of his speech a minority of attendees found offensive:

[djAdvocate]

Apr 29, 2012 20:18:09 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 29, 2012 16:57:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Virgil- quick question: how much do you enjoy having words put into your mouth? not much, i am guessing. then why do you do it to me?

i never said anything of the sort. what i said is that a lecture is free speech. if he says "f*(K" repeatedly for 2 hours, that is his prerogative. if everyone walks out on him, that is theirs. if the audience BOOS for 2 hours, that is also free speech. there is no "right" to get your money's worth. if you don't like what the speaker does, DON'T PAY TO LISTEN.

My grievance is with the double standard on this board, not so much with the lecture itself.

mmhmm is right: Activists make objectionable speeches, people can elect to walk out, the world keeps on turning.

In this thread, we started off with a "thumbs up, Savage" from cereb. And fine. She's a known quantity.

This was followed by Weltz's "a great many stayed" apologism by populism. Then in reply #3, from you: "bully seems to be a popular term in the conservative vocabulary these days, used to describe anyone with an opinion" Followed by "WAAAAAH!"

that is right. that is because i completely disagree that the OP is in ANY way, shape, or form bullying. and i am getting a little tired of the unilateral thin skin. forgive my terseness and impatience for this argument, Virgil, and PLEASE don't take it personally. it is not a personal argument.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 29, 2012 20:18:09 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 29, 2012 16:57:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

What I got out of this was: "Suck it up, Christians." And fine. Free speech. Sticks and stones. That said, when somebody dumps the article "Healthy lifestyle lecturer proclaims to school 'gays will all die of AIDS'; mocks students who leave as 'pansies'.", I expect your contributions to that thread will read "Suck it up, gays. Free speech. Sticks and stones. WAAAAAAH."

If this is indeed what we can expect, I apologize for labeling you a hypocrite.

i think where this gets hazy is which you consider hate speech. if you are calling gays evil and saying they deserve to die of AIDS, and that they are responsible for 911, that is dangerously close, if not over the line, to hate speech. did what Dan Savage said cross that line? this is not a rhetorical question. i mean it. if it did, then i will quietly withdraw from this conversation and leave you to defend the offended.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 29, 2012 21:18:01 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

It is unreasonable for some high school students to go to an anti- bullying lecture and not be the target of bullying? That is unreasonable?
Wow that's some logic you've got going on there.

i disagree that they were bullied. the way i understand bullying is that it is intimidation that is backed up by physical force. how is what Dan Savage did in ANY WAY bullying?

was he being an asshole? possibly. but assholes get their asses kicked just as often as the victims of bullies do.

[Virgil Showlion]

Tenn, Mr. Savage doesn't know a blessed thing about what the bible does and doesn't say about slavery. He talks about applying Old Testament punishments to a society that for generations has tolerated and then glorified adultery, fornication, and all manner of debauchery, and expects his audience to conclude that since application of the law circa 2012 would result in mass slaughter, the acts being punished are somehow no longer immoral. This couldn't be further from the truth.

His speech is ignorant, arrogant, utterly irrelevant to the topic of bullying. If a bigoted Christian isn't more inclined to despise gay activists and those they "represent" after one of Mr. Savage's speeches, I give them props for their equability.

If you hold "standing up to bullies" to be spewing Savage-esque rhetoric, you're no better than a preacher who gets on a loudspeaker at Times Square and starts condemning gays to hellfire. Don't for a moment think you're making the world a better place by supporting the Dan Savages of the world. The man is fomenting hatred, and you're as blinded by prejudice as he is.

And... great. Today I learned "intolerant of intolerance" is a lie. Just great. The last light snuffed right out.

I'm done with this forum. I'm sick of people who say one thing if Republicans do X, and another if Democrats do X. I'm sick of double-talking hypocrites who say one thing if gays do X, and another thing if Christians do X. It's like debating a bloody Pull n' Say toy.

I'm done. P&M is where reason goes to die, and I'm done.

For those few of you who have debated me in good faith, thank you. See you in July, or on the other forums.

ETA:

i disagree that they were bullied. the way i understand bullying is that it is intimidation that is backed up by physical force. how is what Dan Savage did in ANY WAY bullying?

If your qualm is that "bullying" is too strong a term to describe Mr. Savage demeaning Christians, then let my parting words be: Yes, I agree with you.

And if that was your intended point, then I apologize for assuming otherwise.

As for me "taking this personally", it's not your fault. Tenn's comments in this thread were the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

Take care, Mr. Lungrot.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 29, 2012 22:53:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Tenn, Mr. Savage doesn't know a blessed thing about what the bible does and doesn't say about slavery. He talks about applying Old Testament punishments to a society that for generations has tolerated and then glorified adultery, fornication, and all manner of debauchery, and expects his audience to conclude that since application of the law circa 2012 would result in mass slaughter, the acts being punished are somehow no longer immoral. And this is logical?

His speech is ignorant, arrogant, utterly irrelevant to the topic of bullying. If a bigoted Christian isn't more inclined to despise gay activists and those they "represent" after one of Mr. Savage's speeches, I give them props for their equability.

If you hold "standing up to bullies" to be spewing Savage-esque rhetoric, you're no better than a preacher who gets on a loudspeaker at Times Square and starts condemning gays to hellfire. Don't for a moment think you're making the world a better place by supporting the Dan Savages of the world. The man is fomenting hatred, and you're as blinded by prejudice as he is.

And... great. Today I learned "intolerant of intolerance" is a lie. Just great. The last light snuffed right out.

I'm done with this forum. I'm sick of people who say one thing if Republicans do X, and another if Democrats do X. I'm sick of double-talking hypocrites who say one thing if gays do X, and another thing if Christians do X. It's like debating a bloody Pull n' Say toy.

I'm done. P&M is where reason goes to die, and I'm done.

For those few of you who have debated me in good faith, thank you. See you in July, or on the other forums.

i disagree that they were bullied. the way i understand bullying is that it is intimidation that is backed up by physical force. how is what Dan Savage did in ANY WAY bullying?

If your qualm is that "bullying" is too strong a term to describe Mr. Savage making an arse of himself, then let my parting words be: Yes, I agree with you.

And if that was your intended point, then I apologize for assuming otherwise.

yes, Virgil. that was my ONLY point. and i a truly sorry that i got folded into any "larger debate" which i was not seeing happen around me. it was completely unintended.

As for me "taking this personally", it's not your fault. Tenn's comments in this thread were the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

Take care, Mr. Lungrot.

Virgil, again- i sincerely hope you didn't take it personally. i am not actually defending Savage OR his remarks, any more than i defend, say, those crazy bastards at Westover Baptist Church. people want to shove a sock in their faces and throw them off a bridge, or have them arrested, but i will actually defend their speech as well. why? because i want someone to do the same for me when i have something outrageous and wrong to say. because i want to live in a country where the PRINCIPLE of free speech is more important than whether some feathers get rumpled.

i sincerely hope that you get over this Virgil, but if you don't- i want you to know that i considered you a friend, here, despite our many differences. God Bless You, and best wishes.

[Tennesseer]

I am simply speechless for once.

You are not the poster I thought you were Virgil.

[Green Eyed Lady]

It's funny how Christians "ranting" is awful, but anti-Christian ranting is ok. It's only doing the very same thing they claim to abhor.

[Virgil Showlion]

i sincerely hope that you get over this Virgil, but if you don't- i want you to know that i considered you a friend, here, despite our many differences. God Bless You, and best wishes.

Thanks for the kind words, DJ.

It's not an issue of personal offense. I'm just finding that my discussions in P&M in particular aren't mentally or spiritually profitable anymore, and we're such a recalcitrant bunch that I can be sure my contributions aren't influencing anyone.

It's just time for a break. Maybe I'll renege a bit and chip in on P&M matters related to finance and Canadian politics, but I'm going to stay out everything else P&M until at least July.

Maybe spend a bit more time over on EE as Virgil Lite in the meantime.

You guys play nice while I'm gone.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 29, 2012 23:22:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

i sincerely hope that you get over this Virgil, but if you don't- i want you to know that i considered you a friend, here, despite our many differences. God Bless You, and best wishes.

Thanks for the kind words, DJ.

It's not an issue of personal offense. I'm just finding that my discussions in P&M in particular aren't mentally or spiritually profitable anymore, and we're such a recalcitrant bunch that I can be sure my contributions aren't influencing anyone.

It's just time for a break. Maybe I'll renege a bit and chip in on P&M matters related to finance and Canadian politics, but I'm going to stay out everything else P&M until at least July.

Maybe spend a bit more time over on EE as Virgil Lite in the meantime.

You guys play nice while I'm gone.

i quit another board three years ago. it was the best thing i ever did, and i never looked back. i kept getting into it with a couple of posters. it was heading nowhere, and leaving me wondering why my priorities were so screwed up. if you are doing the same thing here, you have my unconditional support.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 29, 2012 23:19:48 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

It's funny how Christians "ranting" is awful, but anti-Christian ranting is ok. It's only doing the very same thing they claim to abhor.

i never said that either were OK. i said that both were protected speech. if that term is to mean anything, it is for speech that is NOT OK. Stalin was for free speech that he agreed with. so was Hitler. the measure of how much commitment we have to that principle is not found in whether we defend it when we find it acceptable, but whether we defend it when we find it offensive.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Since your religion has been the basis, the excuse if you will for a culture of hatred against homosexuals, I'm thinking you are just going to have to take that one on the chin. If you are expecting sympathy, I am afraid you are not going to get it.

If you can't bring yourself to question that position and stand up against it, well, then "coward" just might be applicable.

Once again, I have to question why this poster is allowed to attack others with impunity. This is the second time I have seen it and the second time I have spoken up about it.

It's one thing to debate and religion is always going to be a hot topic. If one has thin skin, it's probably a good topic to steer clear of, no matter which "side you are on.

Its quite another to basically call someone a "coward" because they do not agree with your beliefs. It's a personal attack and should not be tolerated here - regardess of who you are and who you associate with.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Apr 29, 2012 23:35:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 29, 2012 23:19:48 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

It's funny how Christians "ranting" is awful, but anti-Christian ranting is ok. It's only doing the very same thing they claim to abhor.

i never said that either were OK. i said that both were protected speech. if that term is to mean anything, it is for speech that is NOT OK. Stalin was for free speech that he agreed with. so was Hitler. the measure of how much commitment we have to that principle is not found in whether we defend it when we find it acceptable, but whether we defend it when we find it offensive.

You did not say it was ok and I was not referring to you. I was referring to the.....and I'll say it because personal attacks seem to be acceptable.....the angry, fearful people who can not seem to disagree without being disrespectful. I have not seen you do that.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 29, 2012 23:39:35 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Apr 29, 2012 23:35:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i never said that either were OK. i said that both were protected speech. if that term is to mean anything, it is for speech that is NOT OK. Stalin was for free speech that he agreed with. so was Hitler. the measure of how much commitment we have to that principle is not found in whether we defend it when we find it acceptable, but whether we defend it when we find it offensive.

You did not say it was ok and I was not referring to you. I was referring to the.....and I'll say it because personal attacks seem to be acceptable.....the angry, fearful people who can not seem to disagree without being disrespectful. I have not seen you do that.

ok, GEL. this is a....hahaha. this is a hot button topic for me. sorry if i seemed a little touchy.

[Green Eyed Lady]

As it is for me, but you and I seem to be able to talk about it without name-calling. I would edit this to say that your "waaaaah" comment was uncalled for, IMO. If one expects honest debate, maturity and attempts at understanding, one should also respond with honest debate, maturity and understanding.

[mmhmm]

Apr 29, 2012 23:39:35 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Apr 29, 2012 23:35:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i never said that either were OK. i said that both were protected speech. if that term is to mean anything, it is for speech that is NOT OK. Stalin was for free speech that he agreed with. so was Hitler. the measure of how much commitment we have to that principle is not found in whether we defend it when we find it acceptable, but whether we defend it when we find it offensive.

You did not say it was ok and I was not referring to you. I was referring to the.....and I'll say it because personal attacks seem to be acceptable.....the angry, fearful people who can not seem to disagree without being disrespectful. I have not seen you do that.

You didn't make a personal attack in the above post, GEL. Saying someone "might" be something isn't a personal attack, either. There was some degree of name-calling going on on both sides of this disagreement, but I didn't feel it got too far out of line, considering the subject matter.

If I say to you: "You're a jackarse!" ... that's a personal attack and will be dealt with accordingly. If, however, I say to you: "I just read your post and if you mean what I think you mean, you just MIGHT be a jackarse!", that isn't a personal attack. That attack is really against what's expressed in the post, and it doesn't define the individual as "a jackarse". I hope that clarifies the nuance for you. We really do try to catch the true personal attacks and get them out of here. We're not going to get them all, that's for sure. However, we do the best we can under the rules we're given.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 29, 2012 23:45:38 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

As it is for me, but you and I seem to be able to talk about it without name-calling. I would edit this to say that your "waaaaah" comment was uncalled for, IMO. If one expects honest debate, maturity and attempts at understanding, one should also respond with honest debate, maturity and understanding.

i lost my patience there. i am not going to apologize for it. i am a flawed human being with a limited attention span, and at times, a complete lack of patience. i can take the criticism for that, but i wasn't being malicious, just grumpy and childish.

[mmhmm]

Heh. We can all lay claim to moments of less-than-stellar performance here, dj. Nobody's perfect and nobody should be expected to be.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Apr 29, 2012 23:55:34 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 29, 2012 23:45:38 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

As it is for me, but you and I seem to be able to talk about it without name-calling. I would edit this to say that your "waaaaah" comment was uncalled for, IMO. If one expects honest debate, maturity and attempts at understanding, one should also respond with honest debate, maturity and understanding.

i lost my patience there. i am not going to apologize for it. i am a flawed human being with a limited attention span, and at times, a complete lack of patience. i can take the criticism for that, but i wasn't being malicious, just grumpy and childish.

I've been guilty of that on too many occasions to count, DJ. It's refreshing, I must say, to find someone else that actually admits it!

[djAdvocate]

Apr 29, 2012 23:58:52 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Apr 29, 2012 23:55:34 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i lost my patience there. i am not going to apologize for it. i am a flawed human being with a limited attention span, and at times, a complete lack of patience. i can take the criticism for that, but i wasn't being malicious, just grumpy and childish.

I've been guilty of that on too many occasions to count, DJ. It's refreshing, I must say, to find someone else that actually admits it!

you bring out the best in me.

[Don Perignon]

Apr 29, 2012 23:54:51 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Apr 29, 2012 23:39:35 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

You did not say it was ok and I was not referring to you. I was referring to the.....and I'll say it because personal attacks seem to be acceptable.....the angry, fearful people who can not seem to disagree without being disrespectful. I have not seen you do that.

You didn't make a personal attack in the above post, GEL. Saying someone "might" be something isn't a personal attack, either. There was some degree of name-calling going on on both sides of this disagreement, but I didn't feel it got too far out of line, considering the subject matter.

If I say to you: "You're a jackarse!" ... that's a personal attack and will be dealt with accordingly. If, however, I say to you: "I just read your post and if you mean what I think you mean, you just MIGHT be a jackarse!", that isn't a personal attack. That attack is really against what's expressed in the post, and it doesn't define the individual as "a jackarse". I hope that clarifies the nuance for you. We really do try to catch the true personal attacks and get them out of here. We're not going to get them all, that's for sure. However, we do the best we can under the rules we're given.

Bless your heart, you're a master of the "art" of dissembling... crafting sentences that dance around dishonestly and make their statements sideways... and you demand that everyone play your little mindgames by your capricious rules.
Pretty much the same as the self-righteous puritanical chauvinists, the "fundamentalist" religiomaniacs, and the big guys that beat up little guys because they can do it and get away with it.
Yes, this message board is atrophying... smothering under the weight of artificiality and crony moderation. Who wants to participate in discussions that are restricted to blowing smoke up each others' backsides?
Mutual Admiration Societies are a bore.

[cereb]

Apr 29, 2012 21:18:01 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

It is unreasonable for some high school students to go to an anti- bullying lecture and not be the target of bullying? That is unreasonable?
Wow that's some logic you've got going on there.

What transpired during that "lecture" does not meet the definition of "bullying" by any stretch. Insulting? Distasteful? Absolutely! Bullying? No, not even close.

There is a very specific definition for bullying. This doesn't meet that definition.

[cereb]

"Once again, I have to question why this poster is allowed to attack others with impunity. This is the second time I have seen it and the second time I have spoken up about it."

"Its quite another to basically call someone a "coward" because they do not agree with your beliefs. It's a personal attack and should not be tolerated here - regardess of who you are and who you associate with. "


Once again, I haven't attacked anyone. I didn't call anyone anything as I was addressing the content of the post, the "idea" if you will. I respect Virgil, always have, and we really don't have any issues between us. He knows where I'm at, I know where he's at. As a moderator, had Virgil felt that my remark was a violation of the COC I am pretty sure he could have done something about it.

I respectfully ask that you discontinue these accusations.

[Deleted]

Apr 30, 2012 5:02:54 GMT -5 cereb said:

Apr 29, 2012 21:18:01 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

It is unreasonable for some high school students to go to an anti- bullying lecture and not be the target of bullying? That is unreasonable?
Wow that's some logic you've got going on there.

What transpired during that "lecture" does not meet the definition of "bullying" by any stretch. Insulting? Distasteful? Absolutely! Bullying? No, not even close.

There is a very specific definition for bullying. This doesn't meet that definition.

Well, that is the Golden question. What exactly constitutes "bullying"? Does a kid calling another kid a Poopoo Head constitute bullying?
And, if Virgil believes homosexuality is immoral, then he has a right to say so as well. One can disagree with another's choices. What was once tolerance is now becoming the notion that you must accept, approve of and endorse any and all things and everything else somebody else wants to do.

My point. I can't control what someone else does. My child cannot control what some other kid does. I think it is far better for ME to teach MY child how to be strong and resilient. And, to understand that not everyone is going to agree with what they choose and vice versa. And, that some people in the world are just idiots as well. And, that if someone is picking on them, i would rather teach my child how to deal with this and that they CAN deal with this rather than act like their world is crashing down because someone called them a name. The old "Sticks and stones" comment.

[jkapp]

Apr 28, 2012 19:41:41 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

“You can tell the Bible guys in the hall they can come back now because I’m done beating up the Bible,” Savage said as other students hollered and cheered. “It’s funny as someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansy-assed people react when you push back.”

Touché.

Five percent of the audience found his words offensive. Probably the same type of folks who in private and in public club gay kids over the head with their biblical quotes of how they're going to hell.

Funny how the 'Sticks and stone may break my bones, but names will never hurt me' folks suddenly are hurt and offended when it happens to them.

Meh.

ETA: " Rick Tuttle, the journalism advisor for Sutter Union High School in California, was among several thousand people in the audience."

So if it's ok to bash Christians, then it MUST be ok to bash gays? Interesting...I'm totally for free speech as long as it applies to ALL. So the next tkme someone bashes gay people, I would expect to not hear shit from the left about it being wrong...

[jkapp]

Apr 29, 2012 15:48:55 GMT -5 cereb said:

Apr 29, 2012 15:28:19 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I came for an anti-bullying lecture, not an activist's opinion of my religion.

So thank you, Tenn, Weltz, DJ, Cereb. I show up in good faith to a school lecture, listen to a gay activist attack my God and my religion, and elect to leave. The presenter mocks me as a coward. Your reaction is, "Virgil, you deserve it." followed by "<<chuckle>>".

Better a coward than a hypocrite, I suppose.

Since your religion has been the basis, the excuse if you will for a culture of hatred against homosexuals, I'm thinking you are just going to have to take that one on the chin. If you are expecting sympathy, I am afraid you are not going to get it.

If you can't bring yourself to question that position and stand up against it, well, then "coward" just might be applicable.

As long as we can also make that same argument against Muslims and terrorism, then that's fine...but if you are just going to pick and choose which ones are valid and which aren't, then you're a hypocrite.