Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens

[EagleSmack]

I can dig up all kinds of posts, not just about dead US soldiers, where EagleSmack ridicules people, instead of, as he put it, 'simply disagreeing with them'. The notion that EagleSmack is a poster who doesn't believe in ridiculing people he finds ridiculous, is itself, patently absurd.



Nope. It's your words here. You ridicule people all the time when they say something you find stupid or idiotic (one of your favourite adjectives). I thought you as a person who believes in free speech. Someone who would have ignorant and foolish people be allowed to make their ignorant remarks for all of us to see, and to treat them accordingly.

And for the record EagleSmack, it's not just jbee making comments about dead US soldiers that has prompted ridicule from you. How about some examples:



Here's one where you give it to gerryh


Surely you know that any post you made can easily be tracked down with a search engine?

Oh no question... I'm not going to lay down when attacked or when arguments or silliness happen in here. I'll give it right back. I'll continue to do so.

However the guy was giving a talk on anti-bullying.

Maybe Gerry you're too far into your ideological spiral to be able to spot the hypocrisy. Ignore the quoted posts if you like, ES certainly is not above ridiculing. He's heaped it on yourself multiple times. Understand? Apparently not.

Oh I'll join in on a forum brawl.

However I'm not standing with a microphone bullying people while teaching others not to bully.

Still don't see the difference?

 

[Kreskin]

However I'm not standing with a microphone bullying people while teaching others not to bully.

Still don't see the difference?

In some circles they refer to his teaching tactics as preaching. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[damngrumpy]

Do you think they picked the wrong speaker here? It like the wolf dumping the
sheep's costume and becoming a bully. Anti Bully activities are not crap though
as Walter says. The bully attitudes of some are out of control and have been for
more than half a century.
I was a big kid, and on the first day of school, I was subjected to the treatment of
a bully. Unfortunately for him, a few grades higher than me, I also knew how to
take care of myself. Even at my age I beat the hell out of him.
A bully lives for the rush of making others afraid and that is not acceptable in our
society. A bully on either side of the argument, is not acceptable period.

 

[L Gilbert]

"As many as 100 high school students walked out of a national journalism conference after an anti-bullying speaker began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant 'pansy asses.' ” Logical thing to do. It's a bit laughable that the idiot would actually massacre his own credibility like that.

 

[damngrumpy]

One could say he lacked a little sincerity with regard to his beliefs.
It should also be pointed out, it is pointless to even argue with the
brain dead. The born again crowd is not going to compromise or
even admit there is another version of the truth. The Bible was in
fact written and re-written dozens of times in the course of history.
God only knows what is truth and what is fiction, and all we have
are legends in a well bound book.
With that in mind, why would this fool, become a bully and preach
on behalf of the arrogance and ignorance he is so opposed to?

 

[Niflmir]

Oh no question... I'm not going to lay down when attacked or when arguments or silliness happen in here. I'll give it right back. I'll continue to do so.

However the guy was giving a talk on anti-bullying.



Oh I'll join in on a forum brawl.

However I'm not standing with a microphone bullying people while teaching others not to bully.

Still don't see the difference?

I see the difference between bullying and pointing out that this:

is bull****. I guess from this discussion that you cannot see the difference.

 

[CDNBear]

The species includes lots of members. In our case, billions. A few per cent of those billions won't (at this point) cause the species as a whole to wither and die.

That doesn't change the fact.

In some circles they refer to his teaching tactics as preaching. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

And the funny thing is, if you post some Preacher attacking homosexuality, the bulk of the boards Christians have no problem calling him a jackass. Gh, usually being the loudest.

I see the difference between bullying and pointing out that this:...
is bull****. I guess from this discussion that you cannot see the difference.

The boards Christians, that have posted in this thread, think the Christians (Westborough Baptist Asshats) in that picture, are assholes.

 

[Niflmir]

The boards Christians, that have posted in this thread, think the Christians (Westborough Baptist Asshats) in that picture, are assholes.

That's why I don't understand why they feel the need to portray what happened as bullying. Savage points out that, yes, the bible says that homosexuality is an abomination but it also says a bunch of other stupid things. He says these things because people are getting beat up in America because of their homosexuality and he is there promoting his book which is targeting this very issue.

Some people decided to walk out, essentially saying (if we want to be favorable), we don't agree with you speaking about these things in that way. The thing is, if you are a Christian, you have to confront this very basic fact: there are enough vocal Christians in the USA using these parts of the bible to justify attacks on homosexuals--and it isn't confined to Leviticus. But he isn't allowed to talk about that because someone might get offended? I think pansy-assed is probably a pretty good description for that although I tend to try to avoid describing people with vulgar language; I would be more inclined to describe it as the following:

To compare making disparaging remarks about a few sections of the bible to bullying is to really miss the meaning of what bullying actually is.

 

[SLM]

That's why I don't understand why they feel the need to portray what happened as bullying. Savage points out that, yes, the bible says that homosexuality is an abomination but it also says a bunch of other stupid things. He says these things because people are getting beat up in America because of their homosexuality and he is there promoting his book which is targeting this very issue.

To point out vile, reprehensible behaviour by using vile, reprehensible behaviour completely negates the point he was trying to make. He took the negative road instead of taking the positive one. Two wrongs simply don't make a right. Period.

As far as bullying, answering direct attacks in an assertive or even an agressive manner is not bullying. Targeting a specific group from a position of authority is cowardly because it's just lashing out wildly. And cowardly equates to bullying. It's not an attempt to make anything better, it's just an attempt to take the pain and suffering that he's had and inflict it upon others whether they specifically are deserving of it or not.

Some people decided to walk out, essentially saying (if we want to be favorable), we don't agree with you speaking about these things in that way.

Why would we not want to be favourable regarding the walking out? If Savage has a right to express his views and thoughts on this issue, the audience has a right to determine if they want to listen to them. I think quietly exiting, without a fuss (from the way I've heard it was done) is at least respectful. Not like heckling those from the stage.

The thing is, if you are a Christian, you have to confront this very basic fact: there are enough vocal Christians in the USA using these parts of the bible to justify attacks on homosexuals--and it isn't confined to Leviticus. But he isn't allowed to talk about that because someone might get offended?

Who is saying that he isn't allowed to talk about it?

I think pansy-assed is probably a pretty good description for that although I tend to try to avoid describing people with vulgar language;

Ah, so the way in which someone expresses their thoughts can make a difference then.

To compare making disparaging remarks about a few sections of the bible to bullying is to really miss the meaning of what bullying actually is.

Bullying is about taking a postion of power, or pseudo poswer, and using that to inflict pain and suffering on others. A person in authority misusing that authority. That could be an employer, a person of a physically large stature, a teacher, an adult to a child/minor, or in this case, a speaker to a captive audience.

 

[BruSan]

One could say he lacked a little sincerity with regard to his beliefs.
It should also be pointed out, it is pointless to even argue with the
brain dead. The born again crowd is not going to compromise or
even admit there is another version of the truth. The Bible was in
fact written and re-written dozens of times in the course of history.
God only knows what is truth and what is fiction, and all we have
are legends in a well bound book.
With that in mind, why would this fool, become a bully and preach
on behalf of the arrogance and ignorance he is so opposed to?

There ya go.

A speaker taking the podium assumes the mantel of an educator and if he is indeed trying to educate the younger generation about bullying; I can think of no better way to turn them OFF your message than attacking their beliefs at the very outset. To follow that with a general maligning of their character would simply be driving the nails in. Kinda stupid.

There is a big difference between treating the young with "kid gloves lest you hurt their little feelings" and "providing them with alternative view points to consider ensconced in logic". He is, after all, just a salesman and should not pretend to be anything else.

He's out there flogging a product for public consumption for a pay cheque.

 

[Tonington]

Didn't think you'd see the difference. Oh well, maybe when you grow up.

There is no difference. EagleSmack ridicules people he finds ignorant, stupid, and idiotic. You do as well. Not sure why you're being an apologist for him. He is faking moral authority on this account. End of story. You want to make it about something else no doubt, because your 'home team' is involved in this story.

 

[captain morgan]

There is no difference. EagleSmack ridicules people he finds ignorant, stupid, and idiotic. You do as well. Not sure why you're being an apologist for him. He is faking moral authority on this account. End of story. You want to make it about something else no doubt, because your 'home team' is involved in this story.

I thought you only looked the other way when priests sexually assault the young children in their congregation, but apparently you'll allow the wool to be pulled over your eyes for far more than just hypocritical priests.

Really low budget move.

 

[Niflmir]

To point out vile, reprehensible behaviour by using vile, reprehensible behaviour completely negates the point he was trying to make. He took the negative road instead of taking the positive one. Two wrongs simply don't make a right. Period.

As far as bullying, answering direct attacks in an assertive or even an agressive manner is not bullying. Targeting a specific group from a position of authority is cowardly because it's just lashing out wildly. And cowardly equates to bullying. It's not an attempt to make anything better, it's just an attempt to take the pain and suffering that he's had and inflict it upon others whether they specifically are deserving of it or not.

Why would we not want to be favourable regarding the walking out? If Savage has a right to express his views and thoughts on this issue, the audience has a right to determine if they want to listen to them. I think quietly exiting, without a fuss (from the way I've heard it was done) is at least respectful. Not like heckling those from the stage.

Who is saying that he isn't allowed to talk about it?

Ah, so the way in which someone expresses their thoughts can make a difference then.

Bullying is about taking a postion of power, or pseudo poswer, and using that to inflict pain and suffering on others. A person in authority misusing that authority. That could be an employer, a person of a physically large stature, a teacher, an adult to a child/minor, or in this case, a speaker to a captive audience.

He didn't target any group.

What he did is state that the idea that gays should be killed or that homosexuality is an abomination is bull**** just like separating women from society during menstruation, forbidding the eating of shellfish and a number of other things is bull****. He said that simply because these ideas appear in the bible does not make them correct, something which pretty much everybody would agree.

So yeah, maybe targeting a group of people from a position of authority is cowardly, and maybe cowardly equates to bullying, but that certainly isn't what happened here. Nobody was targeted, despite Fox News's incessant desire to portray it so.

 

[gerryh]

I thought you only looked the other way when priests sexually assault the young children in their congregation, but apparently you'll allow the wool to be pulled over your eyes for far more than just hypocritical priests..

You're a real piece of work, aren't you little boy. I see now where you and I stand.

 

[captain morgan]

He didn't target any group.

Unless you count Christians as a group

What he did is state that the idea that gays should be killed or that homosexuality is an abomination is bull**** just like separating women from society during menstruation, forbidding the eating of shellfish and a number of other things is bull****. He said that simply because these ideas appear in the bible does not make them correct, something which pretty much everybody would agree.

So, Savage's entire argument and justification in attacking these students is founded on questioning the belief-system of people from a few thousand years ago? Despite the fact that those views have been washed from contemporary, mainstream Christian society, you and Savage feel that it's applicable to use this pathetic excuse as justification?

Maybe what Savage needs is a time machine so he can go back a few thousand years and deal with the ideology at the time it occurred.

Ya know, me thinks that Savage should set his sights on attacking the medical profession. After all, they used to cure illness' by drilling holes in the skulls of people in order to 'let out the bad humours'. Failing that, a good bleeding would cure all that ails ya.

Yep, those damned physicians.. Butchers, all of 'em - promoting drilling holes in peoples heads in this day and age.

So yeah, maybe targeting a group of people from a position of authority is cowardly, and maybe cowardly equates to bullying, but that certainly isn't what happened here. Nobody was targeted, despite Fox News's incessant desire to portray it so.

Didn't you just say that he didn't target any group?

 

[gerryh]

There is no difference. EagleSmack ridicules people he finds ignorant, stupid, and idiotic. You do as well. Not sure why you're being an apologist for him. He is faking moral authority on this account. End of story. You want to make it about something else no doubt, because your 'home team' is involved in this story.

and what "home team" is that little boy? I'm Christian and Bisexual. I was beaten up all the way through high school because I was considered a "fag". Not one of the assholes that tormented me those 5 years were "Christian". So... what fu cking "home team" are you talking about?


and niflmir... grab a fu cking brain.

 

[Niflmir]

So, Savage's entire argument and justification in attacking these students is founded on questioning the belief-system of people from a few thousand years ago? Despite the fact that those views have been washed from contemporary, mainstream Christian society, you and Savage feel that it's applicable to use this pathetic excuse as justification?

Didn't you just say that he didn't target any group?

No, Savage's argument is the following, basically in your own words, "Rational people agree that these 'views have been washed from contemporary, mainstream Christian society' except for a few people who still cling to the idea that homosexuality is wrong. We should view the passages on homosexuality in the bible in the same way as these other passages."

Maybe you can point out where he targets Christians in general for me:

The Bible. We'll just talk about the Bible for a second. People often point out that they can't help it -- they can't help with the anti-gay bullying, because 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 bulls**t in the Bible about gay people. The same way, the same way we have learned to ignore the bulls**t in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore bulls**t in the Bible about all sorts of things. The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document. Slave owners waved Bibles over their heads during the Civil War and justified it. The shortest book in the New Testament is a letter from Paul to a Christian slave owner about owning his Christian slave. And Paul doesn't say "Christians don't own people." Paul talks about how Christians own people.

We ignore what the Bible says about slavery, because the Bible got slavery wrong. Tim -- uh, Sam Harris, in A Letter To A Christian Nation, points out that the Bible got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong. Slavery. What're the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? One hundred percent.

The Bible says that if your daughter's not a virgin on her wedding night -- if a woman isn't a virgin on her wedding night, she shall be dragged to her father's doorstep and stoned to death. Callista Gingrich lives. 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. At least not yet. We don't know where the GOP is going these days.

People are dying because people can't clear this one last hurdle. They can't get past this one last thing in the Bible about homosexuality.

Um, one other thing I wanna talk about is -- [chuckles] -- so, you can tell the Bible guys in the hall that they can come back now, because I'm done beating up the Bible. 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.

I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings. But. 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 we must live by the code of Leviticus on this one issue and no other.

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/04/dan_savage_journalism_conference.html

If reading the bible makes you a Christian, I suppose reading a medical book makes me a doctor?

 

[captain morgan]

No, Savage's argument is the following, basically in your own words, "Rational people agree that these 'views have been washed from contemporary, mainstream Christian society' except for a few people who still cling to the idea that homosexuality is wrong. We should view the passages on homosexuality in the bible in the same way as these other passages."

Not just 'rational people' - contemporary, mainstream Christianity. Unless Savage was under the impression that he was invited to speak to a fundamentalist, paleo-style fundamentalist Christian sect, then he argument is weak and pathetic.

There is no amount of spin and twisting of logic that will change the fact that Savage attacked these high school kids on an unprovoked basis. Relying on millenia-old practices that are now only refernced in history books just doesn't wash.

Maybe you can point out where he targets Christians in general for me:

Um... Does attacking the principal document upon which many/most Christians base their belief system count?

 

[gerryh]

The fact is, when those 100 students exercised their right not to listen to his rantings he called them names. A person put into a position of authority over a group of children, used that position to berate some of those kids publicly. How is this acceptable?

 

[Mowich]

I think I very clearly stated that beliefs can be ridiculed.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, IMHO which does not mean that one can't question them. Ridicule is an entirely different matter, it does not further your argument when you stoop to using derision.