Gay rights supporter shoots up FRC because they are a "hate" group.

[PiggyBank]

Quote from stu:

made
What you mean is, it doesn't matter that I didn't actually say illegal. It's that you've decided I said something I didn't and implied something I do not.
The school is an entity. It is controlled by its owners/executive. School governor's, making decisions on how the school will be run. What will be allowed what will not be allowed.

Right what I mean is it doesn't matter if you didn't say illegal.. just like I said. I used the word, illegal, only one time at the beginning of this thread, as that is how I remembered the conversation going without checking. i have explained many times that you implied/stated that the assembly shouldn't have been allowed. this is the first time in either thread that you stated - it shouldn't be allowed by the school. And just to be clear: If the school DOES allow it, you wouldn't support any external force attempting to prevent them from doing so, right?

It now seems the school will not be allowed to make what is tantamount to hate speech in assembly by employees or visiting catholic guests or anyone else for that matter. The school no longer is being allowed to do what it did.
No need or mention of the word illegal.

Do you have a source, because this is not mentioned anywhere in the article? regardless, if the school is caving in to pc pressure in this case, that still doesn't mean the school SHOULDN'T be allowed to do what they did. You get that right?

Furthermore it is blatantly obvious your idea that objecting to discriminating speech is an attempt to restrict free speech, is completely silly.

lol I have consistently stated they have a right to object, appropriately, about a dozen times between these 2 threads. The students shouldn't be able to shut down the Church's opinion at their own school meeting, because they disagree.. that IS restricting free speech, that is intolerant. it doesn't appear that happened in this case.

What am I saying right there Piggie?
Same as I say above. No more no less, it is quite clear. Better had you cared to enquire earlier instead of jumping to your own false conclusions.

Umm, I did inquire quite a few times and this is the first time you answered.

Nothing to do with free speech, nothing to do with illegality. You bringing those and other issues like - it's a private school so they can say what they want - is not the point. It never was. Those are red herrings.

It is a major part of my point. i can't help but think you aren't really reading my posts. you were defending the rights of students to speak out against the church, I was defending the right of the church to state their beliefs.

A church school made discriminating hate speech, and directed some of it personally against some of its pupils. That is the point.

Hate speech, especially in a learning environment where children are obliged to attend, is never okay.

That's it. The school shouldn't allow it. Their governors shouldn't have allowed it. That type of verbal abuse shouldn't be allowed in school.
The school's own authority should have known better.

They do know better now apparently, mainly because people objected. You described objection as intolerance. That is utterly absurd of you.
The objection apparently has made a difference. It caused the catholic school authority to reconsider encouraging hateful speech in their school after they discovered their discriminatory christian beliefs were not acceptable.

that it is hate speech is YOUR OPINION, the Catholic Church does not share this opinion. they are at a fucking catholic school, shouting them down or disallowing them to state their view is intolerant, according to me. Hurting feelings by stating your beliefs, opinions, positions, whatever.. is NOT INTOLERANT, according to me. Quit saying there was abuse, no such thing happened.

let me ask you this stu, if a mandatory meeting is held at school in which they discuss college prospects, and the speakers tell the students who do poorly they aren't good enough students to get into an ivy league school, are they being intolerant? Aren't they going to hurt feelings, aren't they discriminating?

What happened according to that article was a small minority of HS SENIORS, not children, resorted to cybaby bullshit by overreacting to the non pc beliefs of the school they attend. Not abuse or personal attacks like you keep saying to try and score emotional points.

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from peilthetraveler:

http://www.examiner.com/article/shooting-at-frc

For all you gay rights supporters let me give you an example of what is and what isnt intolerance.

When you say you are against someone elses beliefs, that is NOT intolerance.

When you say you are against someone elses beliefs and then shoot them, that IS intolerance.


On the article, I have trouble figuring out why he had 15 chick-fil-a sandwiches in his bag. Perhaps he was planning to shoot up a chick-fil-a restaurant and lost the nerve because the people working there were so nice. So he went to the next place on his list.

Or perhaps he was planning to not come out of this alive and knew his liberal media buddies would see the chick-fil-a bag and instantly try to spread misinformation that it was a chick-fil-a supporter that did this.

============
I think 15 Chick Fillets;
because they make a great chicken sandwich

 

[stu]

Quote from PiggyBank:

Right what I mean is

I've already covered all those points.

You're not making sense.
You might as well be defending the ignorant crass objectionable comment Akin made because it's only a few other people's opinion that it was an ignorant crass objectionable comment and anyway, Akin has free speech!

You're defending the intolerant discriminatory hateful personalized verbal attack against children by a catholic school, in a catholic school, because it's only other people's opinion it was an intolerant discriminatory hateful personalized verbal attack and anyway, the school has free speech.

If you can't see the emptiness of your argument, then I can only suggest you try and think a bit more about it.

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from stu:

I've already covered all those points.

You're not making sense.
You might as well be defending the ignorant crass objectionable comment Akin made because it's only a few other people's opinion that it was an ignorant crass objectionable comment and anyway, Akin has free speech!

You're defending the intolerant discriminatory hateful personalized verbal attack against children by a catholic school, in a catholic school, because it's only other people's opinion it was an intolerant discriminatory hateful personalized verbal attack and anyway, the school has free speech.

If you can't see the emptiness of your argument, then I can only suggest you try and think a bit more about it.

You aren't addressing me stu. Your last like 3 posts are recycled.. but whatever, I can see we aren't getting anywhere. you can't even admit that these weren't children, and there were no personal attacks lol. This thread started about what is and isn't tolerant behavior, I have clearly laid out the way I view it, it makes sense. you obviously see it differently.

Can you answer this one question stu: If the school DOES allow it (the mandatory meeting at which non politically correct topics will be discussed, identical to the assembly in the article), you wouldn't support any external force attempting to prevent them from doing so, right?

 

[stu]

Quote from PiggyBank:
You aren't addressing me stu. Your last like 3 posts are recycled.. but whatever, I can see we aren't getting anywhere. you can't even admit that these weren't children, and there were no personal attacks lol. This thread started about what is and isn't tolerant behavior, I have clearly laid out the way I view it, it makes sense. you obviously see it differently.

That's ridiculous. I've done nothing but address you.

Pupils/children/ teenagers, why are you now trying to wiggle around with semantics?

There were personal attacks. They were explained in many articles and recounted by one of the pupils who objected and was supported by her father.
Look, you read words that aren't said like illegal for instance, and being so consumed by beside the point free speech, there's good reason to assume you also don't read words, like those which explained the scenario.

But again, you are straying from the point.

A school doles out to their pupils language which discriminates on grounds of sex and adoption. Your first and paramount consideration is the irrelevant issue of a right to free speech, not the obvious intolerance shown by the religious school whose beliefs drives them to utter such bigoted ignorance. That's as much as you clearly laid out.

Quote from PiggyBank:
Can you answer this one question stu: If the school DOES allow it (the mandatory meeting at which non politically correct topics will be discussed, identical to the assembly in the article), you wouldn't support any external force attempting to prevent them from doing so, right?

Why don't you just ask what is the price of fish and be done with it? I've already explained to you how many times now? Free speech is not the issue here. Neither are mere 'non politically correct topics'. No more relevant than they are in regards to Akin's ignorant comments. Drummed up off target hypotheticals, even less than relevant!

That's your argument - fine, but it is an empty one.
I just find it strange as to why you would be so keen to defend religious intolerance with empty argument. Is it simply for religious reasons?

 

[LEAPup]

Quote from murray t turtle:

============
I think 15 Chick Fillets;
because they make a great chicken sandwich

I rarely eat fried foods, but gotta admit they've got the best around. I didn't know this until deciding to support them after the gay marriage comments the CEO made.

 

[Eight]

Wow, I think we're getting a Chick Fil-et place in my 'hood.. gotta try that stuff.

I live in the epicenter of leftism.. I can tell 'ya all from personal experience: mindless losers! Not thinkers, no not the left, they decide with feelings, that way they can never be wrong and be legends in their own minds.

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from stu:

That's ridiculous. I've done nothing but address you.

Pupils/children/ teenagers, why are you now trying to wiggle around with semantics?

There were personal attacks. They were explained in many articles and recounted by one of the pupils who objected and was supported by her father.
Look, you read words that aren't said like illegal for instance, and being so consumed by beside the point free speech, there's good reason to assume you also don't read words, like those which explained the scenario.

But again, you are straying from the point.

A school doles out to their pupils language which discriminates on grounds of sex and adoption. Your first and paramount consideration is the irrelevant issue of a right to free speech, not the obvious intolerance shown by the religious school whose beliefs drives them to utter such bigoted ignorance. That's as much as you clearly laid out.



Why don't you just ask what is the price of fish and be done with it? I've already explained to you how many times now? Free speech is not the issue here. Neither are mere 'non politically correct topics'. No more relevant than they are in regards to Akin's ignorant comments. Drummed up off target hypotheticals, even less than relevant!

That's your argument - fine, but it is an empty one.
I just find it strange as to why you would be so keen to defend religious intolerance with empty argument. Is it simply for religious reasons?

Obstinate stu, I have been asking you questions, you haven't been giving me answers. You are exaggerating what happened, at least according to the article I read (the one posted). There were NO personal attacks in that article. none. And no one considers high school seniors children, except you.

Further, you are either confused or didn't read what I wrote about tolerance. If you are tolerant then you understand that other people have different points of view than you do. if you are intolerant then you attempt to prevent differing opinions from being stated. I am saying the Church is entitled to its own opinions and beliefs, if you attend church or a church owned school then you must understand their beliefs aren't going to change just because you happen to be on the ugly side of them. if you think they should change or shut up on account of you because they are 'wrong' in your opinion then you are the intolerant one.. you are not acknowledging their differing point of view. Worse you are at their institution.

I told you from when we got into it on the last thread that the church has every right to do what they did. You are still arguing so you must feel otherwise, I don't know why you keep saying that isn't the point, it is certainly a major point of mine. Bottom line, we don't agree that what the church did was intolerant and we likely aren't going to. I'm done explaining myself to you and getting no answers in response.

I have been posting, since the last fucking thread that you don't think the school should have been able to do what they did. fact. You told me I am inferring what you didn't say, in this thread, and that I should have just asked you first.. so don't tell me that it is irrelevant when I've been saying it since we started arguing in the last thread. Don't be a coward, answer the question.

oh and i'm an 'atheist' and have been since i was a kid, even though I was raised catholic. I hate using the word though, now that it has been hijacked by the left. i would prefer to be an unlabeled non- believer.. you live, you die, the end. which is why it is important to me that people live their lives as they see fit, without any interference from big brother, or other groups that think they have some authority to impose and enforce rules upon other free people.

 

[PiggyBank]

don't bitch out stewie.. I've been calling you out since the very beginning of the last thread, IT WAS WHY I QUOTED YOU. You know it, i know it. This was my 2nd post to you in the last thread.

Quote from PiggyBank:

his analogy was that people who don't agree with something - generally don't attend meetings with an organization that does.

they attend a PRIVATE CATHOLIC SCHOOL, so the church (owners) decide what goes and what doesn't.. not you, not the students, not the govt or anyone else. If the beliefs of the church are unbearable to a student then they should go to another fucking school. It is that simple. Same with country clubs etc that don't permit women members.. go to another fucking club , start your own, but leave the PRIVATE club alone.

This was your response, either disagreeing with me or deflecting and changing the subject.

Quote from stu:

His analogy fails.

The school children didn't agree with something for good reason - but they had no choice but to attend a captive meeting within an organization they are obliged to attend. They took exception at being instructed in a mandatory meeting, that their classmates, who, being nothing more than adopted, are sociologically unstable, and that other fellow students apparently should be considered as animals.

So it's ok to produce more hateful intolerent discimination in society, to repel other law abiding members, so long as it's catholic and done Privately.

Well apparently the catholic way , teaching bigotry with biology doesn't work as well as expected, and the catholic church turns off children, even if some adults don't see the problems.
You want children turned out as religious hate mongering drones? Is that a catholic thing?

Then you have the nerve in this thread to post the SAME thing i said initially:

Quote from stu:

made
What you mean is, it doesn't matter that I didn't actually say illegal. It's that you've decided I said illegal when I didn't, and I implied something I do not.
The school is an entity. It is controlled by its owners/executive. School governor's, making decisions on how the school will be run. What will be allowed what will not be allowed.

If you agreed with me that it was up to the school, why didn't you say so THEN? Is it because you didn't and don't, and you are now trying to weasel out.. i think so stu. Again that's why I quoted you in the first place, it couldn't be more RELEVANT to me. Just answer the question: If the school DOES mandate a meeting (identical to the assembly in the article), you wouldn't support any external force attempting to prevent them from doing so, right?

 

[stu]

Quote from PiggyBank:
Obstinate stu, I have been asking you questions, you haven't been giving me answers. You are exaggerating what happened, at least according to the article I read (the one posted). There were NO personal attacks in that article. none. And no one considers high school seniors children, except you.

Further, you are either confused or didn't read what I wrote about tolerance. If you are tolerant then you understand that other people have different points of view than you do. if you are intolerant then you attempt to prevent differing opinions from being stated. I am saying the Church is entitled to its own opinions and beliefs, if you attend church or a church owned school then you must understand their beliefs aren't going to change just because you happen to be on the ugly side of them. if you think they should change or shut up on account of you because they are 'wrong' in your opinion then you are the intolerant one.. you are not acknowledging their differing point of view. Worse you are at their institution.

I told you from when we got into it on the last thread that the church has every right to do what they did. You are still arguing so you must feel otherwise, I don't know why you keep saying that isn't the point, it is certainly a major point of mine. Bottom line, we don't agree that what the church did was intolerant and we likely aren't going to. I'm done explaining myself to you and getting no answers in response.

I have been posting, since the last fucking thread that you don't think the school should have been able to do what they did. fact. You told me I am inferring what you didn't say, in this thread, and that I should have just asked you first.. so don't tell me that it is irrelevant when I've been saying it since we started arguing in the last thread. Don't be a coward, answer the question.

oh and i'm an 'atheist' and have been since i was a kid, even though I was raised catholic. I hate using the word though, now that it has been hijacked by the left. i would prefer to be an unlabeled non- believer.. you live, you die, the end. which is why it is important to me that people live their lives as they see fit, without any interference from big brother, or other groups that think they have some authority to impose and enforce rules upon other free people.

Dear me!
Seriously, how many times?
I understand you keep tying to insist the point is not about what the catholic school said, but their right to say it.
You apparently still can't appreciate they are two distinct things and focusing only on the latter as you are, does not remove serious questions around the former.

Can you really not see the difference between the two?

You might want to say, as you seem to, that the catholic school speech was not discriminatory, that their religiously motivated beliefs showing intolerance against individuals and groups on grounds of prejudice and bigotry is not discriminatory, although that argument will be be just as empty as are your efforts in trying to turn the whole thing over to the completely different and irrelevent question of free speech.

Can you really not see it is NOT a question of whether the church school have a right to say what they want to say.
The point is whether it is right or even desirable for a catholic church school or any other institution for that matter, to be making discriminating speech, particularly against it's own pupils, and especially the way it did.