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

[stu]

Quote from 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.

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

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

For goodness sake. It is NOT about the right to mandate meetings, NOR is it about the right to say what they want in any obligatory assemblies they hold, though as an aside, let me answer your beside the point question with another beside the point question.
You think if a church school or any other kind of private organization 'on their own premises' were calling assemblies in order to give talks inciting pupils to break the law, there should be some external force attempting to prevent them from doing so, right?

However, this is not about your beside the point question or my beside the point response to it. It IS about whether discriminatory abusive talk made by the catholic church school and against pupils, is right or wrong. Once more, NOT about whether they have the right to say it.

Get it yet?

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from stu:

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.

stu, I've addressed the issue of what they said, the content, several times. Just because YOU have decided that is the one and only issue, means nothing to me. It was not why I quoted you in the first place. I have pointed out, many times, that the REASON I quoted you, initially, is because you gave the impression (understatement) that what the church did should not have been allowed. So really, who has tried to turn the argument (successfully i might add) into something that it is not and never was. If it was just a matter of what is right and wrong then why didn't you just say that in the first place? In fact we are like 20 pages deep in argument, over two threads, and this is the first time I can recall anything being said about right or wrong. I never said that I think the church is right, or that what they did was right.. c'mon man lol. speaking of irrelevance, your last sentence IS literally irrelevant to any and everything I've argued. I never once said anything about that assembly being right or desirable, I said the school had a right to do it, that it wasn't intolerant, and that taking away or undermining that right IS intolerant. That's it. Again, who is shifting the argument?

THIS thread was about what is and isn't tolerant. i have defined the way I view it, it is very clear and easy to understand. the church/school were NOT intolerant in my opinion. Discrimination does not equal intolerance. Also, I have said like a hundred times, that NOT ALLOWING the school to do what it did, would be intolerant. See stu, I have addressed YOUR position numerous times, you are simply ignoring mine, yet quoting me and arguing with me. Why?

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from stu:

For goodness sake. It is NOT about the right to mandate meetings, NOR is it about the right to say what they want in any obligatory assemblies they hold, though as an aside, let me answer your beside the point question with another beside the point question.
You think if a church school or any other kind of private organization 'on their own premises' were calling assemblies in order to give talks inciting pupils to break the law, there should be some external force attempting to prevent them from doing so, right?

However, this is not about your beside the point question or my beside the point response to it. It IS about whether discriminatory abusive talk made by the catholic church school and against pupils, is right or wrong. Once more, NOT about whether they have the right to say it.

Get it yet?

Get it.. really? Again you have decided NOW, that it is no longer about whether they have a right to say what they want, or whether it is tolerant, but suddenly if it is right or wrong. WTF? I have no desire to continue defending my positions when I have made them completely transparent. What is it exactly that you are trying to prove to me?

I am genuinely interested in you answering my question. I'll tell you why but I'm sure you already know. I think you are the thought police stewie, i think you don't want the church to be able to say what they wish because you disagree with it. For the last time it's why I quoted you to begin with. If I'm wrong just let me know..

And I'll answer your question, even though I already have, twice: Common law trumps religious belief. Inciting people to commit crimes is a crime itself, so obviously I would support and expect law enforcement to put a stop to that shit.

Can you answer my question stu: 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:

Get it.. really? Again you have decided NOW, that it is no longer about whether they have a right to say what they want, or whether it is tolerant, but suddenly if it is right or wrong. WTF? I have no desire to continue defending my positions when I have made them completely transparent. What is it exactly that you are trying to prove to me?

I am genuinely interested in you answering my question. I'll tell you why but I'm sure you already know. I think you are the thought police stewie, i think you don't want the church to be able to say what they wish because you disagree with it. For the last time it's why I quoted you to begin with. If I'm wrong just let me know..

And I'll answer your question, even though I already have, twice: Common law trumps religious belief. Inciting people to commit crimes is a crime itself, so obviously I would support and expect law enforcement to put a stop to that shit.

Can you answer my question stu: 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?

The answer then is no, you don't get it.

When, if you can ever, grasp that this was never about your misdirect freedom of speech, let me know. Then maybe you can make some progress.

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from stu:

The answer then is no, you don't get it.

When, if you can ever, grasp that this was never about your misdirect freedom of speech, let me know. Then maybe you can make some progress.

you don't even get what the fuck you're saying anymore. I never ever gave a damn if what they said was right or wrong, why can't you fucking understand that, I haven't said anything about it. Freedom of speech isn't a 'misdirect' when I have been saying it from the start. YOU changed the subject, not me. What is it that I have said that you disagree with stu? Why the fuck do you continue to quote me when you aren't even addressing what I say.. what is the source of YOUR disagreement with ANYTHING i've said?

 

[stu]

Quote from PiggyBank:
I never ever gave a damn if what they said was right or wrong, why can't you fucking understand that, I haven't said anything about it.

I know you haven't, that's why you're misdirecting the argument for christ sakes and is exactly why you have been completely missing the point, talking about free speech all the time.

Quote from PiggyBank:
Freedom of speech isn't a 'misdirect' when I have been saying it from the start.

WTF!? Just because you have been saying 'Freedom of Speech' from the start, doesn't mean it is not a misdirect. What it means is you've been arguing about something which is beside the point from the start, therefore IS a misdirect - from the start!
The topic you objected to was my saying it was discriminatory speech. You flying off into the quite different area of 'Freedom of Speech', has nothing to do with the fact the it was discriminatory speech!!

Just what the hell is it you find so difficult about that?

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from stu:

I know you haven't, that's why you're misdirecting the argument for christ sakes and is exactly why you have been completely missing the point, talking about free speech all the time.


WTF!? Just because you have been saying 'Freedom of Speech' from the start, doesn't mean it is not a misdirect. What it means is you've been arguing about something which is beside the point from the start, therefore IS a misdirect - from the start!
The topic you objected to was my saying it was discriminatory speech. You flying off into the quite different area of 'Freedom of Speech', has nothing to do with the fact the it was discriminatory speech!!

Just what the hell is it you find so difficult about that?

Wow bro, for like the hundredth time, I quoted YOU specifically because I felt and continue to feel your position was it shouldn't have been allowed. That's it, that is what I OBJECT TO, that's exactly how it started. So if I am wrong about that, then you should address it, or you shouldn't quote me. I have been more than reasonable and I have entertained your argument(s), I have addressed you directly and repeatedly. Did what they say fit the definition of prejudiced, sure. Did I ever claim it didn't, no. Does it matter to me, no. Is it why I quoted you, no. Was it intolerant, NO. So are you gonna answer the question now?

 

[stu]

Quote from PiggyBank:
Wow bro, for like the hundredth time, I quoted YOU specifically because I felt and continue to feel your position was it shouldn't have been allowed. That's it, that is what I OBJECT TO,that's exactly how it started.

So because you FEEL that way, you falsly inserted the word 'illegal' though I never mentioned it and continued to FEEL I have a position, which has been explained I don't. Brilliant.

Apparently your FEELINGS are very slow to adjust according to the facts.

Quote from PiggyBank:
Did what they say fit the definition of prejudiced, sure.

sheesh at last!! THAT is the issue here, always was.
The separate point about freedom of speech which you keep falling back on is not relevant to the catholic school's making of prejudiced speech.

A christian school issuing forth discrimination and prejudice against people, based upon bigoted religious beliefs from the dark ages. That is intolerance however you cut it. In this case, religious intolerance.

Their freedom as a church school of all things to speak that way, has nothing to do with the main issue of whether it is right for them to be speaking that way. Throwing freedom of speech smokescreens up at every turn doesn't alter the main issue.

Neither has your freedom of speech argument been relevant as to whether they should be allowed and as I have explained, that is, the school knowing better, not allowing itself to use such bigoted intolerant abusive language, upsetting pupils/children in their care. Is that a way to nurture the young, by teaching them in a mandatory assembly how to get prejudiced against their fellow students?

Refusing and objecting as pupils did to the church school's intolerance, is how many things in general get changed for the better. Religious catholic institutions, no exception.

Freedom of speech is a separate issue altogether and irrelevant to this, as is your hypothetical what-if question to which YOU'VE conceded, not I, there are areas where freedom of speech should be forcibly curtailed.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from 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.

This from a man over 55, do you even have a connection with your 'hood?

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from stu:

So because you FEEL that way, you falsly inserted the word 'illegal' though I never mentioned it and continued to FEEL I have a position, which has been explained I don't. Brilliant.

Apparently your FEELINGS are very slow to adjust according to the facts.

Don't be a douche stu, I am sure you understand why I used the word illegal by now. If not let me say it AGAIN.. I used the word illegal because that is how I remembered the conversation going without checking. You didn't explain that you don't have that position until this thread WHEN I CALLED YOU OUT IN THE LAST THREAD. You have several posts indicating that what happened shouldn't have been allowed. here in this thread you said the same thing back to me that I told YOU initially, who do you think you're fooling?

sheesh at last!! THAT is the issue here, always was.
The separate point about freedom of speech which you keep falling back on is not relevant to the catholic school's making of prejudiced speech.

Why do you keep telling me what the point is? I tell YOU what MY fucking point is.

A christian school issuing forth discrimination and prejudice against people, based upon bigoted religious beliefs from the dark ages. That is intolerance however you cut it. In this case, religious intolerance.

It was NOT intolerant stu. Which is why I didn't use the word. They didn't DO anything to the students, they didn't abuse them, they didn't threaten them. They didn't know who was gay or adopted, and they didn't need to to state their beliefs. Again, if a student or parent can't handle those positions, they can GO TO ANOTHER SCHOOL! It isn't being forced upon you when you are there by choice. And don't tell me their parents made them attend so it isn't a choice, that is between the parents and their kids, it has nothing to do with the school.

Their freedom as a church school of all things to speak that way, has nothing to do with the main issue of whether it is right for them to be speaking that way. Throwing freedom of speech smokescreens up at every turn doesn't alter the main issue.

You have decided somewhere along the line (recently) that I give a shit about whether it's right or wrong, I don't.

Neither has your freedom of speech argument been relevant as to whether they should be allowed and as I have explained, that is, the school knowing better, not allowing itself to use such bigoted intolerant abusive language, upsetting pupils/children in their care. Is that a way to nurture the young, by teaching them in a mandatory assembly how to get prejudiced against their fellow students?

Refusing and objecting as pupils did to the church school's intolerance, is how many things in general get changed for the better. Religious catholic institutions, no exception.

It wasn't intolerant, I'm done explaining why.

Freedom of speech is a separate issue altogether and irrelevant to this, as is your hypothetical what-if question to which YOU'VE conceded, not I, there are areas where freedom of speech should be forcibly curtailed.

I conceded to nothing, you fucking liar. My answer to YOUR hypo was completely consistent with everything else I've said. FACT. I TOLD YOU that if they were inciting violence that is not even an issue of free speech. Why do you keep using my own points like they are yours? Right here YOU ARE saying free speech can be forcibly curtailed, again hinting that you think this is one of those instances.

I asked YOU a very specific question, which you are cowering from. If you can't answer all I can do is assume I am right that you would support banning them from doing what they did, and I wasn't the only one who determined that from your posts. 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?