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

[Ricter]

Apparently all nine bystanders hit were shot by the police. Good thing they're trained, think how much higher it could have been!

 

[stu]

Quote from PiggyBank:
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?

To be clear then, what you're saying is, you said I used the word illegal when I didn't. Thanks but that was already clear enough.

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

I keep telling you what the point is because YOUR fucking point is irrelevant to the point.

Quote from PiggyBank:
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.

Objecting to religiously based institutionalized prejudice, getting ignorant beliefs put straight, is a legitimate alternative with lots of advantages for everyone. Something which most of your suggestions above don't have.

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

Probably why you completely missed the point. You don't give a shit.

Quote from PiggyBank:
It wasn't intolerant, I'm done explaining why.

You saying intolerant is not intolerant is no explanation.

Quote from PiggyBank:
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.

This paranoia about what you think or feel I'm hinting at is not helping your argument.
You conceded there are areas where freedom of speech should be forcibly curtailed. You've done so again here.
Inciting a crime, violent or not, can result in the restriction of free speech. But so what? That's still irrelevant to the issue simply because freedom of speech IS NOT the issue.

Quote from PiggyBank:
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?

You asked a very specific irrelevant question and keep harping on about it because you are trying to avoid criticizing disgraceful intolerant discriminating speech hosted by a church school.
Making up strawman arguments about freedom of speech to dodge that main point hasn't worked, that's all it is.

 

[LEAPup]

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.

Yep, try the chicken fingers there with the honey mustard sauce. Very tasty! If I'm really being bad, I'll get. Small order of the waffle fries.

I say piss off a liberal, and support Chick-fil-a. Ooh rah!

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from stu:

To be clear then, what you're saying is, you said I used the word illegal when I didn't. Thanks but that was already clear enough.

Since it was already clear, why do you keep saying it dickhead?

I keep telling you what the point is because YOUR fucking point is irrelevant to the point.

You really don't understand how this argument started or you are a liar. You decided only a few posts ago that the 'main point' is whether or not what the church said was right or wrong, in order to dodge the question. It was NEVER even a point that you made in the last thread. It didn't happen, and I certainly didn't say anything about it. At least two other posters told you the church has the right to do what they did.. you disagreed stu. If the right of the church to state their beliefs is irrelevant, then why were YOU arguing about it? see below.

Objecting to religiously based institutionalized prejudice, getting ignorant beliefs put straight, is a legitimate alternative with lots of advantages for everyone. Something which most of your suggestions above don't have.
Probably why you completely missed the point. You don't give a shit.

I missed 'the point' because you just made it up after writing dozens of previous posts on the subject and failing to mention THEE 'main point'. what a joke.

You saying intolerant is not intolerant is no explanation.

lol, so is it that you aren't reading my posts or just failing to comprehend? go back to page 10 and READ what I wrote about intolerance.

This paranoia about what you think or feel I'm hinting at is not helping your argument.

It IS my argument, and I guess that paranoia is shared by Wallet and Mnphats because they both called your lying ass out on the same thing.

You conceded there are areas where freedom of speech should be forcibly curtailed. You've done so again here.
Inciting a crime, violent or not, can result in the restriction of free speech. But so what? That's still irrelevant to the issue simply because freedom of speech IS NOT the issue.

You are one dense dude stu, I didn't concede that free speech can be restricted, I said that common law trumps religious belief, as an example I said if they (the church) were inciting violence, they would be breaking the law, regardless of free speech. You didn't make that point you fucking fraud, I DID.

MY question was SHOULD free speech be restricted IN THIS CASE. Not even close to the same thing.

question and keep harping on about it because you are trying to avoid criticizing disgraceful intolerant discriminating speech hosted by a church school.
Making up strawman arguments about freedom of speech to dodge that main point hasn't worked, that's all it is.

If you really think that I'm trying to avoid criticizing the church after all these posts you might be retarded. I am utterly indifferent to what they said according to that article, I don't care. Never did, never said I did, never suggested I did, which is why you and I both know that IT ISN'T THE FUCKING POINT.

From the very beginning of the last thread http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...4&perpage=6&highlight=religion,&pagenumber=1:

Quote from stu:

You're right, it wasn't a good analogy.

A mandatory assembly is not a meeting where people are taking part of their own free will. If the catholic church can do that, then so should PETA and the KKK, when they too can be resisted by school children obliged to attend.

Then you or someone else can make that asinine remark again, that it's merely fashionable to attack the preaching of bigoted attitudes that belong in the dark ages.

Quote from stu:

In this case Muslims were not trying to preach to a captive audience in a school. Catholics were.

Some very enlightened people, even some religious ones, a couple hundred years ago very wisely concluded that it would be a very good idea to keep church and state separate.

Keeping all religion away from the affairs of state, not just the ones you don't like, stops the ones you don't like getting involved in state affairs.

Does that fill you in any?

Quote from Mnphats:

The captive audience was Catholic. Then the idiotic mumbling of separation of church from state in a Catholic school? Come on Stupid.

Quote from stu:

Schooling is an affair of state. Come on Mnpharts.
Kids have to go to school. Private or public schools cannot do whatever the hell they want. The key word is school, not religious indoctrination camp.

A bunch of bigotry preaching catholic 'mullahs' telling school children, adopted kids were "sociologically unstable", got it handed right back to them rather ironically by what they thought was a captive and catholic audience.
Damn right too.

Quote from Wallet:

Bullshit on this one, a private school can teach whatever they want, and a public school can't stop a child from professing they faith.

Christian, Catholic what ever schools are there because Parents enroll their children in them wanting their children to be taught both religion and academics.

Separation of Church and State was instituted for this very reason, not to keep Religion out of Government but to keep Government out of Religion.... The state can't mandate a private/religious schools curriculum, unless they want to try and blackmail them.

The Catholic spokesperson in this instance choose their words very unwisely, however it doesn't negate the fact that children from broken ,single-parent households are at a disadvantage......not even going to touch non traditional same sex partnered families if you want to stretch the definition.

Quote from stu:

Bullshit on your one too. Simplistic sweeping statements like that don't score. A private school cannot legally teach whatever they want. To use an extreme, are you trying to suggest a catholic school would be legally free to preach incitement to commit murder? Of course not. Free to preach and teach intolerance and hatred of fellow pupils by their race religion or whether they were adopted is what parents role into a school for? Are you serious? Next you'll be telling me the government, in the form of law, should be kept out of catholic child rape, because the state cannot mandate that kind of 'curriculum' which they were running worldwide.
Perhaps only a catholic could imagine such things were ok.

Funny, I see a whole bunch of arguing about the 'irrelevant point' of the church's right to state their beliefs at their own fucking school, even before i posted. So, you lying coward, are you gonna answer the question now, or remove all doubt as to your position?

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Funny how stu is the only entity to occupy my ignore list.

I don't object to those who disagree with me I'm just using my ignore list as a spam filter.
Because that's all stu does is spam a thread, once he does so, the thread is dead.

 

[stu]

Quote from PiggyBank:

Since it was already clear, why do you keep saying it dickhead?
You really don't understand how this argument started or you are a liar. You decided only a few posts ago that the 'main point' is whether or not what the church said was right or wrong, in order to dodge the question. It was NEVER even a point that you made in the last thread. It didn't happen, and I certainly didn't say anything about it. At least two other posters told you the church has the right to do what they did.. you disagreed stu. If the right of the church to state their beliefs is irrelevant, then why were YOU arguing about it? see below.
I missed 'the point' because you just made it up after writing dozens of previous posts on the subject and failing to mention THEE 'main point'. what a joke.
lol, so is it that you aren't reading my posts or just failing to comprehend? go back to page 10 and READ what I wrote about intolerance.
It IS my argument, and I guess that paranoia is shared by Wallet and Mnphats because they both called your lying ass out on the same thing.
You are one dense dude stu, I didn't concede that free speech can be restricted, I said that common law trumps religious belief, as an example I said if they (the church) were inciting violence, they would be breaking the law, regardless of free speech. You didn't make that point you fucking fraud, I DID.

MY question was SHOULD free speech be restricted IN THIS CASE. Not even close to the same thing.
If you really think that I'm trying to avoid criticizing the church after all these posts you might be retarded. I am utterly indifferent to what they said according to that article, I don't care. Never did, never said I did, never suggested I did, which is why you and I both know that IT ISN'T THE FUCKING POINT.

From the very beginning of the last thread http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...4&perpage=6&highlight=religion,&pagenumber=1:

Funny, I see a whole bunch of arguing about the 'irrelevant point' of the church's right to state their beliefs at their own fucking school, even before i posted. So, you lying coward, are you gonna answer the question now, or remove all doubt as to your position?

sheesh what a muddled load of emotional ranting clap trap.

Quote from PiggyBank:
MY question was SHOULD free speech be restricted IN THIS CASE.

Which is a beside the point irrelevant question to which I already gave a corresponding answer . What you can't do is deal with the main point because you've said you don't care about it. For fucks sake!!

To summarize then.

You said I said illegal. You were wrong. Then taking the role of a third rate clairvoyant, your hollow argument relies almost entirely on proceeding to tell me what I meant from something I didn't say.

But to some degree you did eventually differentiate between the main issue which is prejudiced speech, and the non issue and immaterial point of freedom of speech. Although only after a great deal of explaining, when it should really be obvious from the outset that the two are different and separate issues.

You've eventually admitted the catholic church school's assembly talk was prejudiced.
It was prejudiced on grounds of sex and a bigoted stance on adoption. That IS what discriminatory speech is. Discriminatory speech is prejudiced speech. It is speech intolerant of specific groups.
The talk was prejudiced, homophobic, discriminatory and intolerant, and put down certain families with adopted children as second rate citizens.

You're ok with all that because you say you don't care, and because of an entirely separate and beside the point freedom of speech strawman argument you introduced.

What's interesting is although you say you are not religious, you're arguing like many ET faithers do. That is to muddy the whole thing with silly points of false equivalences, like the suggestion that not being prepared to tolerate the intolerant bigotry of a church school is itself being intolerant. Wrongly believing things are said and meant which aren't, and introducing sham and empty argument that has no bearing on the actual subject itself.

You've only one more step to take. Just decalare anything that disagrees with your own nonsense is spam while condescendingly deciding a thread is dead.

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from stu:

sheesh what a muddled load of emotional ranting clap trap.

I've lost my patience with your lying ass.

Which is a beside the point irrelevant question to which I already gave a corresponding answer . What you can't do is deal with the main point because you've said you don't care about it. For fucks sake!!

Your 'answer' is exactly what I said to you in the first place, you quoted me and didn't acknowledge what I said at the time, by default you were disagreeing. You HAVEN'T answered the fucking question, quit lying.

Let me get this straight, you disregard my posts addressing what you were originally arguing about, declare a subjective 'main point', then tell me my argument is the empty one? You make no mention of this 'main point' until the last few pages.. so is that u didn't know what your own point was before that, OR are you trying to make a false assertion that this was NEVER about the church's rights? It is rhetorical, not like your cowardly ass would answer anyway.. the evidence is there, you were arguing with other posters who defended the church's right to do and say what they did. I, and they, determined from your posts that you DID NOT agree that the church had the right to do what they did. That is what I responded to, that is what you didn't deny until this thread (with my own words) and that is the real fucking point.

To summarize then.
You said I said illegal. You were wrong. Then taking the role of a third rate clairvoyant, your hollow argument relies almost entirely on proceeding to tell me what I meant from something I didn't say.

To summarize? stu, this has been going on for two threads. It didn't START with me stating that you called it illegal. that is a FACT. try again? You WERE disagreeing with myself and other posters that the private school can do exactly what it did, I just showed you the evidence which you are ignoring.

And hypocrite much? How many times have you told me that I said the students objecting was intolerant when i very clearly stated it would only be intolerant if they shouted down the church' opinions, or tried to get them banned from stating them. Why are you saying I said things which I didn't, and then accusing me of the same?

But to some degree you did eventually differentiate between the main issue which is prejudiced speech, and the non issue and immaterial point of freedom of speech. Although only after a great deal of explaining, when it should really be obvious from the outset that the two are different and separate issues.

YOU differentiated (see: changed the subject) after you realized just how wrong you were arguing that the school didn't have the right to do this and not being man enough to admit it. I just played along, although to be fair THIS THREAD is about what is and isn't intolerant.

You've eventually admitted the catholic church school's assembly talk was prejudiced.
It was prejudiced on grounds of sex and a bigoted stance on adoption. That IS what discriminatory speech is. Discriminatory speech is prejudiced speech. It is speech intolerant of specific groups.
The talk was prejudiced, homophobic, discriminatory and intolerant, and put down certain families with adopted children as second rate citizens.

Prejudice doesn't equal intolerance, if you can't read and address what i wrote on the subject (pg 10), why not shut the fuck up about it when quoting me.

You're ok with all that because you say you don't care, and because of an entirely separate and beside the point freedom of speech strawman argument you introduced.

They are different issues. The one you were arguing when I chimed in, to which i responded not introduced, was the right of the church to do what it did. Irrelevant now.. obviously not.

What's interesting is although you say you are not religious, you're arguing like many ET faithers do.

It only seems that way because you don't like what I have to say.

That is to muddy the whole thing with silly points of false equivalences, like the suggestion that not being prepared to tolerate the intolerant bigotry of a church school is itself being intolerant. Wrongly believing things are said and meant which aren't, and introducing sham and empty argument that has no bearing on the actual subject itself.

You've only one more step to take. Just decalare anything that disagrees with your own nonsense is spam while condescendingly deciding a thread is dead.

You muddied this whole argument up, by changing your point mid way. I didn't INTRODUCE the argument, it was already in PROGRESS when i jumped in.. YOU were already arguing the now 'irrelevant point' with other posters. the only thing I am declaring is you are a liar for denying it and a coward for not answering this completely RELEVANT 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?

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Well stu go on to provide links to the threads that survived your spam attack?

thanks

 

[stu]

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

Well stu go on to provide links to the threads that survived your spam attack?

thanks

No spam no links

You're welcome

 

[stu]

Quote from PiggyBank:
I've lost my patience with your lying ass.
Your 'answer' is exactly what I said to you in the first place, you quoted me and didn't acknowledge what I said at the time, by default you were disagreeing. You HAVEN'T answered the fucking question, quit lying.

Let me get this straight, you disregard my posts addressing what you were originally arguing about, declare a subjective 'main point', then tell me my argument is the empty one? You make no mention of this 'main point' until the last few pages.. so is that u didn't know what your own point was before that, OR are you trying to make a false assertion that this was NEVER about the church's rights? It is rhetorical, not like your cowardly ass would answer anyway.. the evidence is there, you were arguing with other posters who defended the church's right to do and say what they did. I, and they, determined from your posts that you DID NOT agree that the church had the right to do what they did. That is what I responded to, that is what you didn't deny until this thread (with my own words) and that is the real fucking point.
To summarize? stu, this has been going on for two threads. It didn't START with me stating that you called it illegal. that is a FACT. try again? You WERE disagreeing with myself and other posters that the private school can do exactly what it did, I just showed you the evidence which you are ignoring.

And hypocrite much? How many times have you told me that I said the students objecting was intolerant when i very clearly stated it would only be intolerant if they shouted down the church' opinions, or tried to get them banned from stating them. Why are you saying I said things which I didn't, and then accusing me of the same?

YOU differentiated (see: changed the subject) after you realized just how wrong you were arguing that the school didn't have the right to do this and not being man enough to admit it. I just played along, although to be fair THIS THREAD is about what is and isn't intolerant.
Prejudice doesn't equal intolerance, if you can't read and address what i wrote on the subject (pg 10), why not shut the fuck up about it when quoting me.
They are different issues. The one you were arguing when I chimed in, to which i responded not introduced, was the right of the church to do what it did. Irrelevant now.. obviously not.

It only seems that way because you don't like what I have to say.

You muddied this whole argument up, by changing your point mid way. I didn't INTRODUCE the argument, it was already in PROGRESS when i jumped in.. YOU were already arguing the now 'irrelevant point' with other posters. the only thing I am declaring is you are a liar for denying it and a coward for not answering this completely RELEVANT 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?

jeez.

Quote from PiggyBank:
It didn't START with me stating that you called it illegal.

THIS THREAD: It started with you saying, I said illegal in another thread. I said no such thing.
THIS THREAD: You then tried to claim I imply illegal, when I don't. You have no reason or basis for that except an apparent knee jerk reaction to always turn toward answering everything with a different and separate subject altogether; freedom of speech.

Quote from PiggyBank:
although to be fair THIS THREAD is about what is and isn't intolerant.

THIS THREAD: Another breakthrough!
That's why I've been saying to you over and over, your line 'the right to freedom of speech on their own private property' is irrelevant. In THIS THREAD the main point (and my point in the other) is about the church school's speech. A lesson on discriminating, how to be intolerant and prejudiced, given to school children at assembly. More like a Madrasah than an American school.

Quote from PiggyBank:
Prejudice doesn't equal intolerance.

Are you going to play semantics now?
The catholic church school's pronounced homophobia to pupils (prejudice) is their declared unwillingness to recognize differences (intolerance).
The point IS, their talk, based upon dark age bigoted religious beliefs which it is, is ignorant and reprehensible. The right to make it is a distinctly separate issue.

Quote from PiggyBank:
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?

I already responded your hypothetical beside the point free speech question with another hypothetical beside the point free speech question as an answer. Yet here you still are, unable to stick to the point! As long as you can't make the distinction I don't expect you to see freedom of speech is not the issue.
The fact that a catholic church school turned assembly into a demonstration to pupils on how to get prejudiced intolerant and discriminate on grounds of sex, has nothing to do with the entirely separate point of free speech. But you can't see it, can you, right?