Registered: Nov 2009
08-27-12 04:44 PM
OUR argument in this thread started with me using THE LAST THREAD, off the top of my head as an example of intolerance, which makes that thread inherently relevant. You are right that you didn't use the word illegal. I have explained more than enough times that the word illegal doesn't matter, YOU brought up the rights of the school/church by arguing the separation of church and state, and CLEARLY implying that what happened shouldn't be allowed in school by arguing with other posters who (correctly) pointed out that it is allowed BECAUSE it is a catholic school. That IS the argument i jumped in on. Admit it.
Quote from stu:
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.
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.
Are you going to play semantics now?
No more than you. Is their a difference between illegal and not allowed? yes, and you keep rehashing it even though whether you meant illegal or not allowed is actually irrelevant, when it is both legal and allowed and should be.
Wrong. They neither said nor did anything, according to that article, which even so much as suggested that homosexuality or adoption can't exist. They just don't agree with homosexuality, and apparently think adoption is not as good for a child as a natural family, and voiced their opinion. They even went out of their way to allow the students rebuttal, and allowed them to argue after the assembly. That is pretty fucking tolerant.
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.
Prejudice: Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience.
Prejudiced: Having or showing a dislike or distrust that is derived from prejudice; bigoted
Tolerant: The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
In general usage, tolerance is the ability to accept the existence of something while still disapproving of it.
They aren't the same thing stu. By the way I already laid out tolerance and intolerance on pg 10. Just because you aren't addressing it, doesn't mean it isn't there. After all that is what THIS THREAD is about, isn't it? It IS NOT and NEVER WAS about whether what the church said was right or wrong.. that is until YOU changed the subject.
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?
You can't answer a question with a question jerkoff. The point of THIS THREAD is what is and isn't intolerant, NOT whether what they said was right or wrong. I have already addressed it multiple times, since you disagree, point out where my logic fails, or stop fucking telling ME what they did was intolerant.
In the last thread, You, all by yourself, brought up the church's rights by claiming school is a matter of state and there is a separation of church and state, you can't argue something and then claim it is irrelevant, without being intellectually dishonest. It was a retarded but relevant position then and continues to be now, until you clear it up. You are now suffering amnesia (intentionally) to avoid answering my question. So if I ask you my still unanswered question in the other thread, which you ran from, will you answer it.. or can you just be a man and answer it here?
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?