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