Apparently all nine bystanders hit were shot by the police. Good thing they're trained, think how much higher it could have been!
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. I keep telling you what the point is because YOUR fucking point is irrelevant to the point. 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. You saying intolerant is not intolerant is no explanation. 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. 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.
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!
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?
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.
sheesh what a muddled load of emotional ranting clap trap. 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.
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. 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? 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. 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?