# NORTH CAROLINA: Baptist Preacher Calls For BEATING THE GAY Out Of Children



## staticman0 (May 1, 2012)

Here's a revolting demonstration of Christian Loveâ„¢ from Sean Harris, the Senior Pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville, North Carolina.  This will likely be the sickest thing you hear today, be warned.

Found Via Good As You, Retoast from Joe My God

*Update:  *
[h=3]Pastor Sean Harris: I'm Sorry That You Were Offended When I Said Kids Should Have The Gay Beaten Out Of Them[/h]Earlier today Deo on page 4 posted a news report  which quoted Pastor Sean Harris as saying that he was only joking when  he told his congregation that they should beat the gay out of non-gender  conforming children.  Harris has now posted a lengthy "official  statement of retraction" on his personal blog. But as is typical with his repulsive ilk, he isn't actually sorry at all.



> I do not apologize for the manner in which  the Word of God articulates sexual immorality, including homosexuality  and effeminacy, as a behavior that is an abomination to God. Nothing in  this official statement of retraction should be perceived as an apology  for the overarching intent and message of the sermon and the need to  define marriage as one man and one woman and to maintain the gender  distinctions that God created from the beginning when He made them male  and female (Genesis 1). I recognize that there are those in the LGBT  community who believe that their sexual behavior is not sin. I do not  agree with them and this official retraction should not be misunderstood  as an apology for the gospel of Jesus Christ or the Word of God. I do  not apologize for the manner in which I emphasized the importance of one  man and one woman getting married and staying married for the benefit  of their children and society.



Not incidentally, we should all give props to _Good As You_ activist Jeremy Hooper for once again overturning another stone of Christian Loveâ„¢ to reveal the squirming maggots beneath.  Thanks to Hooper (and _you_),  Pastor Harris has been denounced and shamed across North Carolina.   Harris clearly doesn't care, but hopefully the next preacher will think  twice before he sends a young congregant reaching for the razor blades.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 1, 2012)

If you really want a 'War On Terror', you'll round up these pigfuckers and mow them down like the weeds they are. I've run out of things to say now. Fuck it. Fuck it all.


----------



## Ikrit (May 1, 2012)

can i beat the stupid out of him?


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 1, 2012)

Doesn't he know that those pervy gays like it rough? :V


For serious, though. That's . . . pretty terrible.


----------



## staticman0 (May 1, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> If you really want a 'War On Terror', you'll round up these pigfuckers and mow them down like the weeds they are. I've run out of things to say now. Fuck it. Fuck it all.



As much as I want to cry out "*THIS!!!!*" god knows how many times, I think a "War on Hate" would be as big of a quagmire as the War on Terror is.


----------



## Onnes (May 1, 2012)

Another friendly reminder than corporal punishment of children is legal in North Carolina.


----------



## Rhampage (May 1, 2012)

....................I just don't understand people sometimes. The people jeering with excitement and laughter at "give him a punch" and "crack his wrist" is probably the sickest thing I've heard in a while.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (May 1, 2012)

I confuse myself so much with my own double-standards sometimes: The reason I hate this guy so much is because of the violence he uses / facilitates against others, and yet my own natural mental response to my hate of this guy is to want to use violence against him. What the fuck, brain?

I always aim for the moral highground and in doing so I always have to repress my desire to kill people like this, which would make me a huge hypocrite.

I guess you just can't win some things.


----------



## Rhampage (May 1, 2012)

There's nothing wrong with wanting to bring death upon those who deserve it most. Anyone who facilitates the harm of others, and chooses to spread it around like this, is in dire need of enlightenment. â€‹I want to wear his face. :V


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 1, 2012)

RedFoxTwo said:


> I confuse myself so much with my own double-standards sometimes: The reason I hate this guy so much is because of the violence he uses / facilitates against others, and yet my own natural mental response to my hate of this guy is to want to use violence against him. What the fuck, brain?
> 
> I always aim for the moral highground and in doing so I always have to repress my desire to kill people like this, which would make me a huge hypocrite.


Not entirely; Harris is not minding his own business, while those he is targetting are. Which is more important to you? One person or many? Sometimes letting certain humans live is a crime against humanity.


----------



## Aetius (May 1, 2012)

That is the south for you OP, these kind of things seem as normal as North Korea threatening to turn Seoul into a lava pit.


----------



## triage (May 1, 2012)

People fear what they don't understand.


----------



## staticman0 (May 1, 2012)

By the way, don't just read this thread, listen to the audio.


----------



## triage (May 1, 2012)

staticman0 said:


> By the way, don't just read this thread, listen to the audio.



i did. it's fucked, but it's also nothing new.

i'm disappointed to say that this shit just doesn't phase me anymore considering that guys like him comprise a significant amount of modern american society.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (May 1, 2012)

Rhampage said:


> There's nothing wrong with wanting to bring death upon those who deserve it most. Anyone who facilitates the harm of others, and chooses to spread it around like this, is in dire need of enlightenment.


I'm only a walking, talking primate after all.



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Not entirely; Harris is not minding his own business, while those he is targetting are. Which is more important to you? One person or many? Sometimes letting certain humans live is a crime against humanity.


To remove someone from the world for utilitarian reasons makes perfect sense, but killing them is not necessary. To kill a killer where you could have just locked them up and left them to rot makes you no better than them. Just remember the Lockerbie bomber. The US tried to extradite him for execution in America, but Alex Salmond (our leader of the Scottish Parliament) gave an awe inspiring speech where he explained that killing the man would solve nothing. The man had some advanced stages of cancer and the Scottish parliament (who had jurisdiction on the matter) ruled that the man should be allowed to die in his bed with his family. That whole thing made me massively respect Salmond. 

I don't care how bad someone is or how many horrible things they've done. If one is not to descend to the same level as the accused then one mustn't play eye-for-an-eye. People imbue God with the qualities of mercy and compassion because they are the most fundamentally admirable qualities. Why can't we exercise such qualities too?


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (May 1, 2012)

I'd be angry if I was surprised that there's still individuals who are this anal about it.

I'm starting to think this is just a game of shock factor. Who can yell louder and make the other look more disgusting.

Also, his idea is kind of silly. By what constituents should that person have been squashed? Technically speaking, he's removing that boy's right to be and going against his own bible by going with that.
Just the two cents on such.


----------



## Rhampage (May 1, 2012)

RedFoxTwo said:


> I'm only a walking, talking primate after all.



When in Rome. (Whether that fits or not, I'm sticking to it.)


----------



## RedFoxTwo (May 1, 2012)

Rhampage said:


> When in Rome.


Thankfully I don't live in the USA, so I don't have an overwhelming urge to shoot everything that moves. :V


----------



## Rilvor (May 1, 2012)

Rhampage said:


> There's nothing wrong with wanting to bring death upon those who deserve it most. Anyone who facilitates the harm of others, and chooses to spread it around like this, is in dire need of enlightenment. â€‹I want to wear his face. :V



This post is both hilarious and depressingly bad.

I'm considering "Double Standard Day All Day Every Day On FA" for my signature.

Come on people, this guy is scum but let's not react like teenagers.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (May 1, 2012)

As a female I am offend? that sexism is so prevalent and not even addressed. He is bitching how one sex should act. No one else get this or just me?


----------



## RedFoxTwo (May 1, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> As a female I am offend? that sexism is so prevalent and not even addressed. He is bitching how one sex should act. No one else get this or just me?


The bastard is probably too busy fapping to the idea of two girls at it.


----------



## iconmaster (May 1, 2012)

Yet another saddening reminder of the existence of North Carolina.

This is terrible.


----------



## Onnes (May 1, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> As a female I am offend? that sexism is so prevalent and not even addressed. He is bitching how one sex should act. No one else get this or just me?



I think everyone gets it which is why no one feels the need to mention it. I mean, the pastor's entire thing is that children should be forced, with the threat of violence, into gender stereotypical behavior. It really goes beyond a purely LGBT issue--well, I guess the pastor probably equates "girly" male behavior with gay--and into the realm of strict sexism.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (May 1, 2012)

Onnes said:


> I think everyone gets it which is why no one feels the need to mention it. I mean, the pastor's entire thing is that children should be forced, with the threat of violence, into gender stereotypical behavior. It really goes beyond a purely LGBT issue--well, I guess the pastor probably equates "girly" male behavior with gay--and into the realm of strict sexism.




how is a girl suppose to smell? I share everything with my husband. Shower gel, same brand of deodorant ect ect. I think this bothers me the most.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (May 1, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> This post is both hilarious and depressingly bad.
> 
> I'm considering "Double Standard Day All Day Every Day On FA" for my signature.
> 
> Come on people, this guy is scum but let's not react like teenagers.



This.

Homosexuality is not a choice, but an overwhelming, natural feeling.
Absurd belief is also not a choice, but an overwhelming, natural feeling (Belief based in feeling is not based on science/rationality).

Homosexuality will not go away with beatings or violence.

But neither shall the most insane elements of a series of absurd religions that were BASED on the struggles of persecuted persons (Moses and the Jews, Jesus and the persecution of Christians in Judea, and Mohammed and the early Muslims being shunned by society and being forced to wander the desert until they were able to return, and take Mecca and Medina from those who had previously persecuted them).


Any claim from one side of the argument calling for violence is equally immature as any other argument for violence coming from the other side. 

But humanity isn't known for rational behavior, or maturity.


----------



## Recel (May 1, 2012)

As much as it's already horrible. Imagine the abuse people can do with this. Daddy comes home drunk and beats the shit out of little Timmy, than claims he was acting girly, so he had to beat him up. And lets not even look at the issue of what is girly to who, giving about infinite reasons to beat up a boy.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 1, 2012)

RedFoxTwo said:


> I'm only a walking, talking primate after all.
> 
> 
> To remove someone from the world for utilitarian reasons makes perfect sense, but killing them is not necessary. To kill a killer where you could have just locked them up and left them to rot makes you no better than them. Just remember the Lockerbie bomber. The US tried to extradite him for execution in America, but Alex Salmond (our leader of the Scottish Parliament) gave an awe inspiring speech where he explained that killing the man would solve nothing. The man had some advanced stages of cancer and the Scottish parliament (who had jurisdiction on the matter) ruled that the man should be allowed to die in his bed with his family. That whole thing made me massively respect Salmond.
> ...


I concede; leaving them to wither and die in a cold, dark hole is a better idea than simply killing them.


----------



## Aleu (May 1, 2012)

" You will learn the passage's historical intent, literal  interpretation, and twenty-first century application. He strives to  teach God's Word accurately and clearly, and he strives to preach God's  Word boldly"

AHAHA Yeah right.


----------



## Onnes (May 1, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> how is a girl suppose to smell? I share everything with my husband. Shower gel, same brand of deodorant ect ect. I think this bothers me the most.



I think you should be more worried that there is a crazy pastor out there that goes around sniffing little girls.


----------



## Bipolar Bear (May 1, 2012)

Wow.

Just...

Wow.



There's not a single Homophobe in this thread! Once again, my faith in FAF has risen.


----------



## Kahoku (May 1, 2012)

staticman0 said:


> Here's a revolting demonstration of Christian Loveâ„¢ from Sean Harris, the Senior Pastor of Berean Baptist Church in _*Fayetteville, North Carolina*_.  This will likely be the sickest thing you hear today, be warned.
> 
> Found Via Good As You, Retoast from Joe My God



There's the first problem right there.

And this is repulsive, I am holding back on posting anything more. I feel just rage inside building from this.


----------



## Recel (May 1, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> If Rukh was still around your faith would be destroyed pretty fast.



You think that of such an upright member of society?! Shun the unbeliever! :V


----------



## Conker (May 1, 2012)

It's shit like this that make me claim "atheist"


----------



## Vega (May 1, 2012)

To put it kindly, that pastor is one sorry excuse of a human being.



Commie Bat said:


> If Rukh was still around your faith would be destroyed pretty fast.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRB8Jor8tPs    :V


----------



## Rhampage (May 1, 2012)

My previous post was way over the line. I had no reason to express a fake want to wear another mans face, even if he does condone beating children. I often times tend to "sneeze" due to my allergies from bullshit. Violence certainly won't fix anything, but this man could definitely be the lamest fuck I have ever listened to.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (May 1, 2012)

Rhampage said:


> My previous post was way over the line. I had no reason to express a fake want to wear another mans face, even if he does condone beating children. I often times tend to "sneeze" due to my allergies from bullshit. Violence certainly won't fix anything, but this man could definitely be the lamest fuck I have ever listened to.


If you feel strongly enough on the matter to voice the opinion you hold, you'll have enough of a spine to stick by it.


----------



## ErikutoSan (May 1, 2012)

Oh look "North Carolina"...

*reads thread*


oh okay.......*walks away*


----------



## Rhampage (May 1, 2012)

RedFoxTwo said:


> If you feel strongly enough on the matter to voice the opinion you hold, you'll have enough of a spine to stick by it.



I'd stick by it if it was my actual opinion. I don't base my decisions on funny comments, rather what I actually feel.


----------



## JArt. (May 1, 2012)

I'll make sure to pray this man learns tolerance, respect, and compassion for his fellow man.

Just too sickening to describe.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 1, 2012)

Look, another crazy religious person begging for attention

"Look, look at me! Look at all the dumb shit I can say!"

This is why I argue for hate speech laws in the states, and for the Canadian laws to take away the exception regarding religious belief

Put them in and nothing of value will be lost


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 1, 2012)

RedFoxTwo said:


> If you feel strongly enough on the matter to voice the opinion you hold, you'll have enough of a spine to stick by it.


What

It's hardly ever bad to concede and adjust if you've been shown your ways are in error.


----------



## Spatel (May 1, 2012)

Apparently my state decided it wanted to try and be South Carolina this week.


----------



## triage (May 1, 2012)

Spatel said:


> Apparently my state decided it wanted to try and be South Carolina this week.



legalize moonshine already fuck


----------



## Deo (May 1, 2012)

Fathers breaking their sons wrists? Punching 8 year olds? 
I can't believe people pay to listen to this sort of thing. I don't think it's even necessary to scream about how awful this is. Everyone can agree that child abuse if fucking morally wrong. 

But this is insidious to hold children to the outwards standard stereotypes. "Look this way to be of value". I'm so pissed that womanhood is demeaned to only vanity. "You're going to act like a girl... that means you are going to be beautiful. You are going to be attractive. You are going to dress yourself up." What the fuck. The entirety of being a women is looking good for other people to look at you? I so so so fucking sick of this. In Iowa our gays are pretty much left alone, but honestly the value of a woman is still her fucking looks and no further. I'm so sick of this. I am so sick of men fretting over being manly enough, and girls striving for unachievable beauty standards; and everyone ending up miserable.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (May 1, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> What
> 
> It's hardly ever bad to concede and adjust if you've been shown your ways are in error.


I'd wholeheartedly agree that when you've been proven wrong it's better to admit your error. In contests of opinion however, there's no such thing as an objectively right answer.



Deo said:


> I'm so sick of this. I am so sick of men fretting over being manly enough, and girls striving for unachievable beauty standards; and everyone ending up miserable.


It would be lovely if people were less narrow minded and shallow, and yet all you can do is be yourself in the face of sterotypes. Unfortunately all that leads to is to be ostracised because you don't play their little game.


----------



## Kangamutt (May 1, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> If Rukh was still around your faith would be destroyed pretty fast.



Oh don't worry, we still have Darryl Wolf for that. Then again, the guy's so far in the closet, he's in grandma's old fur coats eating mothballs. :V


----------



## Aleu (May 1, 2012)

RedFoxTwo said:


> I'd wholeheartedly agree that when you've been proven wrong it's better to admit your error. In contests of opinion however, there's no such thing as an objectively right answer.


People can still change their opinions :/
No one is arguing that it's right either. Just that people can change their mind on certain things.


----------



## JArt. (May 1, 2012)

I always hear about all these horrible things people are saying/doing to homosexuals, im glad i haven't seen any of it in Texas.


----------



## Ikrit (May 1, 2012)

JArt. said:


> I always hear about all these horrible things people are saying/doing to homosexuals, *im glad i haven't seen any of it in Texas.*



...

how?


----------



## JArt. (May 1, 2012)

Ikrit said:


> ...
> 
> how?


Texas isn't as stuck in the old times as other southern states, im not saying gays are not completely safe in Texas, i've never wittnessed any bullying in my school/community. Some people do choose to avoid the homosexual students at my school, but they've never teased them.


----------



## Ikrit (May 1, 2012)

JArt. said:


> Texas isn't as stuck in the old times as other southern states, im not saying gays are not completely safe in Texas, i've never wittnessed any bullying in my school/community. Some people do choose to avoid the homosexual students at my school, but they've never teased them.



you live in dallas so i can understand that,
texas is big so it probably holds meany personas.
when i went to school in plano there was this tall black openly gay guy. and he was quite popular
he wanted to see my underwear....


----------



## JArt. (May 1, 2012)

Ikrit said:


> you live in dallas so i can understand that,
> texas is big so it probably holds meany personas.
> when i went to school in plano there was this tall black openly gay guy. and he was quite popular
> he wanted to see my underwear....


I live in Mesquite, a city within Dallas county.
Dallas is filled with many wannabe gangsta's and just all around terrible people, (there are more decent people then bad, as always) but the surrounding areas such as Mesquite are very nice, but recently we've been getting more Dallas kids and with the opening of a new Dart train system things can only go down hill. I might see more gay bashing, but i really hope i wont.


----------



## Kosdu (May 1, 2012)

JArt. said:


> Texas isn't as stuck in the old times as other southern states, im not saying gays are not completely safe in Texas, i've never wittnessed any bullying in my school/community. Some people do choose to avoid the homosexual students at my school, but they've never teased them.




I've heard El Paso was fairly safe for LGBT, an acquitance who was an open bisexual (gal) was from there.

This preacher is disgusting. I'm having to deal with a friend tearing eachother apart because he hates that he loves my other friend so much (it being a gay relationship).
It's because of pigs like this that this is happenning. If I ever saw him, one Hebrew word fits him well. Satan. It means enemy (not using it as a synonym for the devil atm).

I might even break that guys wrists, if not more.


----------



## Dragonfurry (May 1, 2012)

This is awful this guy needs to be put into a mental institution for thinking that beating the "gay" out of people is justified by his moral compass and his religion.


----------



## Kosdu (May 1, 2012)

(not to derail)

but didn't Iran start arresting kids that dressed emo?
It's a tiny bit similar, so I thought I'd bring it up.





It's reasons like this that people hate religion. Idiots, sick bastards, like this.


----------



## JArt. (May 1, 2012)

I hate this, this man is no preacher in my book. 
A real preacher would have accpeted others for their differences.


----------



## Kosdu (May 1, 2012)

JArt. said:


> I hate this, this man is no preacher in my book.
> A real preacher would have accpeted others for their differences.




If this man were at my church, I'd tell him to get his ass out. 
He isn't any preacher. It's just sick people accept him.


----------



## Rhampage (May 1, 2012)

Ok, you guys caught me. I still want to wear the guys face. . .


----------



## Lobar (May 1, 2012)

Best thing you can do to get back at this fuck if you live in NC: Go out and *vote NO ON AMENDMENT 1* next Tuesday!


----------



## Kosdu (May 1, 2012)

My Mom sent me something awesome:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7896330/- Removed due to AUP



My view on christianity.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (May 1, 2012)

Kosdu said:


> My Mom sent me something awesome:
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7896330/
> 
> 
> ...




i posted this in another thread already, also no memes on fa...


----------



## DarrylWolf (May 1, 2012)

I think the best thing to do is to just ignore them. As for myself, I can just say with a clear conscience that I am thankful that I am not like other men.


----------



## Dragonfurry (May 2, 2012)

DarrylWolf said:


> I think the best thing to do is to just ignore them. As for myself, I can just say with a clear conscience that I am thankful that I am not like other men.



Ignoring the people who beat the "gay" out of kids and people? Are you freaking serious? Or are you referring to ignoring homophobes?


----------



## DarrylWolf (May 2, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> Ignoring the people who beat the "gay" out of kids and people? Are you freaking serious? Or are you referring to ignoring homophobes?



Unless it is actually my personal problem, I do not want to deal with it. Now do you understand why I say "Thank God, I'm not like other men" so often? They have their own problems to deal with but they're going to deal with them on their own time and I am not getting my hands dirty with this.


----------



## Onnes (May 2, 2012)

DarrylWolf said:


> Unless it is actually my personal problem, I do not want to deal with it. Now do you understand why I say "Thank God, I'm not like other men" so often? They have their own problems to deal with but they're going to deal with them on their own time and I am not getting my hands dirty with this.



Encourage people to beat their kids? DarrylWolf doesn't give a shit. The utter apathy approach to social problems, otherwise known as further evidence that there is something very wrong with this dude.


----------



## DarrylWolf (May 2, 2012)

Onnes said:


> Encourage people to beat their kids? DarrylWolf doesn't give a shit. The utter apathy approach to social problems, otherwise known as further evidence that there is something very wrong with this dude.



I'm sure somebody else, someone with the authority to put these poor children into a better place away from their abusive parents will do something. But unless you are that person,or that child, what could you possibly do to prevent it? You know what, It's not like any of us can change that but we can all sigh and be upset about it, but will that change anything? So there's nothing any of us can do about it. Yes, it's horrible that something like this happens but the best response is to just be thankful that it doesn't happen to us.


----------



## Lobar (May 2, 2012)

DarrylWolf said:


> I'm sure somebody else, someone with the authority to put these poor children into a better place away from their abusive parents will do something. But unless you are that person,or that child, what could you possibly do to prevent it? You know what, It's not like any of us can change that but we can all sigh and be upset about it, but will that change anything? So there's nothing any of us can do about it. Yes, it's horrible that something like this happens but the best response is to just be thankful that it doesn't happen to us.



Not only is it far from certain that anyone else will intervene (especially if, God forbid, they think like you do), many want legal protection for this sort of Biblical "discipline" as a religious practice, and dedicated religious institutions you can send your kids away to still exist in the blind spot of the eye of the law that are damn near kiddie prison camps for Christ.


----------



## Onnes (May 2, 2012)

DarrylWolf said:


> I think the best thing to do is to just ignore them.





DarrylWolf said:


> Unless it is actually my personal problem, I do not want to deal with it.





DarrylWolf said:


> I'm sure somebody else, someone with the authority to put these poor children into a better place away from their abusive parents will do something. But unless you are that person,or that child, what could you possibly do to prevent it? You know what, It's not like any of us can change that but we can all sigh and be upset about it, but will that change anything? So there's nothing any of us can do about it. Yes, it's horrible that something like this happens but the best response is to just be thankful that it doesn't happen to us.



We're social creatures living in a democratic countries. Unless you're a hermit living off the grid with zero empathy for your fellow human beings, the issues within your experience and influence are quite diverse. You've stated that you'd rather just ignore this sort of thing. But when you ignore it you choose to live in a fantasy world of your own creation where, since you've wished away the ills of the world, there is no motivation present to actually do anything good. The key thing to take away from this particular story is that people like this preacher still live beat their children into proper traditional stereotypes. It's also an important realization that in many places our culture still has a long way to go, and culture is something that everyone participates in.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 2, 2012)

Kosdu said:


> but didn't Iran start arresting kids that dressed emo?
> It's a tiny bit similar, so I thought I'd bring it up.



I'm sure this is awful but

that just sounds way too absurd for me to take it seriously


----------



## DarrylWolf (May 2, 2012)

Onnes said:


> We're social creatures living in a democratic countries. Unless you're a hermit living off the grid with zero empathy for your fellow human beings, the issues within your experience and influence are quite diverse. You've stated that you'd rather just ignore this sort of thing. But when you ignore it you choose to live in a fantasy world of your own creation where, since you've wished away the ills of the world, there is no motivation present to actually do anything good. The key thing to take away from this particular story is that people like this preacher still live beat their children into proper traditional stereotypes. It's also an important realization that in many places our culture still has a long way to go, and culture is something that everyone participates in.



Okay, what can we actually do about it, other than sigh and say that things should be better. Can I at least hear your planned solution to this problem? Without advocating violence against this specific person, is there any way to protect these children?


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2012)

DarrylWolf said:


> I think the best thing to do is to just ignore them. As for myself, I can just say with a clear conscience that I am thankful that I am not like other men.


Clear conscience?
Evil never thrives as much as it does when good men do nothing. Shame on you, ignoring social problems doesn't make them go away. And cowardice in facing these social problems only allows malice and harm to continue.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2012)

DarrylWolf said:


> Okay, what can we actually do about it, other than sigh and say that things should be better. Can I at least hear your planned solution to this problem? Without advocating violence against this specific person, is there any way to protect these children?


By simply speaking out about things like, by voicing opposition, and by not condoning such behavior with our silence we ARE doing something about it. This calls for action, not inaction and the continued blind eye towards problems. And it calls for action from each of us in our own communites, "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need". There are children in local schools who suffer needlessly, and volunteerism at Boys and Girls clubs, or mentoring, or even volunteering at your religious place if you have one will help. It's up to us to report anything we notice, like a child with a broken wrist. It's up to hospitals not to ignore such things, and it's up to police to act, but it is upon us to be vigilant. It is up to us to hold fortitude through social nastiness and to crush this era of hate. The youth of today are growing, times are changing, and the status quo of bigotry *will* change. Now, will you simply ignore your civic moral duty and have your silence condone such abuse? Or will you too be a voice against such human atrocity? All human atrocity?

As far as action goes, I'm writing to a few newspapers today.  The Quad City Times, The Charlotte Observer (NC's largest newspaper), and the Fayetteville Observer. I urge you to do the same. Oh and you can phone or write to the church itself: 
*Berean Baptist Churchâ€Ž
*
*517 Glensford Drive
*
*Fayetteville, NC 28314*

*(910) 868-5156*


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2012)

In fact, you lazy fuckers, you can help me.

Here are some people to e-mail, if some of you e-mail them too then they are more likely to listen than if I e-mail them by myself.
*
Charlotte Observer's Staff:*
 Email a local news tip:local@charlotteobserver.com
 Editor and Chief *Rick Thames*: opinion@charlotteobserver.com (704) 358-5001
Opinion Staff *Fannie Flono*: fflono@charlotteobserver.com (704) 358-5079
Opinion Staff *Taylor Batten*:tbatten@charlotteobserver.com (704) 358-5934
Religious Section *Tim Flunk*: tfunk@charlotteobserver.com (704) 358-5703 

*Fayettevill Observer's Staff:
* (910) 323-4848 or (800) 682-3476 or (910) 486-3545
eletters@fayobserver.com
Executive editor, Mike Arnholt: (910) 486-3558, arnholtm@fayobserver.com
Editorial page editor, Tim White: (910) 486-3504, whitet@fayobserver.com

*And write to your own goddamn newspaper.*

*You're angry? This upsets you? USE THAT ANGER. MAKE SOME GODDAMN NOISE IN PLACES WHERE IT CAN MEAN SOMETHING, CHANGE SOMETHING. TAKE ACTION.*


----------



## Lunar (May 2, 2012)

I'm eager to see what Zinnia Jones has to say on the subject.  His videos are pretty damned amazing.

Southland, this is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## Kangamutt (May 2, 2012)

DarrylWolf said:


> Okay, what can we actually do about it, other than sigh and say that things should be better. Can I at least hear your planned solution to this problem? Without advocating violence against this specific person, is there any way to protect these children?



It's better to do something than nothing.

"Action cures fear, inaction creates terror"
-Douglas Horton

"I never worry about action, but only inaction."
-Winston Churchill

"There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction."
-John F. Kennedy.

Essentially, sitting here and sighing will only let this horror continue. Even that old, old, Christian saying can apply to this.
"Idle hands do the Devil's work."
Sit there and twiddle your fucking thumbs, it will only continue.

As for me, I will be composing a letter tomorrow to send to the excellent sources that Deo has so kindly provided. Getting the word out, and collectively voicing our disapproval is at this moment, the best most of us can do.


----------



## Rilvor (May 2, 2012)

I'm glad to see we're working on a course of action here, rather than raging like impotent teenagers with pretend violent scenarios.

I am curious to see if anyone gets a response from their efforts, please do post it. Social pressure can be felt by even the most bullheaded.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> I'm glad to see we're working on a course of action here, rather than raging like impotent teenagers with pretend violent scenarios.


Agreed. I hope you all actually do take action, especially since I took the minimal effort of listing people you can contact in NC newspapers.



Rilvor said:


> I am curious to see if anyone gets a response from their efforts, please  do post it. Social pressure can be felt be even the most bullheaded.


If I get anything in reply I will post it.


----------



## Rilvor (May 2, 2012)

Deo said:


> Agreed. I hope you all actually do take action, especially since I took the minimal effort of listing people you can contact in NC newspapers.
> 
> 
> If I get anything in reply I will post it.



It is too late at night for me to remember them, but I imagine there are some organizations against child violence that want to know this too.

I will also repost this story in some other forums I am on.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> It is too late at night for me to remember them, but I imagine there are some organizations against child violence that want to know this too.


That is a great idea. Children's Advocacy groups and other organizations against child abuse would be great people to contact.

*United Way of Cumberland County* (Fayettville) 
Phone: (910) 483-1179
 Shirly Stallings: shirleystallings@unitedway-cc.org
Ruthy Dent: ruthiedent@unitedway-cc.org
Tammy Laurence: tammylaurence@unitedway-cc.org
Crystal McNair: crystalmoore@unitedway-cc.org

*Children's Advocacy Centers of North Carolina*: 
Phone: (336)886-4589
Cathy Purvis, Executive Director: cpurvis@northstate.net
Angie Brown, Training Coordinator: apbrown@northstate.net
*
Prevent Child Abuse America*
            Phone: 312.663.3520 or 18002445373
            Fax: 312.939.8962 
            E-mail: mailbox@preventchildabuse.org
Ben Tanzer: btanzer@preventchildabuse.org                 Phone: 312.663.3520             x823


----------



## Sar (May 2, 2012)

Abusing children if they any signs of being like the opposite sex is just pointless and easily misinterpretted. 
DURRR GREAT PARENTING, SEAN HARRIS. 
Beating your kids so they feel what they think is wrong and then abusing their kids.
REALLY GONNA WIN FATHER OF THE YEAR ALL RIGHT!

*CUNT.*

How the fuck does this guys wife even look at him in the morning without shooting him in the testicles? 
It is the best thing for someone like him so his bigotry cannot pass on to his offspring.

They're place has a facebook as well. 
Someone already posted about the whole issue and their reply was:



			
				facebook said:
			
		

> To those wondering about the  video I would just invite you to listen to  the section at 48:16-48:30  over and over where he says we must love  homosexuals in our home and not  be homophobic if you want a better  understanding of what Pastor Sean is  like and place the sensationalized  comments in proper context. Pastor  Sean does not believe in physical  abuse of children but some people only  hear what they want and will  continue to do so.



Typical Bigots. Ignore the part about the wrist breaking.

He apparently doesent believe in the abuse of children. Take a look at the evidence, you asswipe!

This guy is just horrible. 
If they did have children, they should follow his advice about going out side and digging a ditch. 
Yeah, dig a big ass ditch, then throw him in it and bury him alive.

I need a drink. Fuck it being 11am.
-----------------------------------------
(This is probably wrong at some points. This guy just stikes a nerve about something in my life.)



Deo said:


> In fact, you lazy fuckers, you can help me.
> 
> Here are some people to e-mail, if some of you e-mail them too then they are more likely to listen than if I e-mail them by myself.



Wayyy ahead of you.
Here is the link to their facebook page for people too lazy to email.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Berean-Baptist-Singles-Ministry/117764074918034


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 2, 2012)

Onnes said:


> Encourage people to beat their kids? DarrylWolf doesn't give a shit. The utter apathy approach to social problems, otherwise known as further evidence that there is something very wrong with this dude.


 Indeed. You'd have to be some kind of autistic robot to think this will accomplish anything.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2012)

http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2012/05/02/1174936?sac=fo.local
The Berean Baptist church also runs a k-12 school. I'm horrified.
In other news Pastor Sean Harris tells reporters he was joking, and that everything is just a misunderstanding. Basically: It's the gays fault.
And on their facebook page they are quoting the_ Princess Bride _movie as a defense.

Here is a link to the full 55 minute lecture: http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopupvideo.asp?SID=42912940300

He looks really creepy too. Yikes.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2012)

Nothing like a little media attention to make some asshole eat their words.

The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/north-carolina-pastor-sea_n_1468618.html
The Inquisitr: http://www.inquisitr.com/228651/pastor-sean-harris-parents-should-punch-gay-acting-students/
Forbes, Daily Mail, Houston Chronicle, New York Daily, International Business Times, Washington Post, and NBC of North Carolina have also picked up the story. But these are only online articles. More pressure is needed for print you guys.

And I find it humorous and heartening that *Baptists Today *denounced Mr. Sean Harris: http://www.baptiststoday.org/cartledge-blog/2012/5/1/read-it-and-weep-or-worse.html


----------



## Aleu (May 2, 2012)

I want to write a heavily detailed and angry letter to these people after listening to his sermon in context but...IT'S SO FUCKING HARD NOT TO CLICK OUT AND/OR PUNCH MY SCREEN.


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

So do we have any more videos of the guy or should we form our entire opinion of him based on a video that's less than 2 minutes long?


----------



## Rilvor (May 2, 2012)

Thank you for the links to public reaction, Deo. Backpeddling as expected. Of course he was joking, just like a certain someone in gaming news was only joking about preventing console owners from playing used games. Public backlash and social pressure, folks.

Brazen, you are trying awfully hard. A good try, but an awfully hard one.


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> Brazen, you are trying awfully hard. A good try, but an awfully hard one.



I'm just saying that if this was his typical outlook on things why hasn't he received media attention before? The guy hardly sounded calm and composed in that video, maybe he was just having a bad day.


----------



## Rilvor (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> I'm just saying that if this was his typical outlook on things why hasn't he received media attention before? The guy hardly sounded calm and composed in that video, maybe he was just having a bad day.



Maybe he's just repressed and this is how he secretly felt all along.

They're both arguments for arguments sake, but now we're being silly.


----------



## Kangamutt (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> I'm just saying that if this was his typical outlook on things why hasn't he received media attention before? The guy hardly sounded calm and composed in that video, maybe he was just having a bad day.



Considering the state's amendment 1 going around, I'm sure this asshole is getting up in arms. This kind of bullshit does tend to become more prevalent during election year.


----------



## CaptainCool (May 2, 2012)

whats his problem? did a gay guy rape him or something? because he sure does sound a little analy aggrivated.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (May 2, 2012)

CaptainCool said:


> whats his problem? *did a gay guy rape him or something?* because he sure does sound a little analy aggrivated.




what does this have to do with the price of eggs in china?


----------



## Aleu (May 2, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> what does this have to do with the price of eggs in china?



...What?


----------



## CaptainCool (May 2, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> what does this have to do with the price of eggs in china?



nothing. and everything.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (May 2, 2012)

Aleu said:


> ...What?




oh come on woman you live in the south ;A;

it means, what does this have to do with anything relating to the topic at hand.


----------



## Kangamutt (May 2, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> what does this have to do with the price of eggs in china?



Well, if you studied, you would have noticed the gay buttsex/egg price curve scale in chapter 28.


----------



## Aleu (May 2, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> oh come on woman you live in the south ;A;
> 
> it means, what does this have to do with anything relating to the topic at hand.



The man has a hate boner for gays. CC was inquiring as to why man has hate boner for gays.


ALSO I QUOTED THE MAN ON THE FACEBOOK PAGE AND I WAS DELETED AND BANNED LOL


----------



## CaptainCool (May 2, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> oh come on woman you live in the south ;A;
> 
> it means, what does this have to do with anything relating to the topic at hand.



of course it does^^ it was just supposed to be a sarcastic remark why he is so angry about homosexuals. angry anal sex? butthurt? :3
but i dont blame you, english not being my native language combined with the fact that im usually not very funny results in some really terrible jokes :c


----------



## dinosaurdammit (May 2, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> I'm sure this is awful but
> 
> that just sounds way too absurd for me to take it seriously




actually they were murdering them by pelting them with rocks


----------



## staticman0 (May 2, 2012)

*Update:  *
*Pastor Sean Harris: I'm Sorry That You Were Offended When I Said Kids Should Have The Gay Beaten Out Of Them*

Earlier today Deo on page 4 posted a news report   which quoted Pastor Sean Harris as saying that he was only joking when   he told his congregation that they should beat the gay out of  non-gender  conforming children.  Harris has now posted a lengthy  "official  statement of retraction" on his personal blog. But as is typical with his repulsive ilk, he isn't actually sorry at all.



> I do not apologize for the manner in which  the Word of God  articulates sexual immorality, including homosexuality  and effeminacy,  as a behavior that is an abomination to God. Nothing in  this official  statement of retraction should be perceived as an apology  for the  overarching intent and message of the sermon and the need to  define  marriage as one man and one woman and to maintain the gender   distinctions that God created from the beginning when He made them male   and female (Genesis 1). I recognize that there are those in the LGBT   community who believe that their sexual behavior is not sin. I do not   agree with them and this official retraction should not be misunderstood   as an apology for the gospel of Jesus Christ or the Word of God. I do   not apologize for the manner in which I emphasized the importance of  one  man and one woman getting married and staying married for the  benefit  of their children and society.



Not incidentally, we should all give props to _Good As You_  activist Jeremy Hooper for once again overturning another stone of  Christian Loveâ„¢ to reveal the squirming maggots beneath.  Thanks to  Hooper (and _you_),  Pastor Harris has been denounced and shamed  across North Carolina.   Harris clearly doesn't care, but hopefully the  next preacher will think  twice before he sends a young congregant  reaching for the razor blades.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> I'm just saying that if this was his typical outlook on things why hasn't he received media attention before? The guy hardly sounded calm and composed in that video, maybe he was just having a bad day.


I listened to the whole 55 minutes, it really stays in the same vein. Then I listened to a few of his other sermons, and read some sermon notes. This is a man consumed by hate.

Also, his reaction to the media pressure alone would make me despise him. "I was joking". Who the fuck jokes about encouraging child abuse? That's not a joke, ever. And in listening to the whole sermon, you can tell it's not a joke and with the "amen"s that are shouted in response... yeah, no joke.


			
				Sean Harris said:
			
		

> I did not think that these words were going to be twisted out of context in such a hateful way.


Anyone who even remotely considers that advocating child abuse and publicly shamed for it is "twisting it out of context" is either a complete asshole or profoundly lacking empathy and humanity.


----------



## Aleu (May 2, 2012)

Deo said:


> I listened to the whole 55 minutes, it really stays in the same vein. Then I listened to a few of his other sermons, and read some sermon notes. This is a man consumed by hate.
> 
> Also, his reaction to the media pressure alone would make me despise him. "I was joking". Who the fuck jokes about encouraging child abuse? That's not a joke, ever. And in listening to the whole sermon, you can tell it's not a joke and with the "amen"s that are shouted in response... yeah, no joke.



One person tried to explain what he said by saying "Oh, yeah he said punch BUT HE DIDN'T MEAN TO PUNCH THE KID"

Ah...okay


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Deo said:


> you can tell it's not a joke and with the "amen"s that are shouted in response... yeah, no joke.



About that... is there any word on what the pastor's congregation think? I mean he was directly addressing them when saying all of this, if they're in favour of what he says then I'm not even sure if he did anything wrong. The man makes a living by telling people what they want to hear, the religious come to his churches and pay donations to engage in a moral circle-jerk for a few hours (kind of like FaF in a sense), if that's the case then putting all the blame on the guy is glancing over the fact that he's only able to do it because everyone around him is in full accord.


----------



## Rilvor (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> About that... is there any word on what the pastor's congregation think? I mean he was directly addressing them when saying all of this, if they're in favour of what he says then I'm not even sure if he did anything wrong. The man makes a living by telling people what they want to hear, the religious come to his churches and pay donations to engage in a moral circle-jerk for a few hours (kind of like FaF in a sense), if that's the case then putting all the blame on the guy is glancing over the fact that he's only able to do it because everyone around him is in full accord.



It's no surprise that people will surround themselves with naught but people who agree with them.

Social pressure goes a long way at silencing or driving out dissenters.


----------



## Aleu (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> About that... is there any word on what the pastor's congregation think? I mean he was directly addressing them when saying all of this, if they're in favour of what he says then I'm not even sure if he did anything wrong. The man makes a living by telling people what they want to hear, the religious come to his churches and pay donations to engage in a moral circle-jerk for a few hours (kind of like FaF in a sense), if that's the case then putting all the blame on the guy is glancing over the fact that he's only able to do it because everyone around him is in full accord.


Just because someone agrees with "YEAH PUNCH KIDS" doesn't mean that the person saying it isn't doing anything wrong.


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Just because someone agrees with "YEAH PUNCH KIDS" doesn't mean that the person saying it isn't doing anything wrong.



I hardly see what it changes if he's saying it to people who all already believe it. A church isn't a public place, it's not the same as delivering a soapbox rant in the middle of the street, he was proselytizing to people who specifically came to hear him proselytize about that thing.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> About that... is there any word on what the pastor's congregation think? I mean he was directly addressing them when saying all of this, if they're in favour of what he says then I'm not even sure if he did anything wrong. The man makes a living by telling people what they want to hear, the religious come to his churches and pay donations to engage in a moral circle-jerk for a few hours (kind of like FaF in a sense), if that's the case then putting all the blame on the guy is glancing over the fact that he's only able to do it because everyone around him is in full accord.


That's actually very accurate. Berean Baptist has a distinctive "cult" atmosphere. For instance, you cannot just join. You have to sign up (and pay for) Sam Harris' 8 week pre-membership registration course called "First Class", then there's a registration fee before admittance. So in essence they either reject the outliers or train them in with Bible Bootcamp before they're even allowed to attend the church itself. Reading all of that about the "First Class" is sort of horrifying. But it does create an inner power circle of control over members and allows in only members who are absolutely compliant.


----------



## Aleu (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> I hardly see what it changes if he's saying it to people who all already believe it. A church isn't a public place, it's not the same as delivering a soapbox rant in the middle of the street, he was proselytizing to people who specifically came to hear him proselytize about that thing.


So?


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> I hardly see what it changes if he's saying it to people who all already believe it. A church isn't a public place, it's not the same as delivering a soapbox rant in the middle of the street, he was proselytizing to people who specifically came to hear him proselytize about that thing.


I think this just means that we speak out against the whole organization and not only him.


----------



## Rilvor (May 2, 2012)

Deo said:


> That's actually very accurate. Berean Baptist has a distinctive "cult" atmosphere. For instance, you cannot just join. You have to sign up (and pay for) Sam Harris' 8 week pre-membership registration course called "First Class", then there's a registration fee before admittance. So in essence they either reject the outliers or train them in with Bible Bootcamp before they're even allowed to attend the church itself. Reading all of that about the "First Class" is sort of horrifying. But it does create an inner power circle of control over members and allows in only members who are absolutely in the thrall.



Goodness, that is unsettling. I suppose I shouldn't be, but it is.


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Aleu said:


> So?



Exactly, so? So what if some guy says something to like-minded guys behind closed doors?


----------



## Aleu (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> Exactly, so? So what if some guy says something to like-minded guys behind closed doors?



Telling like-minded guys that it's okay to hit children and you see nothing wrong with this?


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> Goodness, that is unsettling. I suppose I shouldn't be, but it is.


Money, control, and a sense of "special community" filled with a small fervently devoted population; all key components of running a functioning cult. Keep in mind that Berean is also a K-12 school, so not only do they take control over the spiritual life, but also the lives of easily manipulated children, and through them, control of familial matters.



> Cult: A group or movement exhibiting great or excessive devotion or  dedication to some person, idea, or thing, and employing unethical  manipulative or coercive techniques of persuasion and control (e.g.,  isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special  methods to heighten suggestibility or subservience, powerful group  pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or  critical judgment, promotion of total dependency upon the group and fear  of leaving it), designed to advance the group's leaders, to the actual  or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community.






Aleu said:


> Telling like-minded guys that it's okay to hit children and you see nothing wrong with this?


HELLOOOOO YOU ARE TALKING TO BRAZEN


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Telling like-minded guys that it's okay to hit children and you see nothing wrong with this?



Not any more than all the threats of violence I see on typical FaF. He was in familiar company, apparently very exclusive familiar company, whether or not what he says is wrong is irrelevant, I'm overstepping my bounds by telling him what he can say in what amounts to a private conversation.

I realise you Americans have a difficulty with the whole notion of privacy, but I don't. I'm ok with stopping the church from affecting government affairs, I'm more-or-less ok with stopping the church teaching gospel in public place, I'm not however ok with going into a church and telling people what they can't believe amongst themselves.


----------



## Aleu (May 2, 2012)

Deo said:


> HELLOOOOO YOU ARE TALKING TO BRAZEN


You know that game in school where kids punch each other in the knuckles to see who bleeds or backs out first? Yeah, it's like that.



Brazen said:


> Not any more than all the threats of violence I see on typical FaF. He was in familiar company, apparently very exclusive familiar company, whether or not what he says is wrong is irrelevant, I'm overstepping my bounds by telling him what he can say in what amounts to a private conversation.



Advocating violence against children who have done nothing wrong to people who can (and probably would) do something because of it verses angry ramblings of people on a furry forum voicing empty threats where chances of action are less the 0%.

Quite a leap there.


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Advocating violence against children who have done nothing wrong to people who can (and probably would) do something because of it verses angry ramblings of people on a furry forum voicing empty threats where chances of action are less the 0%.
> Quite a leap there.



Oh, ok, so now you're qualified to evaluate the family lives of the people who were hypothetically present at that sermon because of their mere presence.

"Hurr they would murder their kids for being gay, they're Christian!".


----------



## Aleu (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> Oh, ok, so now you're qualified to evaluate the family lives of the people who were hypothetically present at that sermon because of their mere presence.
> 
> "Hurr they would murder their kids for being gay, they're Christian!".


Not by their presence but by voicing their agreement out loud.

Unless you want to argue that they have some form of Tourette's.


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Also, if one of the previous comments is to be believed corporeal punishment is legal in NC, so the pastor wasn't even endorsing any criminal activity. "Oh but smacking children for being gay is in poor taste", yeah, but you know whose authority that falls under? The parents', unless they're deemed unfit and have their children taken away by the appropriate agencies.



Aleu said:


> Not by their presence but by voicing their agreement out loud.
> 
> Unless you want to argue that they have some form of Tourette's.



Not necessarily, welcome to the concept of mob mentality. Priesting 101: rile up the crowd and they'll set their clear thinking to stand-by.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2012)

Wow. This thread went from petty impotent bitching, to writing letters and actually doing shit, back to petty impotent bitching. 
Way to go FAF.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 2, 2012)

To be fair

It doesn't really matter where you say something

If I tell my best friend in private that I wanted to beat the black out of people

I would still be an utter douche



			
				what said:
			
		

> "We know when you're saying something seriously and when were supposed to just understand the intent and not the application,' " Harris said.




So now we're getting the age-old christian reaction to calling BS, "you're not supposed to take it literally!"

I hate this because it doesn't even make sense. To not take the bible literally means to accept that there's a level of abstraction to the stories, and to only glean the messages from them. The message of, in this case, "I want you to beat your children if you suspect they are gay"

See how this doesn't apply at all. When you're not writing in metaphor, and you are instead speaking literally, the literal interpretation becomes the meaning

but who gives a care he's a dick anyway and no one is falling for it


----------



## Aleu (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> Also, if one of the previous comments is to be believed corporeal punishment is legal in NC, so the pastor wasn't even endorsing any criminal activity. "Oh but smacking children for being gay is in poor taste", yeah, but you know whose authority that falls under? The parents', unless they're deemed unfit and have their children taken away by the appropriate agencies.
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, welcome to the concept of mob mentality. Priesting 101: rile up the crowd and they'll set their clear thinking to stand-by.


There's a difference between corporal punishment and cracking a kid's wrist. You can't punch a kid in the face and then claim "corporal punishment" or else it wouldn't be considered child abuse.


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> "Hurr they would murder their kids for being gay, they're Christian!".


Aleu is Christian, Braz. 

That said, most of the posters here who advocated violence against these people were rather sternly rebutted by Deo, Rilvor, et al. 

Those people have a right to spew hatred about gays, sure. We also have a right to criticize them right back. No one is actually stopping them. We can write all the emails and make all the phone calls we want and they'll still be able to do their thing. The only thing on them is social pressure and it's totally up to them whether or not they're going to respond to it.


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Aleu said:


> There's a difference between corporal punishment and cracking a kid's wrist. You can't punch a kid in the face and then claim "corporal punishment" or else it wouldn't be considered child abuse.



Question of severity, cracking a kid across the wrist is one thing, snapping their arm like a twig or inverting their nose is another.



Ad Hoc said:


> Those people have a right to spew hatred about gays, sure. We also have a  right to criticize them right back. No one is actually stopping them.  We can write all the emails and make all the phone calls we want and  they'll still be able to do their thing. The only thing on them is  social pressure and it's totally up to them whether or not they're going  to respond to it.



I know that, but every argument has 2 sides, and whenever FaF ends up  being overwhelmingly one-sided in an argument I take it upon myself to  play devil's advocate and represent the other in the name of fairness  and because it makes people mad to have their opinions rebutted.


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Double post, disregard.


----------



## Aleu (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> I know that, but every argument has 2 sides, and whenever FaF ends up being overwhelmingly one-sided in an argument I take it upon myself to play devil's advocate and represent the other in the name of fairness and because it makes people mad to have their opinions rebutted.


Except they've already responded with "oh taking out of context" or "we're only joking lol".


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> I know that, but every argument has 2 sides, and whenever FaF ends up  being overwhelmingly one-sided in an argument I take it upon myself to  play devil's advocate and represent the other in the name of fairness  and because it makes people mad to have their opinions rebutted.


Oh, okay. Well, you keep doing your thing then, man.


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Except they've already responded with "oh taking out of context" or "we're only joking lol".



Not on these forums they didn't.

Plus, they're Christfags, they're naturally biased, as are most of you. I'm privileged enough to be a heterosexual pantheist who has never had a single bad personal experience with any organized religion, so I'm true neutral when it comes to objectivity.

That reminds me, another R&R thread about gays coming soon, hope to go over a mere 8 pages this time.


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Those people have a right to spew hatred about gays, sure. We also have a right to criticize them right back. No one is actually stopping them. We can write all the emails and make all the phone calls we want and they'll still be able to do their thing. The only thing on them is social pressure and it's totally up to them whether or not they're going to respond to it.


Which is in most part true. And regrettably from the information I've seen (like the 8 week boot camp) it is highly unlikely that social pressure alone will cause any rift in this church. However, it will dissuade new followers and there is the possibility of people leaving the church. With the initiation and careful control the church seems to keep on it's members it is a slim chance of their people leaving, but even one or two would be better than none.

But beyond the social pressure on this church we will have heightened awareness in North Carolina. Hospitals, already on alert for such things as child abuse may up their vigilance. Police may take special interest in monitoring such groups (just like the outing of KKK members left the police more watchful and in their watch less crimes were committed). There is also the matter at hand of Amendment One, North Carolina's legislation to change their constitution to prohibit gay marriage (which is already illegal in the state). This social pressure and the outing of violent factions that support such inequality will cause solidarity amongst those who will vote against Amendment 1. And destroying Amendment 1 is another step in the right direction of social justice, equality, and tolerance. So if this voice of abuse strikes the fires in voters to go out and take action against Amendment 1, then more power to us.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> Question of severity, cracking a kid across the wrist is one thing, snapping their arm like a twig or inverting their nose is another.



When you crack something, you are making a crack in it

Which would imply breaking the bone

Unless this is some Southern slang I'm unaware of


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Unless this is some Southern slang I'm unaware of



Cracking as in cracking a whip, I assume.


----------



## Aleu (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> Cracking as in cracking a whip, I assume.



No. It means actually breaking the bone.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> Cracking as in cracking a whip, I assume.



Oh, well then

That doesn't really change my view on the guy, but I guess it changes him from "guy who would break childrens arms for being maybe gay" (which seems cartoonishly evil and specific) to "Guy who wants you to hit children for maybe being gay" (still cartoonishly evil, but not so much)

I guess on the "cartoonishly evil" scale, now he's a bit less than the antagonists from The Hunger Games



Aleu said:


> No. It means actually breaking the bone.


I think this line of discussion is p. arbitrary, regardless of the degree he wants to beat children

-He still wants to beat children-

The severity shouldn't really matter


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Oh, well then
> 
> That doesn't really change my view on the guy, but I guess it changes him from "guy who would break childrens arms for being maybe gay" (which seems cartoonishly evil and specific) to "Guy who wants you to hit children for maybe being gay" (still cartoonishly evil, but not so much)
> 
> I guess on the "cartoonishly evil" scale, now he's a bit less than the antagonists from The Hunger Games



So basically everyone everywhere throughout history is cartoonishly evil?


----------



## Deo (May 2, 2012)

Jesus fuck people, are we really going to argue about the semantic usage of the word "crack"? How about we all just agree that people shouldn't crack or punch children at all. 
Your petulantly childish game of "bloody knuckels" over the internet is ridiculous. Brazen, I can't say I blame you. That would be like shaking your finger and scolding a flood after a snow melt, it's your nature and we're all well aware of it. But come on Aleu, you are better than this baiting.


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Deo said:


> Jesus fuck people, are we really going to argue about the semantic usage of the word "crack"? How about we all just agree that people shouldn't crack or punch children at all.



Now hold on there, lets not make any drastic statements like that. There are plenty of times when corporeal punishment on children is acceptable, same for punching children under very specific conditions (punch buggy, 2 for flinching etc).

But no, apparently if the US government itself doesn't enforce anti-corporeal punishment laws beyond standard child abuse cases then the question of whether or not it's acceptable to discipline children with a smack isn't as clear-cut as you would like to believe it is.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> So basically everyone everywhere throughout history is cartoonishly evil?



They are when their goals are absurd

Like the idea of "beating the gay out of children"

There's no logic, just dumb evil



Brazen said:


> There are plenty of times when corporeal punishment on children is acceptable, same for punching children under very specific conditions (punch buggy, 2 for flinching etc).



It should probably be noted, because I know there are people who would think otherwise out there, that when you punch a child for "punch buggy", it's not supposed to be hard enough to hurt them

and IIRC 2-4-flinching is like, the calling card of a douche-nozzle

Fucking tweens I hate all of them


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> They are when their goals are absurd
> 
> Like the idea of "beating the gay out of children"
> 
> There's no logic, just dumb evil



They didn't think it was evil though.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> They didn't think it was evil though.



Neither do a lot of history's worst people

They're misguided, to the point where their actions infringe on basic human rights, and their logic is incredibly absurd

I mentioned earlier that I couldn't take "the taliban beating kids for being emo" seriously because, well, what the fuck

It's just people being mean for the sake of being mean, and then justifying it with religious texts (which they will, without a doubt, pick and choose passages from)

I can't remember if I posted this earlier, but I meant to call this pastor out as being no better than a school-yard bully


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Neither do a lot of history's worst people
> 
> They're misguided, to the point where their actions infringe on basic human rights, and their logic is incredibly absurd
> 
> ...



That's the difference between us then, I don't consider myself to be wiser than these people when it comes to the big picture, being able to know how genetics works or putting together a integrated circuit does not put me on a higher pedestal than the people from 50 years ago, or 100 years ago when dealing with subjective truths.

Most importantly I know that 50 or 100 years from now people will be looking at us and thinking we're monsters for doing what we consider the most benign and socially acceptable things.

As for not actively persecuting people, a lot (I would go so far as to say most) of the time it's not because someone is a genuinely good person or a better person than someone else, it's because they're lazy. You're not a good person if you don't throw rocks at someone, you're a good person if you actively help someone, irony of ironies is that these people who stone gays and crack children are also those who probably give to charities and help other people who fall within their idea of acceptability. Islam for example has some incredible social protection for the elderly while totally wiping out gays, who is to say that one makes them more evil than the other makes them good.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> As for not actively persecuting people, a lot (I would go so far as to say most) of the time it's not because someone is a genuinely good person or a better person than someone else, it's because they're lazy. You're not a good person if you don't throw rocks at someone, you're a good person if you actively help someone, irony of ironies is that these people who stone gays and crack children are also those who probably give to charities and help other people who fall within their idea of acceptability. Islam for example has some incredible social protection for the elderly while totally wiping out gays, who is to say that one makes them more evil than the other makes them good.



This is a generalization

Show me the proof that mister harris has done any good, at all

Then with that proof you're going to have to convince me that the good he does outweighs him calling for the beating of children

And also, I think you just said the only reason why I'm not intolerant is because I'm lazy? erm :|

EDIT: So I googled "Any good Pastor Harris has done at all" and didn't find anything useful

and then I found this which is an interesting article, tying this issue in with the dan savage one in that RandR thread

And to make my first point more clear, please do not generalize all organized religion as "people who do good work"

Because for one that's not true and we know it, there's obv. some bad and some good, and this guy is obv. bad

And also we're attacking this one person. It doesn't even matter if he's a preacher or not. If he was a senator, or a fireman, or whatever, we'd still criticize him for his advocacy of child-abuse. This is not a thread for attacking organized religion


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> This is a generalization
> Show me the proof that mister harris has done any good, at all



Show me proof that he has done any ill beyond idle words. I don't know the man any better than you, that is to say neither of us know him at all.



Tybalt Maxwell said:


> And also, I think you just said the only reason why I'm not intolerant is because I'm lazy? erm



Well feel free to correct me then. What sort of charities are you involved in? How much blood do you donate? How many times have you been on humanitarian trips to Africa?


----------



## RedFoxTwo (May 2, 2012)

The fact that somebody does a good deed does not excuse them from a bad deed they also did. 

To judge a person on a sliding scale of "Good" or "Evil" as a summation of their actions is ridiculous. Bad actions should be halted and punished appropriately, while good actions should be praised. Any good deeds Harris may or may not have done are completely irrelevant to the fact that *he's inciting violence against minors*.

Similarly, whether or not Tybalt is a good samaritan should have no impact on his point that Harris is in the wrong.


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

RedFoxTwo said:


> that Harris is in the wrong.



According to whom? The legal system which finds what he advocates within the boundaries of the law, the congregation who come to have someone verbalise what they already believe or some random strangers on opposite sides of the globe who got a hold of a recording and whose sensibilities were suddenly offended? We're not talking about some sort of war crime here, we're talking about purely biased opinions on parenting


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> Show me proof that he has done any ill beyond idle words. I don't know the man any better than you, that is to say neither of us know him at all.
> 
> Well feel free to correct me then. What sort of charities are you involved in? How much blood do you donate? How many times have you been on humanitarian trips to Africa?



"Idle words" have power to them, if you think that a preacher has no power over his congregation then you aren't really using your head

I don't need to be humanitarian#1 to criticize someone's morality. I shouldn't need credentials in morality in order to partake in a debate over whether child abuse is wrong

but sure, let's just make one little tangent so I can talk about myself (because I just ~love~ talking about my self <3)

Charities, I'm not involved in any. Don't really have a steady source of income. Sometimes I have extra spending money, and I donate to friends of mine who are struggling for cash (usually as a comish with a nice tip). Sometimes I drop my change off in the little charity recepticals at the store. I haven't donated anything substantial, but it's still more than I can afford when I'm living off 60~ dollars a month

Blood, I'm actually not allowed to donate. As an open homosexual it is illegal for me to donate blood \:3/

Visitations to Africa, I'm kind of busy with commitments over here (just recently graduated, trying to find a job in a tough economy) to hitch a ride across the ocean. I haven't really got my life sorted out, and unfortunately that has to take priority

So as you can see you're assumption on my character was... wrong I guess? I mean, you were right that I am not donating blood, or involved in Africa, but most would say I -am- a good person. I volunteer hours of my time at the local library, donate money where I can, and I'm generally cordial/polite/etc with people.

You're right, just being tolerant doesn't make you a good person, because tolerance is just the removal of prejudice from your own character, excising something bad from yourself rather than being actively good

But you're incorrect in assuming that I'm not a good person, because I am criticizing this person for their barbaric and absurd mindset. 

This persons words, what he is telling them to do, will lead to children getting hurt. I shouldn't even -need- to be a "good person" in order to have an opinion on his character


----------



## RedFoxTwo (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> According to whom?


According to sections 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. 

That's just the UK though. I don't know what the US laws are, but I'd seriously lose respect in the United States if they allow incitement to violence against kids.


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> But you're incorrect in assuming that I'm not a good person, because I am criticizing this person for their barbaric and absurd mindset.
> This persons words, what he is telling them to do, will lead to children getting hurt. I shouldn't even -need- to be a "good person" in order to have an opinion on his character



But what authority do you have to make such minute criticisms of a person's belief set? Again, we're not talking about blatant prison-sentence crime here, we're talking about what falls within the purview of parenting.

"Oh bloo bloo, children will get hurt". A few kids get a smack, so what? Your grandparents probably got it worse than that and I'm sure they didn't turn out to be deranged monsters.




RedFoxTwo said:


> According to sections 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
> 
> That's just the UK though. I don't know what the US laws are, but I'd   seriously lose respect in the United States if they allow incitement to   violence against kids.



Once again, I'm operating on the  assumption that North Carolina where  this is happening has legalised  corporeal punishment against children,  which someone else has said it  does.


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Another double post.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> I'm operating on the  assumption that North Carolina where  this is happening has legalised  corporeal punishment against children,  which someone else has said it  does.


Well then I've nothing more to say. Shame on you, America.


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

RedFoxTwo said:


> Well then I've nothing more to say. Shame on you, America.



I concur, take it up with the legal system, not those enjoying its benefits.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> But what authority do you have to make such minute criticisms of a person's belief set? Again, we're not talking about blatant prison-sentence crime here, we're talking about what falls within the purview of parenting.
> 
> "Oh bloo bloo, children will get hurt". A few kids get a smack, so what? Your grandparents probably got it worse than that and I'm sure they didn't turn out to be deranged monsters.


I don't need authority in order to have an opinion

It's a basic human right

As in I was born with a brain, a fully functioning one, and part of that full functioning is that I can make judgements

and if people agree with that judgement then fine and if people disagree then that is fine too

And also

You cannot justify future harm with past atrocities

And also

It's scientifically proven that abuse is bad for the health of children. Your anecdotal "My grandparents are alive" doesn't really take away from that

This is not even digging into the fact that it's encouraging parents to abuse their children over sexuality, which leads to repressed sexuality, which is a whole nother can of psychosis worms


----------



## Spatel (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> Plus, they're Christfags, they're naturally biased, as are most of you. I'm privileged enough to be a heterosexual pantheist who has never had a single bad personal experience with any organized religion, so I'm true neutral when it comes to objectivity.


  As a bisexual agnostic I laugh at your claims to objectivity, you small-minded peon. (sarcasm emoticon)

 You can't be neutral if you've only had positive experiences with organized religion. That puts you into quite an exceptionally small skewed minority compared to the rest of the world. A minority with a population of 1 (yourself).


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 2, 2012)

Spatel said:


> As a bisexual agnostic I laugh at your claims to objectivity, you small-minded peon.



No

You can disagree with him, but I'm going to ask you to be civil


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> It's scientifically proven that abuse is bad for the health of children



Well it's a good thing he's not advocating systematic child abuse then, just smacking a child who's out of line.



Spatel said:


> You can't be neutral if you've only had positive experiences with  organized religion. That puts you into quite an exceptionally small  skewed minority compared to the rest of the world. A minority with a  population of 1 (yourself).



Actually that's exactly what gives me a neutral stance. The line is  typically divided into those who believe their religion is truth vs  those who believe that those people are assholes. By not believing that  religion is truth but at the same time having absolutely no personal  experience to suggest that those people are assholes I'm objective.

If you had shitty experiences with religious folk you'd be prone to take it out on religious folk from then on. I didn't have any shitty experiences.


----------



## Onnes (May 2, 2012)

Why the heck are you people still going around in circles feeding the troll?


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> Well it's a good thing he's not advocating systematic child abuse then, just smacking a child who's out of line.



"smacking a child who is out of line" is child abuse

Because it is abuse

to a child



Onnes said:


> Why the heck are you people still going around in circles feeding the troll?



I think it's unfair to disregard Brazen's posts just because he is a "troll"

He said himself, he is only playing the devils advocate

And I view that as a very important thing, that he does that. Maybe he really agrees with everyone that harris is bad people, maybe not, it doesn't matter so much to him as pointing out the flaws in people's logic

If your logic can't stand up, then how can you consider yourself correct. Observe my discourse with him, throughout I have been able to make my points clearly and without fault, as shown in the leaps he had to make in order to counter. Really all he does is promote thinking, following through with logic, and such

To ignore someone because they disagree, to get your goat or otherwise, is not good form


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> "smacking a child who is out of line" is child abuse
> 
> Because it is abuse
> 
> to a child




Not according to the legal system whose sole job is to prevent stuff like it. Child abuse is that thing that will have kids taken away from you, disciplining your children is that thing that will have them grow up to be successful adults.

Again, see the part where the priest is advocating WHAT IS ENTIRELY WITHIN THE LAW.


----------



## Spatel (May 2, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> No
> 
> You can disagree with him, but I'm going to ask you to be civil



In that case, I'm going to ask you to highlight my post.


----------



## Brazen (May 2, 2012)

Anyway, I'm going to bed, hold the argument until I come back.

Also, if you're going to use the "but even if its legal it's still child abuse because I know what child abuse is better than the professionals" argument as a retort try to muddle it up so its not so obvious.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> Not according to the legal system whose sole job is to prevent stuff like it. Child abuse is that thing that will have kids taken away from you, disciplining your children is that thing that will have them grow up to be successful adults.
> 
> Again, see the part where the priest is advocating WHAT IS ENTIRELY WITHIN THE LAW.



Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right

This is why different countries have different laws

It's completely legal for me to spit on someone's grave, but that doesn't make me less a dick for it

inversely, it's illegal for me as a homosexual to donate blood, something that would be a good thing for me to do (by your logic earlier)



Brazen said:


> Also, if you're going to use the "but even if its legal it's still child abuse because I know what child abuse is better than the professionals" argument as a retort try to muddle it up so its not so obvious.



IIRC the professional social workers don't write the laws

The US political system does

These are two seperate groups

Also that site I linked to that said "hurting children is bad"

is a professional child-safety organization

you're resorting to flawed logic instead of conceding, it's annoying



Spatel said:


> In that case, I'm going to ask you to highlight my post.



Insulting someone and then hiding a "just kidding" in white text is neither clever, funny or called for


----------



## Spatel (May 2, 2012)

I'm not going to derail this thread Tybalt, but you're out of line for singling out my post like that. Way out of line. It is less incendiary than half of Brazen's posts, including the one it was a response to. Nobody appointed you to be the head of dissenting arguments. You're backseat moderating, and it's annoying.

And I personally hate the :V emoticon. It ruins the subtlety of all of the sarcasm on this site, and sarcasm that is not subtle is not clever, or funny, or called for. This is the only way I've found to bring back some of the subtlety.


----------



## Seian Verian (May 2, 2012)

From a discussion on hatred to one on the subtleties of sarcasm

How many circles and spirals and zig-zags and squares can a thread even go in?


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 2, 2012)

Spatel said:


> I'm not going to derail this thread Tybalt, but you're out of line for singling out my post like that. Way out of line. It is less incendiary than half of Brazen's posts, including the one it was a response to. Nobody appointed you to be the head of dissenting arguments. You're backseat moderating, and it's annoying.
> 
> And I personally hate the :V emoticon. It ruins the subtlety of all of the sarcasm on this site, and sarcasm that is not subtle is not clever, or funny, or called for. This is the only way I've found to bring back some of the subtlety.



I am not doing a moderators job by asking you to be civil

I am being a decent human being

I singled out your post because it contained an insult. To insult is to not be civil. Brazen may have recently devolved to using flawed logic, but throughout he held civil discourse with myself

There is a difference between respectfully disagreeing and insulting someone, you did the latter and now you're angry at me for calling you out on it

Cut it out


----------



## Kahoku (May 2, 2012)

Brazen said:


> Actually that's exactly what gives me a neutral stance. The line is   typically divided into those who believe their religion is truth vs   those who believe that those people are assholes. By not believing that   religion is truth but at the same time having absolutely no personal   experience to suggest that those people are assholes I'm objective.
> 
> If you had shitty experiences with religious folk you'd be prone to take  it out on religious folk from then on. I didn't have any shitty  experiences.



Trolling at its finest, HA.



Onnes said:


> Why the heck are you people still going around in circles feeding the troll?


Meh, it was funny to me at least. But yeah, feeding them doesn't help.


----------



## Seian Verian (May 2, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> I am not doing a moderators job by asking you to be civil
> 
> I am being a decent human being
> 
> ...



How the hell do you remotely take "small-minded peon" seriously? Anyone that would USE it seriously is probably too pretentious to be worth acknowledging. It doesn't even qualify as an insult. 

Calling out on a real insult to say "hey, tone it down" is justified, but... Really it just seems like humor and wit fly right over your head from where I'm seeing it. And honestly it looks like you entirely ignored the second half of Spatel's post you quoted there


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 2, 2012)

Seian Verian said:


> How the hell do you remotely take "small-minded peon" seriously? Anyone that would USE it seriously is probably too pretentious to be worth acknowledging. It doesn't even qualify as an insult.
> 
> Calling out on a real insult to say "hey, tone it down" is justified, but... Really it just seems like humor flies right over your head from where I'm seeing it. And honestly it looks like you entirely ignored the second half of Spatel's post you quoted there



Regardless of whether you found it funny or not, it's not called for

At all

I don't care if the insult is dumb

That just makes it more not called for

So calm down and post something relevant


----------



## JArt. (May 2, 2012)

This whole thread needs to calm down, anymore of this and i'm sure it'll get closed.


----------



## Seian Verian (May 2, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Regardless of whether you found it funny or not, it's not called for
> 
> At all
> 
> ...



There's a difference between anger and "...Uh. Really?" I don't have any actual strong feelings anyway. So... Yeah, I'm rather calm.

You completely missed the point that was being made as well. Words do not have meaning by existing in a vacuum. "Small-minded peon" is not something that is likely to be legitimately used as an insult. It's a phrase that would typically be used in mockery, not with any anger or real hostility behind it. It's amazing how you can take things at such face value and then assume that a disagreement is accompanied with anger.

...Also, relevance? I'm curious, why do you think my post was any less relevant than the ones you made regarding what Spatel had said? Just saying that maybe it would be best to cut the discussion off is one thing, but that particular sentence... Did not read as if it had that intent, more as if you were dismissing what I said.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 2, 2012)

Seian Verian said:


> There's a difference between anger and "...Uh. Really?" I don't have any actual strong feelings anyway. So... Yeah, I'm rather calm.
> 
> You completely missed the point that was being made as well. Words do not have meaning by existing in a vacuum. "Small-minded peon" is not something that is likely to be legitimately used as an insult. It's a phrase that would typically be used in mockery, not with any anger or real hostility behind it. It's amazing how you can take things at such face value and then assume that a disagreement is accompanied with anger.
> 
> ...Also, relevance? I'm curious, why do you think my post was any less relevant than the ones you made regarding what Spatel had said? Just saying that maybe it would be best to cut the discussion off is one thing, but that particular sentence... Did not read as if it had that intent, more as if you were dismissing what I said.



Yes I'm dismissing what you're saying

because what you're saying is that Spatel was in fact 
within the boundaries of the line 
when he posted an insult directed at Brazen

It doesn't matter if he was angry or not, you yourself said it was a "mockery" of brazen

If you think mocking people in a discussion is civil then I don't even know what to say to you


----------



## Bipolar Bear (May 2, 2012)

Oh, This is gonna be good...

*pulls up chair*

*eats Doritos*


----------



## Seian Verian (May 2, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Yes I'm dismissing what you're saying
> 
> because what you're saying is that Spatel was in fact
> within the boundaries of the line
> ...



...I'm saying it wasn't -actually- an insult. And no, I wasn't saying it was a mockery of Brazen- In fact, mockery was probably the wrong word. "in jest" might have been better wording. 

However, I don't believe this discussion is worth pursuing. I believe what's here right now speaks for itself. Complete dismissal of what the person who disagrees is saying, a criticism of "relevance" in a reply that was directed at a tangent that was begun by you in the first place without even looking at the relevance of said tangent... It's quite obvious that it will lead nowhere. So yes, you're right, it's best to drop it now. Just for different reasons than you were thinking of.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 2, 2012)

I feel unusually calm myself at the moment. Maybe I'm worn out from yesterday.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 2, 2012)

Seian Verian said:


> ...I'm saying it wasn't -actually- an insult. And no, I wasn't saying it was a mockery of Brazen- In fact, mockery was probably the wrong word. "in jest" might have been better wording.
> 
> However, I don't believe this discussion is worth pursuing. I believe what's here right now speaks for itself. Complete dismissal of what the person who disagrees is saying, a criticism of "relevance" in a reply that was directed at a tangent that was begun by you in the first place without even looking at the relevance of said tangent... It's quite obvious that it will lead nowhere. So yes, you're right, it's best to drop it now. Just for different reasons than you were thinking of.



Dude I just spent pages and pages discussing the actual topic with Brazen

and you're accusing me of "dismissing anything I disagree with" because I don't feel like tangenting onto whether Spatel openly insulting Brazen is cool or not

Do you realize how flawed this logic is


----------



## Spatel (May 2, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> I am not doing a moderators job by asking you to be civil
> 
> I am being a decent human being


That sounds very conceited. I'm not saying you are a conceited person, but you come off as one. I am not the only person in this thread you gave the 'high road' speech  to. Just fyi it seems very self-serving, not polite, when you do that.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 2, 2012)

Spatel said:


> That sounds very conceited. I'm not saying you are a conceited person, but you come off as one. I am not the only person in this thread you gave the 'high road' speech  to. Just fyi it seems very self-serving, not polite, when you do that.



Insult brazen, and then when someone calls you out for it, insult them too

Yes me calling for civility is self serving, yes most definitely

eurgh


----------



## Seian Verian (May 2, 2012)

...Why can't I just walk away even when I say I'm going to?



Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Dude I just spent pages and pages discussing the actual topic with Brazen
> 
> and you're accusing me of "dismissing anything I disagree with" because I don't feel like tangenting onto whether Spatel openly insulting Brazen is cool or not
> 
> Do you realize how flawed this logic is





Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Yes I'm dismissing what you're saying



Would you like to explain this again, then?

Also, again, you were the one who started the tangent and went back and forth a couple of times with Spatel. It would have been fine if you had said "I don't think we should derail this further". I would have agreed to that then. But, when I inquired into your intent, you responded that you actually were being dismissive.

Do you see the problem here?


----------



## Onnes (May 2, 2012)

Spatel said:


> As a bisexual agnostic I laugh at your claims to objectivity, you small-minded peon. (sarcasm emoticon)



Seriously, Tybalt, how can you read this as anything other than a joke? It's like you want a humor ban on FAF.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 2, 2012)

So because I'm dismissing what you're saying, obv. I dismiss what people are saying whenever I disagree with them

Why are you both so hung up about attacking my character omg

fine, go ahead and insult people as much as you like I don't care anymore

jesus dick


----------



## RedFoxTwo (May 2, 2012)

Spatel, Tybalt... Just shut up both of you.

Absolutely nothing productive is resulting from your heated exchange.


----------



## Seian Verian (May 2, 2012)

RedFoxTwo said:


> Spatel, Tybalt... Just shut up both of you.
> 
> Absolutely nothing productive is resulting from your heated exchange.



I'm not saying I disagree (even though I'm guilty of participation as well)

But was it really any more productive before this derail?


----------



## Spatel (May 2, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Insult brazen, and then when someone calls you out for it, insult them too
> 
> Yes me calling for civility is self serving, yes most definitely
> 
> eurgh



Uh... I did not insult Brazen. I responded to Brazen's post with a joke. You, and only you, found the joke insulting. What's terrible about it? I'm actually kinda curious now. Compare it to Brazen's post right before, the one where he said being heterosexual gives him complete objectivity. By the by, I don't know how you can take him seriously when he's making very obviously not-serious posts like that.

I did insult you just earlier but that's neither here nor there.


----------



## Kosdu (May 2, 2012)

I think this thread has pretty much served it's purpose.

Unless we want to step back and talk about how to fix people like that preacher being in contact with children, I really have little to say.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 2, 2012)

Kosdu said:


> I think this thread has pretty much served it's purpose.
> 
> Unless we want to step back and talk about how to fix people like that preacher being in contact with children, I really have little to say.



No, I think we said all that needed to be said about that on the first few pages.


----------



## Spatel (May 2, 2012)

I'm certainly done. Stick a fork in this thread. It only needed to be a page.


----------



## Bipolar Bear (May 2, 2012)

Lockage in T-minus 10, 9...


----------



## LouyieBlu (May 2, 2012)

JesusFish said:


> This.
> 
> Homosexuality is not a choice, but an overwhelming, natural feeling.
> Absurd belief is also not a choice, but an overwhelming, natural feeling (Belief based in feeling is not based on science/rationality).
> ...



Agreed. Physical violence isnt going to change how a person feels or acts or even how a being lives. This guy is absolutely..well a fucktard to be frank. I agree with some above posts, this Haris guy shouldn't be physically punished or we become like him, which is almost as bad as the original crime. I do hope that he ashamed, for the rest of his life. Shame on him. 
This is just another example that shows (some) people be crazy...another incident that makes me wonder what the fuck humans are thinking and then why  then they go ahead and do those stupid things and mess everything up. Sometimes I think this planet is filled with complete psycho paths, I know it isnt and there are some good people out there, but damn! I wonder sometimes. Here I will post a little chart I found related to this topic:
 Love Is Love No Matter Who You Find It In.
 â™‚ + â™‚ = â™¥
 â™€ + â™€ = â™¥
 â™€ + â™‚ = â™¥
Oh lol, thread closing, conversation over.....always late to the party.


----------



## Kahoku (May 2, 2012)

LouyieBlu said:


> Agreed. Physical violence isnt going to change how a person feels or acts or even how a being lives. This guy is absolutely..well a fucktard to be frank. I agree with some above posts, this Haris guy shouldn't be physically punished or we become like him, which is almost as bad as the original crime. I do hope that he ashamed, for the rest of his life. Shame on him.
> This is just another example that shows (some) people be crazy...another incident that makes me wonder what the fuck humans are thinking and then why  then they go ahead and do those stupid things and mess everything up. Sometimes I think this planet is filled with complete psycho paths, I know it isnt and there are some good people out there, but damn! I wonder sometimes. Here I will post a little chart I found related to this topic:
> Love Is Love No Matter Who You Find It In.
> â™‚ + â™‚ = â™¥
> ...



And you forgot :                               â–‘

â™‚â™€+â™‚â™€= â™¥                                     â–’

( transgender ) Its cool man            â–“ Thread bomb in....


----------



## Rilvor (May 3, 2012)

Well goodness, I walk away and you all managed to get stuck like so many focused little flies in the big venus flytrap.

I would like to point out a counter-point:

If this church's words [I use Church because again, without the people keeping the pastor going there would be no sermon.] had truly, in the purest sense of the matter, been behind closed doors and kept to themselves they would not be here of all places.

The simple fact is, folks, that the private conversation was allowed to leak into the public world and thus it is now the public's fair interest to criticize and cause as much social pressure as they please.


----------



## Brazen (May 3, 2012)

Back to relevance.

Spatel, you're in the wrong. You were trying to use sarcasm on a medium that doesn't convey non-verbal cues and you did not resort to the standard etiquette of appending a post meant in jest with :V, the universal not-serious symbol.

Tybalt, if we're going to argue over legal vs ethic we need to look at where ethics come from. For the religious its unequivocably from the bible, simple as that, for the secular its parents, peers, mass media and the government who are the ultimate authority on ethics because they'll fuck you up if you don't follow their rules.

In the end though it doesn't actually matter what your beliefs on right or wrong are, he has his own and as long as they're within the bounds of legality he's perfectly free to have them. Again, he was speaking about legally enforceable parenting at a private function with like-minded individuals, it sucks that you disagree but you always have to remember that your opinion is worth about as much as his so try not to step over the line and start telling people what they can believe in private, lest you end up like the things you hate.

This shouldn't be treated like the sort of tabloid scandal that people are currently regarding it as. Why are all of you so offended, because of what the priest is saying or because of what he and his demographic believe? The man is in familiar company, it's expected that he would speak what's on his mind, are you frustrated that he isn't two-faced enough to practice what he believes and then lie about it? Are you furious that he and his kind believe in the things he says? Why is it surprising in the slightest, for anyone? 

This is a glimpse into the minds of a sizeable population of a world superpower, the things they think and say when they aren't worried about being strung up by the ACLU, it should be regarded with academic interest, not the sort of histrionics where everyone feigns ignorance and pretends that they just learned that people do stuff like this, are within the legal bounds to do stuff like this and that nobody has the stones to stop them.


----------



## Rilvor (May 3, 2012)

I'm willing to agree that they have the right to believe whatever they please. However, if there is a reason to suspect that encouragement of illegal activity is being conducted I also do not see why it is unfair to draw public interest to watch them.

I do not think anyone who is being fair wants to see this church "stopped" or "torn apart" or any other number of such things. But if they as a collective whole have allowed their beliefs to be under public scrutiny, then so be it. The public eye can be an unfortunately big one.


----------



## Spatel (May 3, 2012)

Brazen said:


> Spatel, you're in the wrong. You were trying to use sarcasm on a medium that doesn't convey non-verbal cues and you did not resort to the standard etiquette of appending a post meant in jest with :V, the universal not-serious symbol.



I'm sorry you disagree, but I was expressing my opinions in a legal manner. You are allowed to have your own opinions, but you really have no place to criticize, since it was a private post intended only to be read by people with a sense of humor, and you have no right to step over the line and tell me how I'm supposed to write my posts. My opinions regarding posting etiquette are as valid as yours, by one of your own hilarious arguments, which you've been dragging this thread out with.

There isn't a sarcasm emote big enough.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 3, 2012)

Brazen said:


> Tybalt, if we're going to argue over legal vs ethic we need to look at where ethics come from. For the religious its unequivocably from the bible, simple as that, for the secular its parents, peers, mass media and the government who are the ultimate authority on ethics because they'll fuck you up if you don't follow their rules.
> 
> In the end though it doesn't actually matter what your beliefs on right or wrong are, he has his own and as long as they're within the bounds of legality he's perfectly free to have them. Again, he was speaking about legally enforceable parenting at a private function with like-minded individuals, it sucks that you disagree but you always have to remember that your opinion is worth about as much as his so try not to step over the line and start telling people what they can believe in private, lest you end up like the things you hate.
> 
> ...



While I understand where you're coming from, you cannot equate legality with ethics

Sure, what he's doing is perfectly legal in his country. It's still regarded as child abuse and social services WILL take children away if they are beaten by their parents

So which institution is wrong, in this case? The social services, or the law makers?

To pull an example from the media, you hear a lot about the public stonings run by the taliban, usually over adultry

Does that make the Taliban a good organization? They make the laws that give them the right to kill people for whatever reason; DD posted a link where they rounded up emo kids for execution. 

Or how about the Salem witch trials, where innocent people were killed left and right within the law.

The Americans enslaved the Africans for quite a few years, Egyptians enslaved the Jews

All of it within the law

You can't just accept the law as good, and then passively allow for things within it

When the law isn't right, the people fight to change it. Look at the work Deo is doing to spread awareness of this issue

If enough people care and call it out for what it is, for all we know the law might change

Because that's how laws work, they change to suit the people

(See: Legalizing gay marriage)


----------



## Mayfurr (May 3, 2012)

An enlightening comparison between this incident and the Dan Savage "Anti homophobia speech labelled anti Christian" incident:

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.co...lity-as-abomination/politics/2012/05/02/38927


> What Pastor Harris said was perfectly acceptable to his parishioners. The problem is that there was audio and he got caught.
> 
> Conservative Christians are claiming outrage because Dan Savage used a few inappropriate words during a journalism lecture. A dozen conservative journalism students walked out when Savage supposedly assaulted their religious sensibilities. *Here we have a pastor advocating the assault of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender infants and children. Did one parent walk out?*
> 
> The hypocrisy from the so-called Religious Right is abominable. (emphasis added)



In other words, to the conservative religious types out there pointing out passages of rampant bigotry in the Bible in a public forum is a no-no, but a religious leader explicitly calling for parents to physically beat "teh gayness" out of their kids is just fine and dandy. 

Feckin' pricks.


----------



## Brazen (May 3, 2012)

Spatel said:


> since it was a private post intended only to be read by people with a sense of humor..



But you were addressing me in the post, not some imaginary 3rd party.



Mayfurr said:


> In other words, to the conservative religious types out there pointing  out passages of rampant bigotry in the Bible in a public forum is a  no-no, but a religious leader explicitly calling for parents to physically beat "teh gayness" out of their kids is just fine and dandy.



A church that charges up-front for admission isn't a public forum.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 3, 2012)

Brazen said:


> A church that charges up-front for admission isn't a public forum.



Likewise it was a place where if you attended those parents likely expected that kind of message from their pastor, given the apparent extremist nature of his church.

Kids showing up to a journalism convention for a talk billed as:



			
				JEA/NSPA Convention website said:
			
		

> alternative media, social media and creating a movement against bullying.



doesn't mean "you're going to listen to a rant about religion and then the speaker will call you a pansy for not liking it."

http://studentpressblogs.org/seattl...sizemore-dan-savage-will-be-keynote-speakers/


----------



## Mayfurr (May 4, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Likewise it was a place where if you attended those parents likely expected that kind of message from their pastor, given the apparent extremist nature of his church.



And that makes the pastor's comments okay, does it?

It certainly speak volumes about the kind of so-called "Christians" who condone that kind of behaviour. At least there's other church leaders coming out and saying what that pastor said was wrong.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 4, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> And that makes the pastor's comments okay, does it?
> 
> It certainly speak volumes about the kind of so-called "Christians" who condone that kind of behaviour. *At least there's other church leaders coming out and saying what that pastor said was wrong.*



And this is why context is important, Mayfur before you start calling out the hypocrisy of some people.

No his comments were out of line when you start talking about beating children.  You and I can certainly agree on that.

But as the link to the Baptist magazine Deo linked to points out, we're talking about a pastor in a Church that is apparently unaffiliated with any other church or Baptist organizations. The pastor and his church are rouge.  And as Brazen points out, no only are they rouge but they also apparently charge admission into the church.  A rant like his certainly doesn't come off as something that is out-of-the-blue for him, nor in his "apology letter" does he show any genuine remorse for his comments, since he still holds strong to his belief that homosexuality is an abomination.  If you're actually paying to walk into that dude's church and listen to him give a sermon for 45-minutes, you clearly must expect that kind of opinion from him or firmly believe in everything he says.

Savage himself is inappropriate on a number of levels.  First being the fact that he's at a journalism convention to talk about alternative and social media along with his campaign against "bullying".  There is no reason to believe going on that billing that he's going to start ranting on "the bullshit of the Bible."  Those kids paid to go to that conference to learn about journalism.  If they don't like him going off-message on an unrelated tangent, why should they have to stay?  Second, when the kids leave and he "finishes" his rant he insinuates those kids who left are just like the kinds of people who beat him up and insulted him who couldn't take him "pushing back."  He doesn't know who those kids are.  For all he knows some of those kids could have been atheists who didn't appreciate him going off message.  Or they could have been Christians and staunch supporters of gay rights.  Yet he lumps them in with the same people who he claims used the Bible to justify his own abuse, and frankly Mayfur, that's bullshit.  Badash, the author of the column you posted, is also full of shit for lumping those kids in with the "hard religious Right" for the same reason of not knowing who those kids are and acting like those kids apparently attend Harris' church and believe everything he says when it's more likely they've never met him in their lives nor subscribe to his beliefs on beating children.

It certainly speaks volumes of the kind of person Savage is for trying to fight against bullying but has no issue with playing the bully himself.


----------



## Lobar (May 4, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> The pastor and his church are *rouge*.  And as Brazen points out, no only are they *rouge* but they also apparently charge admission into the church.



They wear ladies' makeup?  And then they charge admission to this little drag show of theirs?  We better beat that sort of faggotry out of them.


----------



## Spatel (May 4, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> And this is why context is important, Mayfur before you start calling out the hypocrisy of some people.


Are you seriously using moral relativism in a desperate attempt to grasp at straws for an argument in a situation where there really is none?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 4, 2012)

Spatel said:


> Are you seriously using moral relativism in a desperate attempt to grasp at straws for an argument in a situation where there really is none?



I'm grasping at nothing.  To insinuate there's some form of hypocrisy going on here by comparing the Harris' and Savage's ranting is fucking stupid.

If it was those parents at Harris' church who sat in at Savage's speech and walked out, I could see the argument about this being some issue with the religious Right.  But even as the National Scholastic Press Association noted in their response after the convention:



			
				NSPA said:
			
		

> This is not what our organizations expected. In his attempt to denounce bullying, Mr. Savage belittled the faith of others â€“ an action that we do not support. Ridicule of othersâ€™ faith has no place in our programs, any more than ridicule of the LGBT community would.



You bring a guy in to give a speech about a topic as it relates to alternative and social media, and he goes off an a completely different tangent is not the same as being a religious extremist and going to hear another religious extremist speak.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 4, 2012)

Didn't jesus flip out in a church because it charged admission

I remember he flipped a table, and that there was a big list of reasons why


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 4, 2012)

I call for the stupid in pastors to be beaten out of them.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 4, 2012)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Didn't jesus flip out in a church because it charged admission
> 
> I remember he flipped a table, and that there was a big list of reasons why



The story actually goes that he entered the temple at Capernaum where traders had turned it into a marketplace where sheep and oxen were sold among other thing, supposedly as to offer sacrifice during Passover.  He poured out people's money, flipped tables and threw everyone out for turning the temple from a place of worship to a place of commerce for the privileged.


----------



## Spatel (May 4, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> You bring a guy in to give a speech  about a topic as it relates to alternative and social media, and he goes  off an a completely different tangent is not the same as being a  religious extremist and going to hear another religious extremist  speak.


Context doesn't matter when it comes to the moral  value of statements. Horrible views are horrible whether they're in a  private room among close friends or in a crowded auditorium with a diverse audience. This argument cannot be used to defend Sam Harris's views.

Shielding  an audience from views that might offend them even if they are  reasonable is polite, but no more moral than exposing them to  alternative viewpoints against their wishes. Dan's statements about  genocide and slavery being condoned in the Bible were factually correct.  If Christian Conservatives are offended by being told what is in their  holy text, that's their problem. They're the ones worshiping it and  telling everyone else they should live by those words--literally.  Religion doesn't need to be magically protected from criticism by an  invisible shield of political correctness. 

It was not a  tangential rant. Dan said nothing at that speech that he hasn't said a  hundred times before, nothing of which shouldn't be expected of him, so  any claims that he 'blindsided' the audience are very suspect. At the  most you could say he was rude. But rudeness is not the same thing as  prejudice, and attempting to create this connection as you are doing is a  false equivalency.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 4, 2012)

Spatel said:


> Context doesn't matter when it comes to the moral  value of statements. Horrible views are horrible whether they're in a  private room among close friends or in a crowded auditorium with a diverse audience. This argument cannot be used to defend Sam Harris's views.



And who said anything about defending his views?  I'm talking about the supposed connection that there's some form of hypocrisy going on over the fact that a bunch of religious extremists didn't walk out of an extremist rant and a bunch of journalism students decided to walk out on a rant on religion that was supposed to be a talk on the social media.



> Shielding  an audience from views that might offend them even if they are  reasonable is polite, but no more moral than exposing them to  alternative viewpoints against their wishes. Dan's statements about  genocide and slavery being condoned in the Bible were factually correct.  If Christian Conservatives are offended by being told what is in their  holy text, that's their problem. They're the ones worshiping it and  telling everyone else they should live by those words--literally.  Religion doesn't need to be magically protected from criticism by an  invisible shield of political correctness.



And this isn't about magically protecting anyone.  I don't know how this is really so difficult for you or anyone else to understand.  If you convince a keynote speaker to come in and give a speech about the influence of the internet on popular culture and then they go off on a three-minute rant about how anyone who's a furry is a sexual deviant who needs to yiff in hell, does that seem like it's relevant to the topic at a professional function?  And that's what this was, a professional function specifically devoted to the topic of journalism, and Savage's speech was supposed to be within that context.  Taking time out to go over passages of the Bible is hardly on the topic of social and alternative media and is in extreme poor taste.  People on here have continually misrepresented why he was invited to this conference in the first place, which I guess is part of the problem why none of you seem to grasp what I'm talking about.

Also this bullshit idea that apparently all Christian Conservatives are telling people they need to live by the words of the Bible is generalizing bullshit and you know it.  Savage does the same exact thing in his speech by trying to paint the kids who got up and left as a specific type of person who absolutely deserves to be belittled in front of an audience when, once again, any one of those kids could have been an atheist for all you know who didn't feel like they paid to hear someone rant about religion.  



> It was not a  tangential rant. Dan said nothing at that speech that he hasn't said a  hundred times before, nothing of which shouldn't be expected of him, so  any claims that he 'blindsided' the audience are very suspect. At the  most you could say he was rude. But rudeness is not the same thing as  prejudice, and attempting to create this connection as you are doing is a  false equivalency.



It was very much so a tangential rant when you look at the context of what that convention was for, the kinds of speakers they've had in the past, and that their other keynote speaker was also brought in to talk about online distribution.  Taking time out from a speech about digital media to go through your personal grievances with the Bible has very little to do with what those kids signed up to hear about.  Yes it could absolutely be seen as blindsided because honestly, how many of those kids do you think know who Dan Savage is or how any of his public speaking functions have gone.  Certainly this is the first time I've seen him publicly address anyone.  To make the claim that these kids should have known he was going to start ranting on religion is extremely suspect.


----------



## Tango (May 4, 2012)

I say we fin his home and paint it purple. Then, we raid his house, dying all his clothing in pastel colors. I'm talking 80's style Miami Vice pastel. Then we remove the plants from his garden and replace them with something that makes his neighbors question his manhood. 

As far as striking a boy I'm all for it as soon as they hit 21 and can properly hit back. Worked wonders for me.

And yes, there is no sarcasm face in that last sentence.


----------



## Brazen (May 4, 2012)

Tango said:


> I say we fin his home and paint it purple. Then, we raid his house, dying all his clothing in pastel colors. I'm talking 80's style Miami Vice pastel. Then we remove the plants from his garden and replace them with something that makes his neighbors question his manhood.
> 
> As far as striking a boy I'm all for it as soon as they hit 21 and can properly hit back. Worked wonders for me.
> 
> And yes, there is no sarcasm face in that last sentence.



I say we stop having impotent revenge fantasies on the internet.


----------



## Kahoku (May 4, 2012)

Brazen said:


> I say we stop having impotent revenge fantasies on the internet.



Yeah that will be the day trolls don't exist anymore.


----------



## Cocobanana (May 6, 2012)

If the pastor wanted to beat a 'thief' or 'murderer' out of the kid he would get applause or at least less criticism. Being gay, and an advocate of human rights, I obviously believe that violence isn't the answer in ANY circumstance but it's just humorous to me that those in this thread condone violence on violence. The pastor needs a lesson in humanity, but beating him up isn't the way to do it... 'shaming his name' is a little better but even then is he really learning anything?


----------



## Spatel (May 6, 2012)

This thread seems to have magically reappeared...


Term_the_Schmuck said:


> And who said anything about defending his views?  I'm talking about the supposed connection that there's some form of hypocrisy going on over the fact that a bunch of religious extremists didn't walk out of an extremist rant and a bunch of journalism students decided to walk out on a rant on religion that was supposed to be a talk on the social media.


Hypocrisy is claiming that someone should show tolerance for your intolerance, and then refusing to show tolerance for someone else's "intolerance of intolerance".



> And that's what this was, a professional function specifically devoted to the topic of journalism, and Savage's speech was supposed to be within that context.  Taking time out to go over passages of the Bible is hardly on the topic of social and alternative media and is in extreme poor taste.  People on here have continually misrepresented why he was invited to this conference in the first place, which I guess is part of the problem why none of you seem to grasp what I'm talking about.


It was a speech about journalism in the context of fighting bullying. Pointing out bullshit in the Bible as a defense against gay bullying is not much of a tangent, and is well within the purview of that discussion. All of his statements were factual and non-controversial. Savage never said Christianity was bullshit. He never said an ill word about Christians or toward Christians, so your analogy toward prejudice is very off-base.



> Also this bullshit idea that apparently all Christian Conservatives are telling people they need to live by the words of the Bible is generalizing bullshit and you know it.


That is one of the fundamental aspects of their ideology. If you're claiming that evangelicals, contrary to the term, do not 'evangelize' you'd be the first ever to think that.



> Yes it could absolutely be seen as blindsided because honestly, how many of those kids do you think know who Dan Savage is or how any of his public speaking functions have gone.  Certainly this is the first time I've seen him publicly address anyone.  To make the claim that these kids should have known he was going to start ranting on religion is extremely suspect.


Most people who have the internet know know who Dan Savage is. He's a sex/relationship advice columnist with an irreverent sense of humor, and his biggest accomplishment before this was making the definition of Rick Santorum's name "a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter caused by bareback anal sex". You're acting like this was the goddamn congressional correspondents dinner, and that his snarky remarks are out of character and setting. It's an informal event at a high school. Dan's done hundreds of those. The offense in this situation has been manufactured, embellished, and parroted on right wing sites as an attempt to frame Dan Savage as some kind of "radical homosexual bully".


----------



## Punnchy (May 6, 2012)

This is really sad. People who aren't tolerant of others beliefs shouldn't be allowed to teach others their own.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 6, 2012)

Punnchy said:


> This is really sad. People who aren't tolerant of others beliefs shouldn't be allowed to teach others their own.


*Blind *tolerance can be and has been a bad thing.


----------



## Lobar (May 6, 2012)

Punnchy said:


> This is really sad. People who aren't tolerant of others beliefs shouldn't be allowed to teach others their own.



Screw that.  Ideas are not people or living things, they ought to be challenged wherever there is room for doubt.  All of scientific progress has come from taking ideas and testing them with such vigor that only truth could survive.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 7, 2012)

Quoting out of sequence to keep from repeating myself.



Spatel said:


> It was a speech about journalism in the context of fighting bullying. Pointing out bullshit in the Bible as a defense against gay bullying is not much of a tangent, and is well within the purview of that discussion. All of his statements were factual and non-controversial. Savage never said Christianity was bullshit. He never said an ill word about Christians or toward Christians, so your analogy toward prejudice is very off-base.
> 
> Most people who have the internet know know who Dan Savage is. He's a sex/relationship advice columnist with an irreverent sense of humor, and his biggest accomplishment before this was making the definition of Rick Santorum's name "a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter caused by bareback anal sex". You're acting like this was the goddamn congressional correspondents dinner, and that his snarky remarks are out of character and setting. It's an informal event at a high school. Dan's done hundreds of those. The offense in this situation has been manufactured, embellished, and parroted on right wing sites as an attempt to frame Dan Savage as some kind of "radical homosexual bully".



Okay Spatel, since you're so interested in being factually correct, here's some things where you're factually incorrect which you're either blissfully ignorant of or you just ignore to try and prove your point.

This was not an "informal event at a highschool."  This is an annual national convention held by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association that was held in Seattle at The Sheraton where Savage was one of two keynote speakers asked to give a speech to student members of these associations on digital distribution.  Yes, these conventions, specifically the seminars and speeches are formal events because the purpose of these conventions is to expose students to a professional atmosphere and help them network with actual journalists and professionals in the media world.

Savage was asked and billed to those attending the convention to talk about:



			
				JEA/NSPA Seattle 2012 blog said:
			
		

> alternative media, social media and creating a movement against bullying.
> http://studentpressblogs.org/seattle2012/



None of that constitutes going off on a rant about religion, nor does it constitute him waxing poetic on the causes of bullying.  I wouldn't invite Baseball Announcer Howie Rose to give a speech on how he got started broadcasting for the sport and then go on a rant about how the designated hitter ruins the integrity of the game.  It's not relevant towards the topic as it relates on the medium itself.

As for whether or not these kids should know who he is, do me a favor.  Walk into a bar near a college.  Ask every person roughly 18-22 who Dan Savage is.  I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts you won't get 40% who know who the fuck he is or why they should care.  That's because not everyone with an internet connection spends their lives on the internet or is fluent in internet culture.  I remember giving a speech in college concerning remix culture and when I brought up 4chan maybe 2 or 3 people knew what the fuck that was.  Just because you know about it doesn't mean everyone does.



> That is one of the fundamental aspects of their ideology. If you're claiming that evangelicals, contrary to the term, do not 'evangelize' you'd be the first ever to think that.



And now you're changing what you're talking about.  First it was "Conservative Christians" and now it's evangelicals.  Pick one Spatel, because they're not interchangeable terms.


----------



## Onnes (May 7, 2012)

Term, why did you decide to derail this thread so you could continue bitching about Dan Savage being Dan Savage? The convention invited Savage to speak. Assuming organizers had ever listened to him for a minute before in their lives, they knew exactly what they were getting. You don't invite personalities like that and then pretend to be shocked when they do what makes them such personalities in the first place. Given the derail, you sound bizarrely obsessed--I assume because you feel your religion is under attack.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 7, 2012)

Onnes said:


> Term, why did you decide to derail this thread so you could continue bitching about Dan Savage being Dan Savage? The convention invited Savage to speak. Assuming organizers had ever listened to him for a minute before in their lives, they knew exactly what they were getting. You don't invite personalities like that and then pretend to be shocked when they do what makes them such personalities in the first place. Given the derail, you sound bizarrely obsessed--I assume because you feel your religion is under attack.



He was brought up within the context of this thread as some sort of example of hypocrisy since parents who were parishioners of an extremist pastor didn't walk out of his sermon on "hitting the gay out of kids" are apparently comparable to a bunch of high school students at a journalism convention walking out of a speech that was billed to pertain to digital media.  

And there's a fundamental problem when people start talking out of their ass to explain what Savage was doing there in the first place, as Spatel and you both have done in different threads.

I responded to Mayfurr's comment, piggybacking off Brazen.  Spatel decided to challenge what I had to say.  Since when am I not allowed to defend my point Onnes?

Or are you going to continue making assumptions as to why I'm posting in order to dismiss my points and bolster your own ego?


----------



## Onnes (May 7, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Likewise it was a place where if you attended those parents likely expected that kind of message from their pastor, given the apparent extremist nature of his church.
> 
> Kids showing up to a journalism convention for a talk billed as:
> 
> ...



This was your post. It is obvious you just wanted to talk about Dan Savage some more so you decided to drop it in another thread once everyone got bored of the last one.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 7, 2012)

Onnes said:


> This was your post. It is obvious you just wanted to talk about Dan Savage some more so you decided to drop it in another thread once everyone got bored of the last one.



So I guess it's going to be "continue making assumptions as to why I'm posting in the thread."

Glad to see I can count on you making the predictable call as well, Onnes.  :3


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 7, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I call for the stupid in pastors to be beaten out of them.


Or whatever leaks out of them first.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (May 7, 2012)

Off course, calling for the beating of stupid out of fundamentalist Christians would be "Christian persecution".


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (May 7, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> So I guess it's going to be "continue making assumptions as to why I'm posting in the thread."
> 
> Glad to see I can count on you making the predictable call as well, Onnes.  :3



Upon closer inspection, I've noticed this post doesn't actually contain an answer at all

Dude it's not that big a deal, just admit to white-knighting Christianity or say you're not

There's no need to antagonize Onnes


----------



## Spatel (May 7, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:
			
		

> Savage was asked and billed to those attending the convention to talk about:


The NSPA state on their website that Savage was supposed to talk about gay bullying in highschools. You are deliberately lying, saying that this was not up for discussion, in an attempt to make this seem like an outburst, in order to create some kind of controversy when there is none. Nothing Dan said could be considered offensive to Christians. He critiqued passages in the Bible in an attempt to show the hypocrisy of telling people to live by the Bible literally on one issue, while ignoring parts that are clearly antiquated and barbaric by modern standards. Those points were valid, inoffensive, non-controversial and relevant to the discussion to which he was invited to speak.

The central thesis of your argument that this was an outburst is false (he was on topic), that this was unexpected is false (the NSPA should definitely know who Dan Savage is and what kind of speeches he gives), that his comments were inappropriate (Savage has said the same kind of thing hundreds of times to college-age and high school audiences before). Nothing he said should be offensive to anyone, so I have trouble seeing what, exactly, you are here to argue about. 



			
				Term_the_Schmuck said:
			
		

> And now you're changing what you're talking about.  First it was  "Conservative Christians" and now it's evangelicals.  Pick one Spatel,  because they're not interchangeable terms.


Generally those terms have been used interchangeably. Whatever term we are using, it refers to someone who has an ideology based around strict religious adherence according to traditional interpretations of their text. There is no confusion on what we are talking about. Nobody is accusing libertarian Christians of proselytizing, if that is the angle you're trying to take with this. When people say "Christian Conservative", that is never what they mean. It is always meant to refer to social conservatives.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 7, 2012)

Spatel said:


> The NSPA state on their website that Savage was supposed to talk about gay bullying in highschools. You are deliberately lying,



I have continually posted my source and directly quoted from that source.  I will post it once again:  http://studentpressblogs.org/seattle2012/

What I said was directly according to the official convention blog that was what he was there to do AS WAS BILLED TO THE STUDENTS PRIOR TO THE EVENT.



> Nothing Dan said could be considered offensive to Christians.



Saying "Bullshit in the Bible" can't be construed as offensive to Christians?  C'mon now.  You gotta do better than that Spatel.  Even I recognize when I mention in other threads that the Bible may very well be the most edited and redacted document in human history, I realize that carries with it a stigma of controversy for those who do in fact treat the book as word-for-word from the mouth of God or at least a document which is "God's honest truth."



> The central thesis of your argument that this was an outburst is false (he was on topic), that this was unexpected is false (the NSPA should definitely know who Dan Savage is and what kind of speeches he gives), that his comments were inappropriate (Savage has said the same kind of thing hundreds of times to college-age and high school audiences before). Nothing he said should be offensive to anyone, so I have trouble seeing what, exactly, you are here to argue about.



I don't agree waxing poetic on passages in the Bible is relevant to the discussion of creating a movement on the internet.  Going again on my analogy of bringing in a sportscaster to talk about how they got started broadcasting and then taking time out to focus on a controversial topic in that sport isn't relevant to the discussion and serves more as a vehicle to express your own malaise on a tangential subject as opposed to focusing on what's actually the purpose of why your audience is there in the first place, in Savage's case, the primary topic being social media given his personal use of it by creating his movement.



> Generally those terms have been used interchangeably.



And this is inherently wrong since they mean different things.  One you're talking about a specific sect of Christianity, the evangelicals which is mostly made up of those who follow any number of sub-denominations flying the banner of Protestantism.  The other you're talking about Christians who subscribe to a political platform.  You don't have to be an evangelical to be a Christian who considers themselves a conservative.


----------



## Lobar (May 7, 2012)

Dan Savage has since apologized for his word choice, but really, I don't find "bullshit" to be overly strong for anything OKing slavery.


----------



## Sai_Wolf (May 7, 2012)

Term, Spatel. 

Can we NOT turn this thread into "Let's beat up Dan Savage, pt 2"? I think there's already a thread for that.


----------

