Hate Speech

[ZiSunka]

apparently lambslove is doing that too. I am bookmarking this thread, buddy lol. It has to be intentional since you have to be either A) not reading what is written or B)so stupid, you shouldnt even know how to type lol i dont think that is the case, people on here seem quite intelligent sometimes..it must be intentional since they don't like the point made. is this a sin by any chance??

First of all, that's uncalled for.

Second, I never changed my story. Saying nothing is NOT hate speech. It's silence, which is sometimes indecision and sometimes politeness. That has been my point all along, sham, and you know it.

 

[kdet]

that again? ill be sure to try to locate your husband and let him know you may need a little attention at home kitty...


let me explain it for you, you said something, , i responded, you pretended to not understand, and then you were called on it. If you do not like it, it is your fault. not some conspiracy from some im obsessed with kitty fan club.

Look folks another personal remark
I did not make any comments to you or about what was said that could lead you to think I had changed my mind about ANYTHING..you my dear are lying..pure and simple...to what purpose I can't even imagine..and please leave my husband out if any future posts to me..he isn't a part of this forum.

 

[ZiSunka]

I'm getting bored with sham. She's intentionally making things personal when she can't defend or support her statements.

It's like she's trying to do the old straw man stuff, but poorly.

 

[My Higher Self]

Show me where I have changed anything?

Oh I love this game, here we go for instance number 3.

In post number 9, Vylo gave 3 examples of roughly the same meaning, of which only one did not qualify as hate speech, that would be example number 1. To which you responded, in post number 11, "I thought you handled this question beautifully." Now I could be wrong, but I think that any average person would believe you to be in agreement at this point.Then in post 14, Shaman pointed out that many here express their views in terms similar to Vylo's examples #2 and 3, in which, up to this point you were in agreement with...until post 15 that is, when since Shaman pointed out the common hate speech, now you seem to think that those examples you agreed with are now no longer agreeable. Because from I have read, and what I imagine any normal personwould 1read, you agreed to a definition by Vylo, then turned against the same definition from Shaman.

And again you are turning the focus of the discussion back to me..tell me is it a compulsion with some of you to do that?

Nope, its not a compulsion, its a desire. I enjoy it....its called a debate, and I enjoy showing you that your points are at times invalid, incorrect, or contradictory (IMO).

Debate-
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

I am making points and counter points to your points, that's how a debate works...and if I wasn't trying my hardest to debunk your claims, then I wouldn't really be trying would I?

 

[kdet]

But you haven't shown where I changed my mind at all...not one post..not one sentence..NOTHING.

 

[ZiSunka]

Nope, its not a compulsion, its a desire. I enjoy it....its called a debate, and I enjoy showing you that your points are at times invalid, incorrect, or contradictory (IMO).

Debate is the discussion of a topic. When you continually turn the topic to a particular person. his/her beliefs and his/her traits, that is called a personal attack.

 

[ZiSunka]

But you haven't shown where I changed my mind at all...not one post..not one sentence..NOTHING.

They can't support their ideas, so they turn the topic to the other person. It's a very primative form of defense.

 

[kdet]

Debate is the discussion of a topic. When you continually turn the topic to a particular person. his/her beliefs and his/her traits, that is called a personal attack.

A concept that a couple people here just will not make an effort to grasp.

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

A) calling someone so stupid they shouldn't even know how to type is a personal remark that isn't germaine to this discussion
B) Lying about my so called change of mind is also uncalled for.
I have not changed my mind or made any comments to lead one to believe that I have.

another case of not reading? i said i did not think that was the case, read again. ms. i dont read before i post about it

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

Look folks another personal remark
I did not make any comments to you or about what was said that could lead you to think I had changed my mind about ANYTHING..you my dear are lying..pure and simple...to what purpose I can't even imagine..and please leave my husband out if any future posts to me..he isn't a part of this forum.

since i have shown you a few times where it happened, and you pretend to not understand, i will not do it again. read it over and over till you figure it out, i wont waste more time...but i will keep this bookmarked for my personal enjoyment. *when will i learn???*

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

shaman over and out.

 

[KatebTheChaotic]

'Hate Speech' Law Could Chill Sermons
Pastors say bill would restrict preaching against homosexuality.
Tomas Dixon in Ljungskile, Sweden | posted 07/25/2002


Swedish lawmakers have given initial approval to a law that could have a chilling effect on preaching against active homosexuality. Voting in May, Sweden's parliament, the Riksdag, passed on first reading a bill criminalizing "hate speech" against homosexuals. A final reading will occur this fall.

While targeting Nazi and racist hate campaigns, the bill also addresses "church sermons," causing conservative Christians in Europe to sound the alarm.

"The bill clearly violates the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights," said Johan Candelin, president of the Religious Liberties Commission of the World Evangelical Alliance and a Finnish Lutheran pastor. "If the bill passes, it will place Sweden on level with China, with the state defining which theology is permissible."


http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/009/15.22.html

This is ridiculous, anyone ought to be able to preach about their own religion!

Boooo Sweden!! BOOOO!

 

[My Higher Self]

Debate is the discussion of a topic. When you continually turn the topic to a particular person. his/her beliefs and his/her traits, that is called a personal attack.

I think you are talking about this rule.

Rule No. 1 - No "Flaming"

1) You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself. This includes implied accusations that another member is not a Christian.

I have not harassed, insulted, belittled or threatened kitty, I have discussed her beliefs, and the quality of her posts, but I don't think I fall under the implications of this rule, thanks for helping though.

They can't support their ideas, so they turn the topic to the other person. It's a very primative form of defense.

The same could be said about you. Not only do you make excuses for youself, but now you are making them for me?

I don't make claims I can't make some effort of support for, if you can show me in this thread the idea that I've made that I can't support, I'll be impressed.

I have shown however posts that contradict themselves, and its not the first time, put my name in the search and read all the threads I've participated in, and you'll see I've done it to lots of other people as well. I almost always have some sort of evidence or one sort or another. I showed, in explicit detail where kitty contradicted herself in this thread, and you somehow have managed to not see it, nor has she, I may even take the time to do it again, and try to be more clear.

 

[kdet]

I think you are talking about this rule.



I have not harassed, insulted, belittled or threatened kitty, I have discussed her beliefs, and the quality of her posts, but I don't think I fall under the implications of this rule, thanks for helping though.

How about this?
2) Directing posts towards individuals, instead of the topics and issues being discussed

 

[My Higher Self]

How about this?
2) Directing posts towards individuals, instead of the topics and issues being discussed

I didn't direct my post towards you, I directed it towards your post, your point, my counterpoint. I challenged you to defend your point, but you were unable so you make this about you, when its not about you, but about what you have said. You make it personal because you take it that way.

 

[revolutio]

Speaking of hate...

 

[Vylo]

Woah Ok, guys I just got home from work and recieved a PM from squeeze about this thread (sorry for not being able to reply, empty your PM box squeeze )

This thread got confusing fast, and I see a lot of attacks have started up.

First off let's look at where sweetkitty seemed to change her tone, you all saw this:

I thought you handled this question beautifully.

*this directed at my post*

That statement doesn't even make sense.
You just gave a textbook example of why hate speech laws are wrong.

*Directed at squeeze's attempt to restate what I said*

But I think I see where the problem seems to lie, and I believe lambslove hit on it.

Then many on here are committing hate speech, when they advocate the oppression by not supporting marriage of homosexuals. (#2 for anyone who missed it)

I think, and correct me if I am wrong squeeze, that you meant that oppossing (legally) gay marriage is oppression.

What lambslove and kitty probably saw was that obstaining on the case of gay marriage was the same as oppressing them.

More on this later, but is this about right guys?

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

ok...I really want this to be cleared up without anger, tempers are a flarin so i will try again....In vylos post he said

2. "Homosexuality is an evil act that must be eliminated by any means possible. We cannot allow them to have legal marriage rights under any circumstance. Be sure to keep the pressure on our senators to make sure any bill that might promote this abomination is crushed". - This is advocating the oppression of another person or group and directly telling people to participate in it.

(he says that this is hate speech because it oppresses...i have a pm to him to verify it since it seemed like i couldnt get you to understand it, just to be sure)

to which you replied

I thought you handled this question beautifully

(which i see as agreement with his opinion)

to which i said

Then many on here are committing hate speech, when they advocate the oppression by not supporting marriage of homosexuals. (#2 for anyone who missed it)

now where do you get lost? because you then say

That statement doesn't even make sense.
You just gave a textbook example of why hate speech laws are wrong.

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

oops lol his post wasnt there when i started that post...and thanks vylo

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

I think, and correct me if I am wrong squeeze, that you meant that oppossing (legally) gay marriage is oppression.

What lambslove and kitty probably saw was that obstaining on the case of gay marriage was the same as oppressing them.

More on this later, but is this about right guys?

I actually did not state my opinion on the hate speech...What i tried to do was just point out kitty agreeing on your take..see what i mean???

and i dont know what kitty and lamslove saw, but what you said (i think) is hate speech is ....actively promoting taking away homosexuals rights to marry, since it oppresses them.... and (back to my original statement) there are many on here, kitty being one, who do that.....so my point was that she can not say it isnt hate speech when she does it(she has a thread or post stating how hers is not hate speech, but from agreeing with you, it looks like it is)

is that a little more clarity? are we at all on the same page yet?