This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Dan-Savage-discusses-bible-at-High-School-Journalism-convent

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

>> ^bareboards2:

Bible. Bullshit. Same paragraph.
Snit fricking fracking fit.
He used profanity. He didn't phrase his argument in a way in which you wanted him to phrase it.
So what? The guy cusses. He used shorthand to make his point. I understood him perfectly.
You want context? Read anything he has ever written. Watch more than two minutes of any video. The guy has a potty mouth.
And?
The question becomes why can't you hear the LOGIC of his statements? Well, no question really. This is why I have chosen not to engage in any protracted argument about this. YOU AREN'T LISTENING TO HIM. There is no point in arguing when you never heard him to start with.
You heard Bullshit blah blah Bible. Ginger Ginger Ginger, my man.
If you don't know what I mean by that, read my little anecdote above about Gary Larson.
I will grant you that there are some people who can rightly claim that he attacked their faith.
They are the persons out there who stone women for not being virgins on their wedding nights, who don't mix fibers, who refuse to eat shellfish or pork.
They exist.
Super Orthodox Hassidic Jews. Extremely conservative Muslims. A tiny tiny subset of Christians.
But I guarantee you, no Christians in that room. Any Christian who follows EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible does not send their children to school. They lock them up and home-school them.
Anyone else who claims that Dan Savage is attacking the Christian faith of anyone in that room is as incapable of reasoning thought as Ginger Ginger Ginger.
Damn. And here I am arguing anyway. Damn it.
@dirkdeagler7. Now I am REALLY done.


TLDR: I actually agree with his overall sentiment so you are OUTRIGHT wrong in saying I did not listen to him, you in fact do not listen to other people it seems.

Now you really do sound like the people you are criticizing. You say I dont listen yet you ignored the fact that i said, in so many words, that I agree with his overall message in this segment (as I said I'm not against the gay lifestyle, rights, or marriage. I also said sexual preference is no one elses business which means I disagree with bullying or ostracizing homosexuals). I never criticized the LOGIC in his statements merely the manner in which he gave them and the context (this goes beyond his lecture topic and includes the fact that these are HS students at a lecture about bullying).

Not only did you not listen and create an argument that is apparently at someone else other than me (i actually had to double take to make sure this was directed at me...full honesty), but you go on to drop these gems:

"But I guarantee you, no Christians in that room. Any Christian who follows EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible does not send their children to school. They lock them up and home-school them."

"Anyone else who claims that Dan Savage is attacking the Christian faith of anyone in that room is as incapable of reasoning thought as Ginger Ginger Ginger."

At this point Im actually feeling badly for picking on you and stupid for arguing with you. It's apparent that your argument and stance are not processing anything anyone has said in this comment thread...it shouldn't be a surprise now that I realize you posted the vid to begin with.

So here you are: disregarding fact (the apologies by him and the organizers), dismissing and attacking any opinion that is counter to your own, twisting and misinterpreting (or just not listening) to what I'm saying and then disagreeing with me and using laughable attempts to belittle me and my thought process, and using wide based and unfounded arguments/beliefs (ie my quotes above) to prove your point

You sound just like the people you seem to hate on, just on the other side of the coin and you sit on your high horse unable to see this very basic possibility...that you might be wrong in this matter.

>> ^bareboards2:

It was a journalism conference on bullying.
The bible is used to justify bullying gays.
This SNIPPET out of CONTEXT addresses that portion of his longer talk.
That, my friend, is context.
He only called out the hypocrisy of quoting the pieces of the bible while ignoring others when you want to justify hating on the gays.
It is tiring as all get out to STATE THE OBVIOUS over and over again.
Now I am done with you.
@dirkeagler7


Sigh I thought I was done as well. Although his commentary on the misuse of the bible by some to justify bigotry and hate and how damaging that can be to gays and Christians alike DOES have merit...you're using context to justify someone stepping out of line with his methodology in said context.

When the organizers denounce it and he in a way apologizes for it, how can you still maintain that he was justified in the timing and manner of which he broached the subject.

If his main point in this 3min segment was to show that using the Bible in a direct way to justify ones behavior has proven to be erroneous or unreasonable, he could easily have done so in a way that didn't belittle the topic at hand. A simple "as we have seen people have attempted to use the bible to justify slavery, stoning, and other concepts that society has now dismissed, who is to say that its stance on homosexuality should also be revisited. blah blah"

Instead he opened with "the Bible is bullshit" and yet you staunchly support his method and criticize anyone who thinks that this guy went a bit over the top. You my friend are exhibiting similar behaviors to the religious nuts you seem to want to criticize so readily...and that is MY opinion.

>> ^bareboards2:

Oh, I understand everything. I just choose to not argue with someone who can't think clearly, @dirkdeagler7
Bullshit. Bible. One paragraph. Equals snit fit.
Ignore all the words inbetween.
You talk about context but don't apply your own logic.


Perhaps if I said he was criticizing their faith in addition to their stance on homosexuality you would disagree less?

I'm the one not thinking clearly? You've ONLY given your own opinion of MY assessment and have not used a single argument or comment to refute anything I've said or to give your own opinion with regards to the things I touched on. Since you're apparently far more enlightened than I am, please explain to me what was the ultimate point of this 3min. commentary (keeping in mind that the beginning and end of the video clearly indicate it was a small piece of some larger lecture he is giving).

I'm not in the mood to be trolled by someone that criticizes my clarity of thought or my understanding of context and logic yet uses none himself.

To be clear I've only commented on the context and seeming POINT of what he was saying and how he said it. I did not go into whether I agree or disagree with him did I? But since you're obviously trying to imply I'm an unreasonable Bible-thumper let me declare my religious stance just for you.

I am a non-practicing christian with a very loose tie to organized Christianity. I do not believe the bible is direct truth and I probably know more about cosmology, the big bang, and science than even most science enthusiasts because I love and respect science and knowledge. I'm not an opponent of gay rights or gay marriage and I believe that sexual preference is no business of anyone but ones self.

I personally would not have walked out that day. I also would have lost respect for someone who takes a benign opportunity to discuss a topic with other enthusiasts (journalism) to parade his/her own personal opinion in a forum that was not intended for this purpose.

>> ^bareboards2:

"It is very apparent that he is not criticizing the stance on homosexuality by Christians but their faith out right."
No. It is not apparent, @dirkdeagler7.
Ginger Ginger Ginger.


Someone above already mentioned that slavery as it was understood and talked about in the bible was not the same as the slavery he is implicating. Did he broach the topic in an unbiased way or in a way that supported his already established argument about it being bullshit?

Also explain to me how stoning, slavery, or virginity before marriage have ANYTHING to do with journalism or gay rights? Unless of course you're using them to attack the validity and stances of Christianity. I would argue his use of the word bullshit and his attitude towards those who walked out that day are evidence of his stance on the faith itself. He clarified in his statement after about "the behavior and not the person" aspect however such clarifications are difficult to interpret as far as sincerity and the intent he had the day of the speech.

Also, if you the type of person that can only read the lines being spoken and can't understand the context, tone, attitude, and reaction of someone to help you to understand what they're communicating...then it's no surprise to me that you disagreed with my assessment of the situation. However it does nothing to give me confidence in your opinion of the situation as you saw it either.

Was this a convention or lecture about the validity of religion or Christianity? Was it a lecture about how religion has impeded the gay rights movement? The title indicates it's a JOURNALISM convention which means that anyone launching into an anti-religious agenda is already in a questionable position. Bully or Hero or Awesome are merely labels people will apply based on their personal beliefs on the topic of religion/homosexuality.

Please note that he does not restrict his criticism of religion to homosexuality, so even making an argument that it is relevant because of his personal life or the topic of religion/sexuality/journalism isn't completely kosher. It is very apparent that he is not criticizing the stance on homosexuality by Christians but their faith out right.

In a convention full of HS students, he calls a book and religion bullshit, would you all have said it wasn't bullying if he said that Islam and Muslims were bullshit? What about anything else people strongly believe believe which are social/cultural choices? What if he was saying that people who think women should not be beaten are bullshit and some battered women walked out...is that bullying?

In my eyes he abused his moment to speak about topics that all attendees volunteered for to push a personal agenda and he did it in a confrontational and heavy handed manner. Students who did not come to get a bible lesson from someone in a journalism convention walked out, shame on them right? Regardless of whether you agree with him or not, you just sound ignorant if you say that what he said is completely understandable/respectable given the audience and context.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Tell you what, the day a single preacher, nun or even believer gets physically assaulted by a homosexual for their beliefs, you will have something approaching a point.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/anger-over-prop-8-erupts-in-san-fr
ancisco/nKjWD/


protest/counter-protest
corpses: 0
blood spilled: none

http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/80220/


Inflamitory blog Posts:
corpses: 0
blood spilled: none

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Xb-au-wpU

alleged assault
alleged corpses: 0
alleged blood spilled: none



Please contrast you "examples" of "violence" with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States

Your case for "this is just more bullying" is based on an absurd argument for moral equivalence. Forceful, even offensive, speech against real physical/deadly violence, is not morally equivalent to speech advocating, or rationalizing, said violence.

The gay folks in the links, as well as Dan Savage, are not protesting/speaking against people for being Christian, but for being bigots. The use of Christianity to rationalize bigotry is the choice of bigots.

If Christians don't want Christianity to be scrutinized, they need to stop other Christians from using their religion to advocate bigotry.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Tell you what, the day a single preacher, nun or even believer gets physically assaulted by a homosexual for their beliefs, you will have something approaching a point.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/anger-over-prop-8-erupts-in-san-fr
ancisco/nKjWD/
http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/80220/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Xb-au-wpU
Not that I expect you to concede the matter, but to imply that no gay person EVER in the history of humanity has attacked a Christian because of what they believe is pure sophistry. There are bad actors on both sides of the issue, and since Christians are the big-dog in the US of course there is a lot more bad acting on thier side. I merely point out that there is an ugly underside to the LBGT community, and pin-heads like Savage show it. If the real message is true tolerance - which it SHOULD be - then both sides need to clamp down on thier offenders. Yeah - Christians need to repent and start acting more Christlike too. You can disagree with the gay lifestyle and not have to persecute it.


Ok, I will concede that you have "something approaching a point". I don't condone violence of that type.
And while two wrongs don't make a right, frankly, I can understand where they're coming from.

>> ^oOPonyOo:
As far as the reactions from some of the people in this thread go, it's very typical of the sift. The fact is, many of its most vocal members are self-admitted anti-theists. The sift loves videos that bash Christians, and loves anyone who says nasty things against the bible or Christians in general.
I've seen lots of your posts. I wonder why are you here then?


I'm here because I have been using the sift for a long time, probably since the year it made its debut. I decided to particpate in the community about a year ago, simply because the anti-christian bias was getting worse, and I felt I should represent the other side of the coin. Most people here are unaware that there is another side to the coin, but I can relate to them. I used to be agnostic and I didn't see any evidence for God or Spirit. I care about the people here because I know God loves them, even if they don't love Him back (or indeed hate Him with all their heart). God is so much bigger than what people know or believe about Him. It's not a question of these contentious social issues..it's simply about truth. These things are all peripheral to the question of truth. Before I was saved, I honestly desired to know the truth, irregardless of my preconceived notions. I could see the holes in my perspective, and my innate bias towards different people, ideas, and beliefs, and my emotional proclivities tainting what I understood about truth. I always saw obtaining the pure truth as the ideal goal. To understand what truth is, and how we could ever know it objectively, free from our subjective bias. I believe that was a blessing from God, a tender mercy from Heaven, to even be interested in such things. If you want to know the real truth, not just what you would like to believe, then God can reach you. If you don't, then even if God did reach you, you will ignore it, suppress it, mock it, or do everything other than follow it. I'm here to reach such people, and occassionally they will reach out. All I hope to do is help someone know the love of God for themselves.

I think you've forgotten about high school and college. I went to tons of 'voluntary' assemblies, speeches etc. when I didnt want to. Do you think the Journalism teacher took his journalism classes to the journalism convention? No you don't have to go to this convention where I the journalism teacher worked my ass off to have here and which whoever paid tons of money for.....but I am offering extra credit if you show up.

anyway ...we should poll the people there to see if they were they voluntarily or not.........


>> ^TheJehosephat:

I don't think they were forced to attend anything. This was at the Seattle National Journalism Convention, and anyone who showed up was there voluntarily. Which makes their walking out possibly planned and even more rude.
>> ^Confucius:
>> ^BoneRemake:
Look at all the closed minds ensuring they stay closed.
FUCK THEM INDEED.

Maybe barreling into the 'bible is retarded' was not the best way to approach the subject. And I'm guessing the majority of those who walked out weren't offended about what he was saying and just saw the opportunity to gtfo of an assembly that they had been forced to attend.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

a load of nonsenical rambling...

Tell you what, the day a single preacher, nun or even believer gets physically fucking assaulted by a homosexual for their beliefs, you will have something approaching a point.

Meanwhile, back in the real world (a place you don't seem to visit very often), religious bigotry is actively ruining gay kids lives. Aside from glee, wtf have gays ever done to them?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

...as with most...most liberals...you liberals...


It's pretty cool how you know so many people so well as to be able to lump them together in your rants.

I won't even begin to try to explain to you how ironic it is to hear you say "I can't fathom having to live a life so dominated by that much hypocrisy, irrational hate, and bitterness..."