Anti bullying speaker is a bully

OntarioVanMan · May 2, 2012

layoutshooter said:
Nope, wrong. Women NEVER fought to be equal, just special. They wanted the 'right' to vote, but NONE of the responsibilities that men have. Like getting drafted. They wanted 'equal pay' even if they are unable to do the work. Equal needs to be just that, equal in EVERY respect. When there are exceptions, ANY exceptions, it is just a form of government approved discrimination.

Get the Feds OUT of our lives and things will improve at a much faster rate. The Feds are holding things back.

well then there is a lot of work left to do...

layoutshooter · May 2, 2012

OntarioVanMan said:
well then there is a lot of work left to do...

Only on the part of each individual, NOT the government. They are, for the most part, the cause of the problem. As long as they insist on creating 'protected classes' and 'righting past wrongs', the Nation will remain divided, which is, after all, what they are after.

Tennesseahawk · May 2, 2012

OntarioVanMan said:
Yes..he was a little rough on the bible thumpers...but he made his point....the golden rule of "do unto others as others do unto you" seems not to apply to them so called "Christians" that ridicule the gay community....they can't take it when it thrown back at them...and they were "pansy asses" for walking out

Why does that only apply to Christians? Why not the flaming homosexual groups? Why not the NAACP? Why not unions? Whenever Christians are involved, they're not allowed to be as boisterous as the groups they're opposing. With them, it's always "Do unto others" or "... cast stones at glass houses". And this is usually coming from people who couldn't contemplate out of a wet paper bag.

OntarioVanMan · May 2, 2012

Tennesseahawk said:
Why does that only apply to Christians? Why not the flaming homosexual groups? Why not the NAACP? Why not unions? Whenever Christians are involved, they're not allowed to be as boisterous as the groups they're opposing. With them, it's always "Do unto others" or "... cast stones at glass houses". And this is usually coming from people who couldn't contemplate out of a wet paper bag.

Hawk..because i said so?.....LOL no really...it applies to any group that applies itself over anyone else in the name of "special" not just Christians

UncleTed · May 2, 2012

layoutshooter said:
There are only 'rights', that are NOT issued by any government and equal to all. The very idea that the government can bestow certain 'rights' on certain 'groups' is unconstitutional and done ONLY to further divide the Nation.

Clearly you are not familiar with the Dread Scott decision.

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

layoutshooter · May 2, 2012

UncleTed said:
Clearly you are not familiar with the Dread Scott decision.

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know about that decision. It is not relevant to the idea that government does NOT bestow rights, that they are inherent to humans by the fact that they exist. When government is able to bestow rights they are able to take them away. Human rights are basic, and can only limited or taken away by government. Since government by it's very nature is hell bent on control over the many, it is in the very nature of government to deny basic human rights. The idea that they, the benevolent government, can bestow rights, is part of the control process.

xiggi · May 2, 2012

OntarioVanMan said:
Yes..he was a little rough on the bible thumpers...but he made his point....the golden rule of "do unto others as others do unto you" seems not to apply to them so called "Christians" that ridicule the gay community....they can't take it when it thrown back at them...and they were "pansy asses" for walking out

So it is ok to lable an entire group a certain way and lay into them with vulgarity because of what others do? Where is the logic in that?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using EO Forums

OntarioVanMan · May 2, 2012

xiggi said:
So it is ok to lable an entire group a certain way and lay into them with vulgarity because of what others do? Where is the logic in that?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using EO Forums

IF one takes the speakers actions as direct action....
example..at a carrier conference...a speaker gets up and states all carriers are rip offs....how many would be offended right off...before they even hear the guy out as to why he said that....Impact. to get their attention....these students some of them walked out without hearing the rest....

ok..I'll edit out the Christian wording and put in "other interest groups"

xiggi · May 2, 2012

OntarioVanMan said:
IF one takes the speakers actions as direct action....
example..at a carrier conference...a speaker gets up and states all carriers are rip offs....how many would be offended right off...before they even hear the guy out as to why he said that....Impact. to get their attention....these students some of them walked out without hearing the rest....

ok..I'll edit out the Christian wording and put in "other interest groups"

Personally I admire them for walking out. They did not shout him down as some do now days. They chose to walk and let him finish his drivel to those that cared to listen. They took the high road in my book.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using EO Forums

UncleTed · May 2, 2012

layoutshooter said:
I know about that decision. It is not relevant to the idea that government does NOT bestow rights, that they are inherent to humans by the fact that they exist. When government is able to bestow rights they are able to take them away. Human rights are basic, and can only limited or taken away by government. Since government by it's very nature is hell bent on control over the many, it is in the very nature of government to deny basic human rights. The idea that they, the benevolent government, can bestow rights, is part of the control process.

It is absolutely relevant! Mr. Scott was human, thus, according to you, he had rights. These rights were summarily denied. The government didn't bestow him any rights and they didn't acknowledge he was do any! If human rights are basic what happened there? For example, The Ordinance of 1787 stated no non white person could claim freedom or citizenship in the Northwest Territory, and that, as slaves, they were personal property. So much for basic human rights.