Ex-gay bus advert ban upheld

GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Ex-gay bus advert ban upheld

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21894518

London: Transport bosses were right to ban a Christian group's bus advert suggesting gay people could be helped to change their sexuality, it has been ruled.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Awesome.

Awesome. Not sure I like where this could lead.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Awesome. Not

Vastet wrote:
Awesome. Not sure I like where this could lead.

This could lead to less gay teen suicides, so yeah, pretty damn awesome.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 So you have free speech

 So you have free speech unless the powers that be get offended? Either they should allow anything or ban all political advertisements on public property. Just because someone is a bigot, an idiot or offensive is not a sufficient reason to shut them up or for the government to allow one side to advertise but not the other. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Vastet

Anonymouse wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Awesome. Not sure I like where this could lead.

This could lead to less gay teen suicides, so yeah, pretty damn awesome.

See as Beyond points out, this is on the fine line between free speech and oppression. Yes its great that attitudes are shifting and an ad that wouldn't have been questioned 30 years ago is under such scrutiny, but limiting free speech isn't the way to go about it.
In this particular case it is a refusal to do business, not actually a limit on free speech. Except that usually mass transit is a public service, meaning the government is literally choosing what can and can't be said. It sets a dangerous precedent. If you're going to ban one sides arguments on a subject from ads, you have to ban all sides, else government is stepping into issues it has no business in.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Yes, I agree.  Just

  Yes, I agree.  Just because you don't like the message doesn't give you the right to censor it.  As an atheist I think the "pray away the gay" bus ads are dreadful but should they be banned ?   Hell no.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
"Pray away the gay" is a

"Pray away the gay" is a form of treatment which doesn't work and is a falsehood. Yes, it should be banned. This isn't about banning free speech.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:"Pray

digitalbeachbum wrote:

"Pray away the gay" is a form of treatment which doesn't work and is a falsehood. Yes, yes it should be banned...

 

    More nanny state fascism will save us ?  Why not let people have the choice to do what they want ?  I agree with your assessment but millions of things could be described within the same questionable terms.  Many people consider acupuncture or chiropractic as something of a "falsehood" that "doesn't work".  Using your criteria I assume if given the power you would ban them. too ?  

 

  People should have the freedom to voluntarily choose their own ways of dealing with their issues whether it's with religion ( Christian, New Age, Pagan, etc ) or none at all, like we atheists do.  I don't support religious based solutions within my own life for any issues but I don't support your "final solution" either.

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

"Pray away the gay" is a form of treatment which doesn't work and is a falsehood. Yes, yes it should be banned...

 

    More nanny state fascism will save us ?  Why not let people have the choice to do what they want ?  I agree with your assessment but millions of things could be described within the same questionable terms.  Many people consider acupuncture or chiropractic as something of a "falsehood" that "doesn't work".  Using your criteria I assume if given the power you would ban them. too ?  

 

  People should have the freedom to voluntarily choose their own ways of dealing with their issues whether it's with religion ( Christian, New Age, Pagan, etc ) or none at all, like we atheists do.  I don't support religious based solutions within my own life for any issues but I don't support your "final solution" either.

 

 

But these ads aren't about alternative healing methods. They're about taking away someone's freedom to be who they are, and turn them into someone they're not. 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: See as Beyond

Vastet wrote:
See as Beyond points out, this is on the fine line between free speech and oppression. Yes its great that attitudes are shifting and an ad that wouldn't have been questioned 30 years ago is under such scrutiny, but limiting free speech isn't the way to go about it. In this particular case it is a refusal to do business, not actually a limit on free speech. Except that usually mass transit is a public service, meaning the government is literally choosing what can and can't be said. It sets a dangerous precedent. If you're going to ban one sides arguments on a subject from ads, you have to ban all sides, else government is stepping into issues it has no business in.

Their arguments are nothing but barely camouflaged hate speech.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:But these

Anonymouse wrote:

But these ads aren't about alternative healing methods. They're about taking away someone's freedom to be who they are, and turn them into someone they're not. 

Is this organization physically forcing people to go through their program? 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Their arguments are nothing but barely camouflaged hate speech.

Hate speech is speech. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
But hate speech is the price

But hate speech is the price you pay for free speech. I'd rather have the Phelps family free to say what they like than be denied the right to say things myself. I love hate speech. It's what proves free speech is alive and well.
Also, while I've never been guilty of using it myself, many things I've said over the years could be interpreted as hate speech, even though it wasn't.

Quote:
"Pray away the gay" is a form of treatment which doesn't work and is a falsehood. Yes, it should be banned. This isn't about banning free speech.

Unfortunately false advertising isn't strictly illegal and enforced, otherwise that would be a good point.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote: But these

Anonymouse wrote:

 

But these ads aren't about alternative healing methods. They're about taking away someone's freedom to be who they are, and turn them into someone they're not. 

  If you support this ban simply because you *disagree with it ( *as I do ) then you are the one who is against having freedom.  If this anti-gay "therapy" is implemented on a voluntary basis and you still seek to remove it as an option then you the one in the wrong, not these religious kooks.

  I became a Christian of my own volition, later I became an atheist .   No one forced me in either case.   Let people make up their own minds about these issues and stop trying to shut down someone simply because you don't agree with them.  Strange how people who bill themselves as being so tolerant are actually the least tolerant.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote: Their

Anonymouse wrote:

 

Their arguments are nothing but barely camouflaged hate speech.

 

                ..and making accusations of "hate speech" is a barely camouflaged use of politically loaded rhetoric  to demonize an opponent.  

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: If

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 If this anti-gay "therapy" is implemented on a voluntary basis

It's not. 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

 

Their arguments are nothing but barely camouflaged hate speech.

 

                ..and making accusations of "hate speech" is a barely camouflaged use of politically loaded rhetoric  to demonize an opponent.  

Okay, we'll keep the "politically loaded rhetoric" out of it then.

I've actually been to one of these "therapists", and he seemed to have no problem demonizing me. 

I listened to his arguments, and if they really don't qualify as "hate speech", then I wonder if "hate speech" even exists.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse

Anonymouse wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 If this anti-gay "therapy" is implemented on a voluntary basis

It's not. 

   Well then that should be an argument against using force to gain access to potential converts and not the admittedly repugnant message itself.    

If atheists advocacy groups resorted to kidnapping theists against their will in order to convert them to atheism instead of using simple counter-arguments then there would be a problem for atheists as well, and rightly so.    These issues should not be lumped together because it may be politically expedient.  Free speech is free speech while coercive force is quite another.

  I hope you were not actually forced to participate.  What was your experience ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote: I've

Anonymouse wrote:

 

I've actually been to one of these "therapists", and he seemed to have no problem demonizing me. 

I listened to his arguments, and if they really don't qualify as "hate speech", then I wonder if "hate speech" even exists.

 

   If simply demonizing your opponent qualifies as hate speech  then the majority of political discourse around the world is hate speech.  Even we atheists would be guilty of hate speech simply by how we have worded many of our posts regarding theists on this very forum. 

 

 In the real world "hate speech" is rarely if ever applied to left wing advocacy groups because the term is used almost exclusively by the left.  It is similar to the political right using the term "family values" over and over . 

  Both sides have bastardized these phrases to serve their own ends.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Well

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Well then that should be an argument against using force to gain access to potential converts and not the admittedly repugnant message itself.  

But the message implies that force is an option. Gay kids do not go to "ex-gay therapy" because they want to, and these people are allowed to "treat" gay kids who get sent to them by their parents. 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
If atheists advocacy groups resorted to kidnapping theists against their will in order to convert them to atheism instead of using simple counter-arguments then there would be a problem for atheists as well, and rightly so.    These issues should not be lumped together because it may be politically expedient.  

Okay, I'm willing to assume that whatever bias I may have is blinding me to your argument here, but what issues am I lumping together ?

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Free speech is free speech while coercive force is quite another.

Exactly. 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
I hope you were not actually forced to participate.
 

I was. I briefly touched on this in another thread already, I think.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33394

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
What was your experience ?
 

I was 13. It was scary as hell. If I hadn't already had a bedrock of confidence from earlier confrontations with my parents' faith, it would have messed me up beyond repair. 

And yes, a friend of mine was sent to the same guy, and ended up killing himself. I'm aware that even mentioning this can be described as "emotionally manipulative anecdotal evidence", but fuck it, it happened.

 

Oh, and let's just make one thing as crystal clear as possible : I KNOW you're not a bigot. Not because I automatically assume that all atheists aren't, but because I've read many of your posts over the years, and I know where you stand. So if anything I say sounds like I'm accusing you of bigotry or anything like that, then I've either expressed myself poorly or stupidly, or you simply misunderstood what I was trying to say. 

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:If

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
If simply demonizing your opponent qualifies as hate speech  then the majority of political discourse around the world is hate speech.  Even we atheists would be guilty of hate speech simply by how we have worded many of our posts regarding theists on this very forum. 

 

In the real world "hate speech" is rarely if ever applied to left wing advocacy groups because the term is used almost exclusively by the left.  It is similar to the political right using the term "family values" over and over .

I don't care which political orientation gets "hate speech" applied to them. In fact, I don't give a flying fuck about either the right or the left, since both of them have screwed me over.

I'm just wondering if we, meaning me and you,  can agree if there even is such a thing as "hate speech", and what would qualify as such. 

Because I think leviticus qualifies, 20:13 to be exact. And guess what happens when you have a long talk with one those "therapists", as I have, and after dismantling each and every one of their bullshit arguments, you keep probing for what actually motivates them to even do this. That's right, it's the fucking bible.

 

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Both sides have bastardized these phrases to serve their own ends.
 

Kinda like people throwing the word "fascist" around ? 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote: But the

Anonymouse wrote:

 

But the message implies that force is an option. Gay kids do not go to "ex-gay therapy" because they want to, and these people are allowed to "treat" gay kids who get sent to them by their parents.

 Ah, okay.  I wasn't thinking of a minor being placed in this situation.  I was thinking of an adult homosexual who for whatever reason entered into therapy by choice.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
If atheists advocacy groups resorted to kidnapping theists against their will in order to convert them to atheism instead of using simple counter-arguments then there would be a problem for atheists as well, and rightly so.    These issues should not be lumped together because it may be politically expedient.  

Okay, I'm willing to assume that whatever bias I may have is blinding me to your argument here, but what issues am I lumping together ?

 

  Sorry.  I am not as articulate as I would like to be.  I was trying unsuccessfully to point out that even groups whose concepts we may support ( atheism for example ) would lose any aura of legitimacy if they were to attempt to strong arm someone into agreeing with them.  These kinds of coercive tactics should be condemned regardless of who may employ them.  

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
I hope you were not actually forced to participate.
 

I was. I briefly touched on this in another thread already, I think.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33394

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
What was your experience ?
 

I was 13. It was scary as hell. If I hadn't already had a bedrock of confidence from earlier confrontations with my parents' faith, it would have messed me up beyond repair. 

And yes, a friend of mine was sent to the same guy, and ended up killing himself. I'm aware that even mentioning this can be described as "emotionally manipulative anecdotal evidence", but fuck it, it happened.

 

   I know about all the Old Testament laws that required capital punishment for the "abomination" of same sex activity, etc.   So he suggested you deserved to die ?

 

Anonymouse wrote:
Oh, and let's just make one thing as crystal clear as possible : I KNOW you're not a bigot. Not because I automatically assume that all atheists aren't, but because I've read many of your posts over the years, and I know where you stand. So if anything I say sounds like I'm accusing you of bigotry or anything like that, then I've either expressed myself poorly or stupidly, or you simply misunderstood what I was trying to say.

  No, you have perceived me correctly.

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse

Anonymouse wrote:

 

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Both sides have bastardized these phrases to serve their own ends.
 

Kinda like people throwing the word "fascist" around ? 

 

  Touche Anonymouse. In the future I will attempt to employ a more accurate term, perhaps "totalitarian" is a better choice.  A form of government that attracts altruistic control freaks who will dictate every aspect of your lives.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: Ah,

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Ah, okay.  I wasn't thinking of a minor being placed in this situation.
  

The people who banned this ad probably were.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
I was thinking of an adult homosexual who for whatever reason entered into therapy by choice.
 

Oh, they can go fuck themselves. Nobody else will.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Sorry.  I am not as articulate as I would like to be.  I was trying unsuccessfully to point out that even groups whose concepts we may support ( atheism for example ) would lose any aura of legitimacy if they were to attempt to strong arm someone into agreeing with them.  These kinds of coercive tactics should be condemned regardless of who may employ them.
 

Sure, but what if somebody already IS using these coercive tactics, are we then allowed to use some of these tactics ourselves to stop them, like for example by stopping them advertising their shit ? 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
I know about all the Old Testament laws that required capital punishment for the "abomination" of same sex activity, etc.   So he suggested you deserved to die ?
 

Directly, you mean ? Nah, these guys are way too clever for that. But I did get him to talk about his religion, and I asked him if he thought if Lev 20:13 was a just law. He said "yes". 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
No, you have perceived me correctly.
 

Good. I only stressed that because the last time we discussed something similar, you blew up at me, and I still felt bad about that. 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Touche

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Touche Anonymouse. In the future I will attempt to employ a more accurate term, perhaps "totalitarian" is a better choice.  A form of government that attracts altruistic control freaks who will dictate every aspect of your lives.

Hey, you'll never hear me say there's no such thing as "altruistic control freaks". 

I would suggest, however, that trying to keep these ex-gay fuckers as far away from gay kids as possible, doesn't exactly make me a supporter of a totalitarian regime. 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Is this

Beyond Saving wrote:
Is this organization physically forcing people to go through their program?

They don't even have to do the "forcing" themselves. That's what so insidious about this. 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Hate speech is speech.
 

Yeah, and it's also hate speech. 

I mean, do I have to give an example of hate speech, and what it can lead to ? 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Hate speech usually leads to

Hate speech usually leads to being ostracised. It only flourishes when the majority supports it.
It sucks you had to go through that, but banning an ad isn't going to stop people sending their kids to such crackpots. They'll just bitch about it to the media and get free advertising instead.

On the flip side, do you need a reminder of what limiting speech can do?

U.S.S.R
Nazi Germany
North Korea
China

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Beyond

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Is this organization physically forcing people to go through their program?

They don't even have to do the "forcing" themselves. That's what so insidious about this. 

That is the problem with children and determining when they have they ability to consent to such things. In the US a few states have passed laws banning sending a minor to gay conversion therapy. I don't have too much of a problem with such laws, although I think if a mature 16 year old kid really wants to go, I am hesitant to prevent them. If the parents are attempting to force them, I have no problem telling parents to take a hike.  

I do have a huge problem with using government to control speech. Stopping this stupid advertisement isn't going to solve the problem. You still have parents who are going to send their children to these people and any parent who wants to send their children to this type of thing is already providing a very hostile environment at home. Forcing them to stop advertising is the equivalent of putting your head in the sand and ignoring the problem. It doesn't disappear simply because you don't see it. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:
 

Yeah, and it's also hate speech. 

I mean, do I have to give an example of hate speech, and what it can lead to ? 

I doubt you could give me an example that I could agree should be banned. The best way to combat speech is with more speech, not using government force. When someone says something stupid, laugh at them and point out how stupid they are. When someone says something hateful, ostracize them. The gay movement got where it is today because of speech. Speech which was often labeled as "corrupting" and "harmful" to minors. Many people have claimed that gay speech would lead children to lifestyles that were "clearly more harmful" and equivocated gay rights advertisements with advertising crack cocaine. Fortunately, attempts at limiting gay rights speech mostly failed.

The big problem with banning any kind of speech is that it is the people in power who decide what constitutes "hate speech" and what doesn't. There is no guarantee that your side will always be in power. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Yeah, it's a complicated

  Yeah, it's a complicated scenario.   I understand Anonymouse's desire to shield an impressionable minor from being told in an official setting that they deserve to be stoned to death for being gay yet how many other "crimes" were also considered deserving of death in the Old Testament ?   

  According to the OT simply being a rebellious son would have also put a young man on God's hit list but do you ever hear of young rowdy boys attempting suicide when they are forced to encounter Deuteronomy 21:18-21  in Sunday School ?   I hope not otherwise there would be thousands of guilt-ridden frat boys jumping to their deaths out of college campus buildings. 

   I think the difference is that even outside of a church / religious environment gays are still ostracized and are already being conditioned to feel guilty or ashamed for being gay yet how many adulterers or rebellious sons receive the same kind of societal shame even though the OT proscribes the same kind of punishment for their behavior ?

 I wonder what kind of effect would anti-gay hate speech have had in a gay-friendly society like ancient Greece ?  Probably none of the "haters" would have the guts to open their mouths and any of the victims of the so-called hate speech would certainly be indifferent to attempts to shame them since pederasty was the social norm.  Attempting to shame them for their male-male relations would have had no effect.

 Similarly, as an atheist I feel a certain level of discomfort in revealing that fact to others.  I believe I have made the correct choice in becoming an apostate but I am forced to factor in the prevailing attitudes of society at large.  I don't think that any form of censorship to protect atheists from so-called hate speech is the way to alleviate this type of discriminatory attitude against atheists, if anything doing so would likely only inflame the issue further.

  Society definitely needs to change toward tolerating the various "out groups" but I am very reluctant to use speech codes and legal penalties to achieve that goal.  It is Orwellian and will also serve to make those that hate us hate us even more.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Hate speech

Vastet wrote:
Hate speech usually leads to being ostracised. It only flourishes when the majority supports it.

It also gets people killed. If it didn't, I wouldn't even use the term.

 

Vastet wrote:
It sucks you had to go through that, but banning an ad isn't going to stop people sending their kids to such crackpots.

It will at least send the message that sending your kid to one of these licensed bigots is not the same as a visit to the dentist. 

 

Vastet wrote:
They'll just bitch about it to the media and get free advertising instead.

Let them. Then the pros and cons will come out in the open, and it will become painfully obvious just what exactly is making them do this. 

 

Vastet wrote:
  On the flip side, do you need a reminder of what limiting speech can do?

No, because, again, we're not talking about "speech", we're talking about hate speech, which is about "limiting" people's right to live.

And why the heck wouldn't you want to limit the hate speech in all those examples you gave ? I mean, has making nazism illegal in Germany turned that country into a totalitarian state ?


 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:That is

Beyond Saving wrote:
That is the problem with children and determining when they have they ability to consent to such things. In the US a few states have passed laws banning sending a minor to gay conversion therapy. I don't have too much of a problem with such laws, although I think if a mature 16 year old kid really wants to go, I am hesitant to prevent them. If the parents are attempting to force them, I have no problem telling parents to take a hike.  

So you'd be in favor of that law being passed in other states ? Just to be clear again, I am not happy about a law like that even being necessary, okay. But this bullshit is directly inspired by religion, and if we have to legislate to keep religious freaks from messing with kids, then I'm personally relieved that we can even do this. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I do have a huge problem with using government to control speech. 

Me too. Hate speech, on the other hand, not the same thing.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Stopping this stupid advertisement isn't going to solve the problem. You still have parents who are going to send their children to these people and any parent who wants to send their children to this type of thing is already providing a very hostile environment at home. 

People who are on the fence about this might take an ad as a sign that this practice is legitimate, and kids in situations as the one you describe can see this ban as an indication that at least someone in authority doesn't consider them in need of "fixing".

I am aware that stopping this ad will not stop the problem, but it can certainly keep it from getting worse. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Forcing them to stop advertising is the equivalent of putting your head in the sand and ignoring the problem. It doesn't disappear simply because you don't see it. 

Couldn't possibly disagree more. Not doing anything about this would have been the equivalent of putting your head in the sand and ignoring the problem. It won't disappear simply by doing nothing. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I doubt you could give me an example that I could agree should be banned. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3257748.stm

Beyond Saving wrote:
The best way to combat speech is with more speech, not using government force. When someone says something stupid, laugh at them and point out how stupid they are. When someone says something hateful, ostracize them.

You are giving me the advice people give their kids when they're being bullied. We all know that doesn't work. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
The gay movement got where it is today because of speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

Beyond Saving wrote:
Speech which was often labeled as "corrupting" and "harmful" to minors. Many people have claimed that gay speech would lead children to lifestyles that were "clearly more harmful" and equivocated gay rights advertisements with advertising crack cocaine. Fortunately, attempts at limiting gay rights speech mostly failed.

Show me one of these "gay speeches" that suggests straight people should be killed, and you will have a point. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
The big problem with banning any kind of speech is that it is the people in power who decide what constitutes "hate speech" and what doesn't. There is no guarantee that your side will always be in power.
 

Sure, but it's most certainly guaranteed that when the other side is in power, they won't hesitate to use it, and us not using ours will not stop them. Heck, just look at what they're trying to do in Uganda. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:It also

Anonymouse wrote:
It also gets people killed. If it didn't, I wouldn't even use the term.

Life gets people killed. People have a right to a different opinion than you.

Anonymouse wrote:
It will at least send the message that sending your kid to one of these licensed bigots is not the same as a visit to the dentist. 

No it won't. Those who'd be likely to send a kid there will simply send their kids there more prevalently. Only people who wouldn't send a kid there would be outraged, and then you're just preaching to the choir.
You assume people think and critically examine things. In general they don't.

Anonymouse wrote:
Let them. Then the pros and cons will come out in the open, and it will become painfully obvious just what exactly is making them do this. 

The pros will be ignored by those like yourself and the cons will be ignored by the bigots. And nothing happened.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
And you totally missed the

And you totally missed the point. When you limit free speech you BECOME the Nazi's, Soviets, N Koreans, etc. You really want to live in a place where free speech is denied then I suggest you look and see where that will inevitably take you.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: You assume

Vastet wrote:
You assume people think and critically examine things. In general they don't.

Another moment of Zen...

Thanks Vastet.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
   I detest Christians who

   I detest Christians who smugly threaten me with Hell and judgment.   Their condemnations would easily qualify as religious based hate speech and yet I would make no attempt to squash their civil liberties no matter what invective they sling at me.  If we limited their right to espouse their offensive ideas then what would be the point of this forum ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:So you'd be

Anonymouse wrote:

So you'd be in favor of that law being passed in other states ? Just to be clear again, I am not happy about a law like that even being necessary, okay. But this bullshit is directly inspired by religion, and if we have to legislate to keep religious freaks from messing with kids, then I'm personally relieved that we can even do this. 

It isn't a law that I would push for myself, but neither is it something I would oppose. If it were on the ballot as an initiative I would vote for it. Since I don't have kids and never plan on having them I am not particularly eager to tell people how they should raise theirs so I tend to avoid getting personally involved in those kinds of issues. The law that passed in California is headed for a challenge in a federal appeals court on freedom of religion grounds. We will have to wait and see how the case turns out. Imo, I think the law has a solid legal argument to stay in force. The Court has ruled that protecting children is a compelling government interest in many cases to infringe on the freedom of religion. Since the law was very specific and single out minors and from my understanding there is a significant amount of scientific evidence that the process is potentially dangerous, it should be a slam dunk. (In court the defense only has to prove that there is enough evidence for the legislature to reasonably believe that it poses a danger to children) I'll be keeping an eye on the case so I will try to remember to throw up a post when a decision is made.   

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/gay-conversion-therapy-ban_n_2349312.html

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Me too. Hate speech, on the other hand, not the same thing.

Define hate speech in a manner that we can objectively determine what is hate and what is protest/political etc.

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
I doubt you could give me an example that I could agree should be banned. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3257748.stm

That isn't speech. It is being accessory to a crime, the crime being the murder of all those people. Not the slightest bit comparable to a advertisement on a bus. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

You are giving me the advice people give their kids when they're being bullied. We all know that doesn't work. 

If they are bullying with words it works fine. If they bully physically I have always been more partial to the direct approach and meet physical with physical.  

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Show me one of these "gay speeches" that suggests straight people should be killed, and you will have a point.

My point is that they didn't and yet people still wanted to shut them up. The advertisement we are discussing here does not suggest that gay people should be killed, yet you want to shut them up.  

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
The big problem with banning any kind of speech is that it is the people in power who decide what constitutes "hate speech" and what doesn't. There is no guarantee that your side will always be in power.
 

Sure, but it's most certainly guaranteed that when the other side is in power, they won't hesitate to use it, and us not using ours will not stop them. Heck, just look at what they're trying to do in Uganda. 

If the other side suppresses free speech then you have reached a time when you have to turn to armed revolution and kill until the other side decides to be civilized. If your side suppresses free speech, I'm on the side of the revolution. You might as well say the other side is guaranteed to round everyone against them into concentration camps, so we might as well do it to them first. There have been countries in history where that was the situation and when you have two sides that are willing to do that, you cannot have a working democracy and people will die.

I don't think the UK is anywhere near that situation though and has a democracy in which for the most part the rights of the minority are recognized (as well as they can be in the real world). I know they are far more relaxed about infringing on free speech than Americans, but I am under the impression that most people over there don't have trouble.

I am admittedly rather extreme on the free speech side. I remember a video of a black panther raging about "we are going to kill all them crackers" and a few people suggesting he should be charged for making threats. I don't think such prosecutions should be made unless it can be demonstrated there is a reasonable expectation that the crime is actually going to happen. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Well, I guess atheists can't

Well, I guess atheists can't run bus ads anymore. After all, those ads are offensive to christians

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Cool, that means no

Cool, that means no religious ads. Well worth it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Life gets

Vastet wrote:
Life gets people killed.
 

Yeah, it does. And we try to stop it. It's called staying alive.

Vastet wrote:
People have a right to a different opinion than you.
 

Sure, but they don't have the right to different facts. 

Anonymouse wrote:
No it won't. Those who'd be likely to send a kid there will simply send their kids there more prevalently. Only people who wouldn't send a kid there would be outraged, and then you're just preaching to the choir. You assume people think and critically examine things. In general they don't.
 

Then what is the point of talking to anyone about anything ? 

Anonymouse wrote:
The pros will be ignored by those like yourself

No, they won't. Would love to hear at least one. Nothing so far.

Anonymouse wrote:
 and the cons will be ignored by the bigots. And nothing happened.
 

Wrong. My parents didn't believe me when I told them about some of the "physical therapies" this guy was planning. Only after they saw one of these freaks on a dutch tv show, describing the very things I told them about, did they even consider to forget all about it. 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:And you totally

Vastet wrote:
And you totally missed the point. When you limit free speech you BECOME the Nazi's, Soviets, N Koreans, etc. You really want to live in a place where free speech is denied then I suggest you look and see where that will inevitably take you.

So when Germany outlawed nazis, they became nazis ?? And when the anti-apartheid act was passed by congress, did you guys all become bigots ??

And btw, I do live in a place that has laws against racism and discrimination. I keep getting these dire, ominous warnings about where this "will inevitably take" me, but nothing seems to be happening. 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:It isn't

Beyond Saving wrote:
It isn't a law that I would push for myself, but neither is it something I would oppose. If it were on the ballot as an initiative I would vote for it. Since I don't have kids and never plan on having them I am not particularly eager to tell people how they should raise theirs so I tend to avoid getting personally involved in those kinds of issues.

Well, you'd vote for it, so you at least recognize it's a problem. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
The law that passed in California is headed for a challenge in a federal appeals court on freedom of religion grounds. We will have to wait and see how the case turns out. Imo, I think the law has a solid legal argument to stay in force. The Court has ruled that protecting children is a compelling government interest in many cases to infringe on the freedom of religion. Since the law was very specific and single out minors and from my understanding there is a significant amount of scientific evidence that the process is potentially dangerous, it should be a slam dunk. (In court the defense only has to prove that there is enough evidence for the legislature to reasonably believe that it poses a danger to children) I'll be keeping an eye on the case so I will try to remember to throw up a post when a decision is made.   

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/gay-conversion-therapy-ban_n_2349312.html

Thank you.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Define hate speech in a manner that we can objectively determine what is hate and what is protest/political etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Beyond Saving wrote:
That isn't speech. It is being accessory to a crime, the crime being the murder of all those people. Not the slightest bit comparable to a advertisement on a bus. 

??

A radio station doesn't use "speech" ? 

Beyond Saving wrote:
If they are bullying with words it works fine. 

If it worked, that type of bullying simply wouldn't exist anymore

Beyond Saving wrote:
If they bully physically I have always been more partial to the direct approach and meet physical with physical.

Which is why bullies travel in packs, or simply pick on those who are physically weaker. (That always seemed like cowardice to me, but apparently it's macho and admirable)  

Beyond Saving wrote:
My point is that they didn't and yet people still wanted to shut them up.

Then let them bring their reasons for wanting to shut them up out in the open. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
The advertisement we are discussing here does not suggest that gay people should be killed, yet you want to shut them up.

As it happens there is a direct link between the ex-gay industry and a law that legalizes the murder of gay people :

http://www.truthwinsout.org/news/2012/10/31307/ 

Beyond Saving wrote:
If the other side suppresses free speech then you have reached a time when you have to turn to armed revolution and kill until the other side decides to be civilized. If your side suppresses free speech, I'm on the side of the revolution. You might as well say the other side is guaranteed to round everyone against them into concentration camps, so we might as well do it to them first. There have been countries in history where that was the situation and when you have two sides that are willing to do that, you cannot have a working democracy and people will die.

And yet the democracies of countries with hate speech laws are still doing fine. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I don't think the UK is anywhere near that situation though and has a democracy in which for the most part the rights of the minority are recognized (as well as they can be in the real world). I know they are far more relaxed about infringing on free speech than Americans, but I am under the impression that most people over there don't have trouble.

Oh, they do have their "free speech" troubles, and they're actually going to do something about it :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/leveson-inquiry

Beyond Saving wrote:
I am admittedly rather extreme on the free speech side. I remember a video of a black panther raging about "we are going to kill all them crackers" and a few people suggesting he should be charged for making threats. I don't think such prosecutions should be made unless it can be demonstrated there is a reasonable expectation that the crime is actually going to happen.
 

And even under the strictest hate speech laws, he wouldn't get more than a slap on the wrist for that. As you say, there would have to be a reasonable expectation that the crime is actually going to happen.

Like them having enough money and power to actually pass a law somewhere that would make "killing crackers" legal. Sounds crazy, doesn't it ?


 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Well, I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Well, I guess atheists can't run bus ads anymore. After all, those ads are offensive to christians

Vastet wrote:
Cool, that means no religious ads. Well worth it.

 

Are we running bus ads that offer a psychiatric treatment that will "cure" people of their religion ?

Because if we are, then yeah, I'm all for banning those as well. 


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
For what it's worth, my take

For what it's worth, my take on this is that it is not, per se, a 'hate crime' advert, but IS false advertising.

 

The advert gives the impression that they can provide a service that successfully converts people from being gay to being 'non-gay'. However I've not heard of any successful clinical trials or research that can validate this. Further, if a pharmaceutical company brought out an 'anti gayness drug' but advertised it as "side effects may include self-doubt, self-denial, self-loathing, depression, reduced sex drive and suicidal tendencies" I doubt it would get to the 'advertising on buses' stage.

 

Same reason we don't get adverts about successful homeopathy treatments or deadly accurate star sign readings over 'ere.

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:No, they

Anonymouse wrote:
Yeah, it does. And we try to stop it. It's called staying alive.

And they die anyway. Freedom is worth the risk of dying a little sooner.

Anonymouse wrote:
Sure, but they don't have the right to different facts.

I'm not going to pretend that I think their methods work, but quite frankly neither of us can prove they don't. Your claim to hold the facts is an opinion.

Anonymouse wrote:
Then what is the point of talking to anyone about anything ? 

Talking will go further than legislation can hope to. Black people and women didn't escape servitude through legislation, they won it and legislation was then introduced to support their victory. All the work was done by the people in the streets. Talking and protesting. Especially protesting, but lots of talking behind it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:No, they

Anonymouse wrote:
No, they won't. Would love to hear at least one. Nothing so far.

Being targetted, you've already heard and rejected the churches pros.

Anonymouse wrote:
Wrong.

Wrong. Your parents are a very small minority, else these places simply wouldn't exist.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:So when

Anonymouse wrote:
So when Germany outlawed nazis, they became nazis ??

Yes. I'd never go to Germany. Horrible place.

Anonymouse wrote:
And when the anti-apartheid act was passed by congress, did you guys all become bigots ??

I don't much know or care what that is. It has absolutely no impact on me or anyone I know personally, as US congress has no jurisdiction in Canada.

Anonymouse wrote:
And btw, I do live in a place that has laws against racism and discrimination. I keep getting these dire, ominous warnings about where this "will inevitably take" me, but nothing seems to be happening.

People can ignore anything if they put their mind to it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Well, you'd

Anonymouse wrote:

Well, you'd vote for it, so you at least recognize it's a problem. 

Never said it wasn't. But it is legal and anything that is legal should be able to advertise. If it is so terrible that it should be illegal, then have that argument. But if you are going to have that argument, those who think it should be legal ought to be free to argue for it. You can't have a legitimate political debate if you use the force of government to shut one side up.  

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Define hate speech in a manner that we can objectively determine what is hate and what is protest/political etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Quote:

Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of one or more characteristics such as race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, or age.

That is an extraordinarily broad definition. 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33787

Anonymouse wrote:

Every time you think islam can't get any sillier or more disgusting...

 

Okay, any muslim or christian want to come in this thread and talk about how reasonable their religion is ? 

No ? You'd rather prattle on about the bible, the qu'ran or philosophy ? You'd rather not look too closely at what happens when people take your crap seriously ?

Said it before, and I'll have plenty more reasons to say it again, but you're all a bunch of fucking cowards. 

I think under that definition what you said here is clearly hate speech. Should it be banned? 

 

Anonymouse wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:
My point is that they didn't and yet people still wanted to shut them up.

Then let them bring their reasons for wanting to shut them up out in the open. 

Hard to do when you don't want them to speak. I think all bigotry should be out in the open so I can more easily choose not to associate with bigots. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
The advertisement we are discussing here does not suggest that gay people should be killed, yet you want to shut them up.

As it happens there is a direct link between the ex-gay industry and a law that legalizes the murder of gay people :

http://www.truthwinsout.org/news/2012/10/31307/

Your link isn't working, but if I remember correctly it was some African country that passed the law? We are talking about a group in the UK, running an advertisement in the UK. If they did any actions overseas that may be illegal under UK law they should be prosecuted. I fail to see how that has any relevance to whether or not they should be allowed to purchase an ad.

Their ad said almost exactly the same thing as the gay pride one which said "Some people are gay, get over it." The 'hate speech' read "Not gay! Ex-gay, post gay and proud. Get over it." As someone who is neither ex-gay nor gay the only difference I see is that you don't like the people who purchased the second ad. If I purchased an ad that said, "Not gay! Not ex-gay! Heterosexual and proud. Get over it." is that hate speech? Or perhaps one that said, "Don't give a fuck if you are gay or ex-gay. Shut up and get over it." Because quite frankly I am sick of all the hysterics and ads from both sides.

 

Anonymouse wrote:

And yet the democracies of countries with hate speech laws are still doing fine. 

For now. Are inclusive liberal groups always going to be in control? Or someday is a bible thumper going to take over and call atheist advertisements 'hate speech'? The only guarantee is that countries will not survive forever.

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Oh, they do have their "free speech" troubles, and they're actually going to do something about it :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/leveson-inquiry

Yeah, something I would be extremely concerned about if I lived there. I don't see why the government needs to pass more laws when many people involved in the scandal were arrested and are facing charges. What they did was already illegal, they got caught and are being prosecuted. Yet politicians can't pass on a scandal that will give them a reason to grab more power. Their citizens should be throwing fits. Unfortunately, too many people treat free speech cavalierly and tolerate these infringements.

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Like them having enough money and power to actually pass a law somewhere that would make "killing crackers" legal. Sounds crazy, doesn't it ?

That is exactly why government power should be heavily restrained even when you think you are using it for good. A powerful government will sooner or later fall into the hands of people who will abuse that power. Controlling speech content and who can speak is one of the many ways governments build their power. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Well, you'd vote for it, so you at least recognize it's a problem. 

Never said it wasn't. But it is legal and anything that is legal should be able to advertise.. 

I was wondering where all the good, 'tasteful' ads for whores should go...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:I was wondering

Kapkao wrote:

I was wondering where all the good, 'tasteful' ads for whores should go...

Nevada style: Handy little collectors cards passed out on the streets. Talk about false advertising though, they never send the girl in the picture. 

Rest of the US style: backpage.com and the risk she might be a cop.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: And they die

Vastet wrote:
And they die anyway. Freedom is worth the risk of dying a little sooner.
 

Huh ? But that makes no sense. So then the freedom of whoever wants to kill me is more important than any action I want to take to stop them ? 

Vastet wrote:
I'm not going to pretend that I think their methods work, but quite frankly neither of us can prove they don't. Your claim to hold the facts is an opinion.

If there is no way to prove if it works or not, then it's a fact that it's completely useless. 

Vastet wrote:
Talking will go further than legislation can hope to. Black people and women didn't escape servitude through legislation, they won it and legislation was then introduced to support their victory. All the work was done by the people in the streets. Talking and protesting. Especially protesting, but lots of talking behind it.
 

So we don't need the legislation anymore ? Just talking will do ?  I'm sorry, but that sounds almost adorably naive.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Being

Vastet wrote:
Being targetted, you've already heard and rejected the churches pros.

I didn't just reject them. I asked for reasonable arguments. Something beyond "because the bible says so". There was, and still is, nothing at all. I'm suggesting that should mean something.

Anonymouse wrote:
Wrong.
 

No, not "wrong". That actually happened, and it didn't just wake up my folks. Quite a lot of people watched that show.

Anonymouse wrote:
Your parents are a very small minority, else these places simply wouldn't exist.
 

There were only a few of these guys around where I live, and now there are even less. 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:So when

Anonymouse wrote:
So when Germany outlawed nazis, they became nazis ??

Vastet wrote:
Yes.

Are you being serious ? 

Vastet wrote:
I'd never go to Germany. Horrible place.

Assuming you are being serious, why is it a "horrible place" ? 

Vastet wrote:
I don't much know or care what that is. It has absolutely no impact on me or anyone I know personally,

Lucky you, I guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Anti-Apartheid_Act

Vastet wrote:
as US congress has no jurisdiction in Canada.

Ah, sorry, I forgot where you live.

Hey, did you know Canada has hate speech laws ? Does that make you guys enemies of freedom ? 

Vastet wrote:
People can ignore anything if they put their mind to it.
 

Then please enlighten me : What's happening in all these countries with hate speech legislation (including yours, btw) that I am ignoring ?