Valedictorian Rips Up Preapproved Speech, Recites Prayer Instead

by Sam Whiskey 469 Replies latest jw friends

Marvin Shilmer

-
“References please because I think that's crap.”
Dervic et al, Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt, American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 161, No. 12, Dec. 2004, p. 2303. (available at: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/data/Journals/AJP/3987/2303.pdf
“You try and trist "what someone said" into being "this is what he did say ... therefore it's what he did".”
Saying something is an act, whether it’s during a public speech or an interview for publication.
“…Marvin can simultaneously hold multiple viewpoints at the same time…”
Can I go off-topic with needless sarcastic statements like that?
Otherwise, if you feel I’ve said something contradictory feel free to ask. I have no problem whatsoever answering for what I say. Unlike several others here, I don’t mind answering when asked and I don’t mind expressing something I’ve said is in error. I’ve done both in this very discussion. If some answer of mine needs clarification all you need do is ask.
“So people's feedback get's filtered through them?”
I don’t know. But at least I reached out and asked the question. When/if I get a reply we’ll see whether it has any merit. If, for example, I get an answer asserting there is a Muslim contributor to their news organization and if I can independently confirm this is true then what that contributor has to say will help answer the question you suggested of what a Muslim would think of the situation.
"Now, about that hardly-used bridge ..."
My effort is for constructive discussion. I neither respect nor appreciate your rude behavior toward my person. There is no reason for it.
"But you believe whatever lies that tell you Marvin."
More needless sacrasm, not to mention that your assertion is patently false. Why are you acting so disrespectful toward me when I'm willing to have a substantive discussion?
Marvin Shilmer
mrsjones5

SFB
Tater-T

SBF double
how bout this take on the matter..
What the kid did wasn't right but, I would hardly say it was wrong too. he is a KID...
but with all due respect it doesn't deserve a 14 page thread on the matter...
just as a casual observer to this topic ... marvin you are losing at every turn .. but don't give up.. LOL
peace out L8R from the T8R
Marvin Shilmer

-
“…marvin you are losing at every turn…”
Tater T,
Thanks for the observation. But, so far, with possibly the exception of AndDontCallMeShirley, I'm not sure readers of my entries have bothered to evaluate what I've said for what it says but have, instead, read poison into what I've said as though I'm the enemy of truth and soundness. I'm just a person who sees the benefit of letting people honestly share what they think. I do not feel threatened by it and do not see why it should threaten anyone else. How can society grow efficiently otherwise?
Whether someone here thinks anyone else is “losing” (or “winning”) is beyond my concern. It’s the exchange of ideas and constructive discussion that’s important to learning, and learning and sharing is what’s important to me.
Marvin Shilmer
AndDontCallMeShirley

I think Costner did precisely what anyone giving a speech should do. Say what they wholly own rather than what someone else wants them to say that they do not wholly own.
----
This statement verifies three things:
1) Costner wrote the speech. If he wrote things he didn't "wholly own" just to get it approved, he's a liar and a hypocrite.
2) If he wrote a speech he never intended to deliver as promised, he's a liar and a hypocrite.
3) Since, by his own admission, his act of tearing up the speech he agreed to give as written was an act of defiance in protest of the school's policy, he's a liar and a hypocrite.
Marvin, you seemed to apologize for making claims without taking the time to do any research to substantiate your claims. After you did some fact-finding, you finally admitted this valectorian was, in fact, a liar. Your apparent apology for defending him without doing your homework initially garnered my respect.
Then, after "apologizing", you started right back in with your same worn-out arguments, completely unfazed, and defend his dishonesty. That leads me to believe your "apology" was not in the least bit sincere.
No wonder you identify so strongly with this liar/hypocrite valedictorian- you share the same mindset.
Lying and deception are acceptable- as long as it promotes your personal beliefs and your religious agenda.
Liar....hypocrite.
AndDontCallMeShirley

I'm not sure readers of my entries have bothered to evaluate what I've said
---
They have, Marvin. There have been some very astute observations made and accurate feedback given about your posts.
You are so entrenched in your own thinking you refuse (or simply cannot) see it.
Zed:
So, according to Marvin, if a valedictorian was a Westboro Baptist Church member, it would have been appropriate for him to say "God Hates Fags" in his speech.
Yes, apparently he could.
I never got an answer to a question I posted halfway into this thread, namely, whether Marvin would also agree this valedictorian could have spouted anti-semitic slurs, Neo-Nazi hate speech, and encouraged a return to human slavery, legalizing of pedophilia and misogyny with equal protection under "freedom of speech". After all, he is an "academic" and apparently can say whatever he wishes, and his audience must listen without any intellectual or emotional response to his words whatsoever.
The reality is, if this young man had said anything but Christian rhetoric, Marvin would have a problem with it.
Marvin Shilmer

-
“Then, after "apologizing", you started right back in with your same worn-out arguments, completely unfazed, and defend his dishonesty.”
AndDontCallMeShirley,
I don’t think you understand what I’m defending because you’ve not iterated it in your own words even one time.
- I am not defending the telling of lies. Got that? Any questions about that?
- I am not defending dishonest behavior. Got that? Any questions about that?
- I do not defend hate speech. Got that? Any questions about that?
- I do not defend yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater unless there is indeed a fire in that crowded theater. Got that? Any questions about that?
- I do defend the idea that civil disobedience is sometimes useful when engaged for the purpose of everyone’s liberty and not just a chosen few. Got that? Any questions about that?
- I defend the idea that people should not be repressed by governmental authority by prohibiting honest and unthreatening statements of their personal belief. Got that? Any questions about that?
- I defend the idea that when I choose to listen to a public speaker to understand what compels him in his success that that public speaker is free to tell me what compels him in whatever is the success at issue. Got that? Any questions about that?
If you want to engage me in discussion I would appreciate that you engage what I speak of and defend and not something else, and that you do this in specific terms rather than nebulous disagreement and impudent character attack.
Now. What are your questions of the position I hold?
"The reality is, if this young man had said anything but Christian rhetoric, Marvin would have a problem with it."
More presupposing. You have no idea just how wrong you are. Worse, you make these assertions without bothering to ask. I don't understand this.
Religious dud-nuttery is no friend of mine, regardless of the flavor.
Marvin Shilmer
Simon

Marvin: It seems you can believe anything and nothing whenever it suits you based on the points someone else has or hasn't just made.
I am not defending the telling of lies. Got that? Any questions about that?
Yes, then why did you deny, defend and excuse the telling of lies?
I am not defending dishonest behavior. Got that? Any questions about that?
Yes, then why did you deny, defend and excuse the dishonest behavior?
I do defend the idea that civil disobedience is sometimes useful when engaged for the purpose of everyone’s liberty and not just a chosen few. Got that? Any questions about that?
I defend the idea that people should not be repressed by governmental authority by prohibiting honest and unthreatening statements of their personal belief. Got that? Any questions about that?
I defend the idea that when I choose to listen to a public speaker to understand what compels him in his success that that public speaker is free to tell me what compels him in whatever is the success at issue. Got that? Any questions about that?
Yes, you have only demonstrated that you defend civil disobedience when it suits certain groups and in fact when it isn't necessary to defend the rights and liberties as it's representing the majority who's liberties at not at threat.
You don't seem to care about the views of the minorities at all or that the rest of us have to listen to religious and political statements that are nothing at all of interest to anyone other than the people who believe the same tripe.
A SINGLE QUESTION AND SINGLE, SIMPLE YES / NO ANSWER PLEASE MARVIN:
Are you a Christian?
Simon

Marvin: I'd be interested to hear how you reconcile the claims made after the speech with the aims given before the speech. Let me remind you:
It is up to US to insure this does not go all the way through and to maintain Christianity in our schools.
Now, I see there are two possible scenarios:
1. They changed their mind, saw the light, and had a complete change of heart. Real road-to-damascus stuff.
2. They trot out whatever lies suit the person in front of them or make them sound good even though their actions don't actually support them. Let's call it Spiritual warfare tactics though as 'lies' sounds so un-christian.
How can you tell when religious people are lying?
It's easy - they're usually speaking.
Marvin Shilmer

-
“I never got an answer to a question I posted halfway into this thread, namely, whether Marvin would also agree this valedictorian could have spouted anti-semitic slurs, Neo-Nazi hate speech, and encouraged a return to human slavery, legalizing of pedophilia and misogyny with equal protection under "freedom of speech". After all, he is an "academic" and apparently can say whatever he wishes, and his audience must listen without any intellectual or emotional response to his words whatsoever.”
AndDontCallMeShirley,
Neo-Nazism is hate.
Anti-Semitism is hate.
Advocacy of human slavery is hate.
Advocating pedophilia is hate.
Misogyny is by definition hate.
I neither defend nor advocate hate speech. Any questions about that?
I fail to see hate in the act of a person openly and honestly sharing their belief-system preference by quoting and agreeing with a quite innocuous ancient text, whether I agree or disagree with that preference. To think of this as hate is, to me, extremism.
Should I find it threatening or harmful for an atheist to tell me his belief-system does not include Allah or some other God?
Should I find it threatening or harmful for a scientist to tell me his belief-system includes ideas he cannot conclusively prove because the system he depends on allows for changing conclusions based on new evidence?
When I sit and listen to a speaker who’s invited to tell me and everyone else what motivated him to whatever success is at hand, should I expect that speaker to have the freedom to tell me what his motivation is in his own terms so long as it's not hate speech or somehow inherently dangerous?
When I sit and listen to a Ron Costner talk about how he was motivated by a Judeo-Christian God to be the man he is, should this make me feel threatened? Should I even be expected to think he’ll still agree with this view after he’s pursued more education? Should I read into his statement that he’s some kind of fundamentalist wacko with extreme views?
Marvin Shilmer

Valedictorian Rips Up Preapproved Speech, Recites Prayer Instead

Share this