Ah, so he thinks hes a guru.
S
Valedictorian Rips Up Preapproved Speech, Recites Prayer Instead
by Sam Whiskey 469 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
*lost*
Band I'm sorry, can you be a bit clearer.
did you yes or no, swear on the Holy Bible.
if so why so is it a requirement.
-
Tater-T
when ever I see some one who comments on every single comment, whether those said comments are directed at them or not..
it's one of those things that make me go HUmmmmm ... why a person feels compeled to answer everything and everyone on a thread they didn't start..
they must THINK they are pretty smart!!'
on the other hand the ones who answer everyone on the threads they start .. I'm like wow they are very sharp.. example Terry
sorry if this is off topic but, with the activity on this thread it's tough to ignore .. I felt compeled to comment.. I've had this observation for some time and no where to share it ..
-
OUTLAW
In this case the ideas I’m exploring have to do with when and/or whether quoting a historical religious figure and stating agreement with it is,
in apublicly sanctioned event, speech that should be prohibited by government authority.....MS
Seriously?!..
Your wondering if the lords prayer should be prohibited by the government?!..
You ignore everything in my post except..
My comment that: Your posts are "rife" with "What Ifs"..
And..
Answer me with another "What If?!"..
Roy didn`t Rob a Bank..
He recited the lords prayer..
Your still gaming Marvin..
I doubt you`ll be allowed to "Troll" another thread,like you have this one..
After all your Good Posts,you Spend your Credibility on this?!..
It`s disappointing..
....................
...OUTLAW -
Marvin Shilmer
-
“when ever I see some one who comments on every single comment, whether those said comments are directed at them or not..
“it's one of those things that make me go HUmmmmm ... why a person feels compeled to answer everything and everyone on a thread they didn't start..”
Tater-T,
You’ll not find that I’m not one of the more prolific posters here. But you will find my engagement of a subject that’s important to me will drill into details in order to 1) answer things asked of me, 2) help undo frustration about why I’ve asked certain questions and to 3) otherwise figure something out that I see value in understanding or resolving.
I don’t have a lot of free time to spend here. So when I do engage I do not tend to be a social talker, meaning I don’t tend to spend time chit-chatting about anything other than the subject immediately before me.
On that note, because I try hard to avoid reading emotion or sentiment into something said, I then respond to what a person has taken time to put to pen (meaning: the words they chose to use and how they chose to string those words together). I want to respond to what a person has took time articulate rather than waste my and their time responding to my version of what I think they said. This makes for much easier discussion, and it is how I approach every discussion in a write-only environment like this one.
Recently I pointed out on this very forum that I take what people write for what it actually says. I added that I stopped trying to interpret what folks express online a long, long time ago. The reply I got was “No one does that.”
I do that. Or, at least I try very hard to do just that! It is how I operate. In my world of assessing written information, what is on the page in black-and-white is everything. And, it’s vitally important to avoid transposing a meaning onto that information because doing so could lead to needless morbidity or mortality. Hence my training is to respond to what is written as it is written, and to ask lots of questions if there is ambiguity that matters. All in attempt to end up with better and helpful information and outcomes.
It is understood by me that words are to convey thoughts; hence understanding intent or thought behind a particular statement is the important thing. But you have to start somewhere to get to that point, and when you’re presented with written material the starting point is to assess what is written for what it actually says.
My pay for my trouble to engage subjects important tome as I do? Intimation that I must THINK I pretty smart.
Okay. Fine. I’ve been paid.
Now let’s get on with the subject under discussion.
Marvin Shilmer
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“He was solely concerned with pushing HIS brand of Christianity on the school after the decision he didn't like was made.”
Simon,
That might very well be the case.
“He's only trying to make it into 'freedom of speech' after the fact.”
That might very well be the case.
My engagement of this subject is not to defend Roy Costner or to confirm his intent, whether political or something else. For all I know the guy lies every time he opens his mouth! I don’t know and don’t really care.
The concern I see and have spoken to in this discussion arises from what I see in the video of Roy Costner giving his speech. He quoted a historical religious person and agreed with what he quoted. Hence my concern is whether it’s government overreach to prohibit a person at a publicly sanctioned event from innocuously quoting words and stating agreement with those words.
We can label those words as “religious,” “political,” “social” or anything we want. But the moment we allow government to prohibit speech that presents no threat to the audience we’re inviting Ingsoc to run our lives.
To me that’s the important feature that’s being avoided in this discussion of the Roy Costner video. I’ve asked questions to help participants engage this. But the questions are ignored as though irrelevant.
Marvin Shilmer
-
talesin
Tater-T .. wow, Terry must always reply to your comments on his threads. He has rarely replied to any of mine. You are mistaking Terry (who I like, don't get me wrong) for Flipper.
-
Simon
We can label those words as “religious,” “political,” “social” or anything we want. But the moment we allow government to prohibit speech that presents no threat to the audience we’re inviting Ingsoc to run our lives.
Yes, we can call anything whatever we want. It's usually better to call them what they actually are though.
Last time I checked prayers were pretty RELIGIOUS.
And again, you're back full-circle with your claims of 'no harm' when the reasons have been explained ad-naseum.
I’ve asked questions to help participants engage this. But the questions are ignored as though irrelevant
You've repeated the same claims and continue to do so. You have not helped people come to any understanding at all, you are still 5 pages behind everyone else.
-
Tater-T
I don't read every Terry thread anymore ( to long sometimes).. he is a great poster , and when I first got on the site, couldn't stop reading his stuff for days..
he is a good example of my point .. maybe not the best .. now that you mention it flipper is .. I don't know how they do it..
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
Simon,
To help me,
Do you agree or disagree with this statement:
- The moment we allow government to prohibit speech that presents no threat to the audience we’re inviting Ingsoc to run our lives?
If yes, then:
- Name one specific and inarguable threat to an audience by the mere act of quoting Jesus (or Rama) and stating an agreement with that statement.
Marvin Shilmer
...OUTLAW