-
“So, we all have "little minds" (a theme you repeat often) and apparently he's the brightest person in the room and there is no boogieman ... I presume you mean bogey man and not some master of funk. Later, you decide there is in fact a bogey man in the form of "the government" (que scary music ... no, scary, not funky, OK Mr Boogieman, just boogie on along now please).
“When he speaks then we should listen to his opinion but we're not allowed to have any opinion on what he says?
“Since then you have doggedly persued a worthless argument in an attempt to back up your initial statements.”
Simon,
The thing absent a boogieman is the act of quoting Jesus and stating agreement with the quote. To this day I see nothing whatever dangerous about doing that. Gandhi did that. Was Gandhi dangerous to someone like you or me? I don't think so.
It is very appropriate to share and listen to a wide range of perspectives. I’ve not suggested this in inappropriate. But when we share an opinion that makes an assertion then we have a burden to prove that opinion true when asked to do so. Or, at least that is how I see things.
I don’t see how what you write above suggests lack of objectivity on my part.
“Once again - we're all 'petty' for having our opinion are we?
“Yes, there is a chance that the boy will grown up and teach us the mysteries of the universe. I won't hold my breath though. Given that it appears he wants to go into politics and has a penchant for Christianity it's more likely we'll be reading his name in relation to some gay-preacher-politician sex-scandal and he'll be able to fall down on his knees and practice his praying for the camera all over again.”
People are not petty for having opinions. Whether an opinion is sound depends on how well it can withstand substantive scrutiny.
I don’t see how what you write in this cases suggests lack of objectivity on my part.
“We're little-brained again ... my my, so many insults. Everyone else is so stupid aren't they? Only you have the 'sense' to look for knowledge anywhere and everywhere. You're so clever.
“This picture you like to paint of yourself as being on some quest for knowledge is just an act IMO. You bring your opinions to the table like anyone else and try and twist the world to fit them.”
No.
My point you take exception to was not to insult anyone here but to point out an object lesson in relation to civil disobedience.
“Marvin. Since you first appeared on this topic it's been clear you do not have an objective viewpoint on the subject.”
During this discussion my primary concern has been sufficiently spelled out, and it’s objective. Ultimately it asks a question: how is appropriate governmental intrusion into speech best determined.
But as I said already, from what I can tell participants here don’t want to go there. So be it.
Marvin Shilmer
...OUTLAW