JWs anti gay video reaches over 1,000,000 views on youtube

by alanv 75 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  wizzstick

  Why did you ignore all my other examples?

  For three reasons.

  1) They are taking us further and further from the OP and muddying a pretty simple argument - suggesting 'gay's can change' is wrong. Expressing that view should be challenged and not defended under freedom of speech. Disliking a video is a way of challenging this.
  

  2) Your first example:

  What if a gay man says his gay relationship is a choice? Should he be charged with a hate crime too?

  I've worked with a number of gay men who have all said that they have felt that way for their entire life. So unless you can provide an example of this then I'd suggest this is a strawman argument.

  3) Lastly the other two examples:

  Climate change denyer - whilst dangerous for our planet this doesn't psychologically harm an individual - unlike suggesting they can chose their sexuality. So context is important. Expressing such a view should be challenged and not defended under freedom of speech.
  

  Antivaxxers - you jump straight to jailing them. Why? Expressing that view should be challenged and not defended under freedom of speech.
  

  Of course if death results then yes, they should be jailed:
  

  This anti-vaxxer dad, convicted in the death of his son, is going to jail

  Your view seems to be 'let them say what they want as this is freedom of speech - or you'll end up jailing them all'.
  

  That feels like a pretty extreme position to take.
  
• 

  EndofMysteries

  The anti-vaxxer dad wasn't jailed because of not giving vaccinations, but because when his son was so ill he couldn't move and advised by others he may have meningitius, he still didn't take him to the hospital.
• 

  cofty

  It should be illegal for any group to teach implicitly or explicitly that a specific segment of society are deserving of death by virtue of their nature or their actions, - Island Man

  Christianity teaches that billions of us are going to hell because we don't think the same way as they do. Some of them even teach that it is impossible for any of to choose to avoid this. According to millions of Reformed Christians we were chosen for an eternity in hell even before we were conceived. By your logic Calvinism should be illegal.

  the JW teachings is disproportionately discriminatory and fosters negative attitudes toward that segment of society

  Christian teachings foster negative attitudes towards atheists and Muslims. Islamic teachings fosters negative attitudes towards all non-Muslims. They teach that we will go to hell and when our skin is all burned off we will get new skin so we can suffer some more for all eternity.

  These teachings lead some Muslims to commit acts of terrorism.

  Millions of christians teach that all life is sacred and a zygote has the same rights as an adult. This leads some individuals to murder abortion doctors.

  Millions of evangelical christians and billions of Muslims also teach that homosexuality is a sin. Are you calling for a ban on all biblical christianity and all of Islam or just a ban on a minority cult?

  anyone who publicly advocates against vaccination should prove their case empirically or face prison time for reckless endangerment of the public.

  I am stunned that you would say that and that 2 people would "like" it. It is a vote for thought police and 1984. Thousands of people write against vaccines on the internet every day. Let's track them all down and fill up our jails. And those who deny global warming. They are endangering the future of our planet. Let's throw them in jail until they recant.

  Your attitude to freedom is frightening.

  
  
  
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Interesting discussions going on in this thread.

  I still believe government should monitor religious output. The WT anti-gay video for example - I strongly disagree with it and I feel such videos should be discussed in Parliament, with a view to banning them on incitement to hatred grounds. The video goes beyond people stating their opinion on homosexuality - it's more like brainwashing children, implying that 'God will destroy all those who choose a gay lifestyle'. Well, children shouldn't really have an opinion on homosexuality - they should be allowed to be children while they're young.

  However, I do feel that people should be able to state openly that they believe homosexual acts are wrong and not face negative consequences.

  PS - doesn't anyone else find it interesting that MPs can monitor us and tell us what to think on a whole range of matters, but won't touch religion with a bargepole? These political pygmies need to man up and do their job properly.
  
• 

  cofty

  They are taking us further and further from the OP and muddying a pretty simple argument

  No my examples are not doing that.

  You said - "If a statement of belief is harmful ... then yes if should be banned."

  Promoting anti-vaccinations and denying global warming is harmful so why won't you also demand people who say these things in public should be arrested?

  - suggesting 'gay's can change' is wrong. Expressing that view should be challenged and not defended under freedom of speech.

  Yes of course it should be challenged. Banning it is not the same as challenging it. Let people say it and let's challenge it with reasoned argument.

  Disliking a video is a way of challenging this.

  But I am not asking why people dislike the video. I already said that I dislike the video intensely. You want to ban the video. That is what I oppose. It is tyrannical.

  So unless you can provide an example of this then I'd suggest this is a strawman argument.

  Milo Yiannopoulos is an gay man who publicly states that he chose his sexuality. Shall we lock him up?

  Peter Tatchell is one of the best known gay rights advocates in the world. He argues against the dogma that homosexuality is predetermined or that gay men don't sometimes change. Shall we lock him up as well?

  As EOM pointed out your example of the anti-vaxxer being jailed is dishonest. He was locked up for denying life-saving medical treatment for his child.

  Your view seems to be 'let them say what they want as this is freedom of speech - or you'll end up jailing them all'. That feels like a pretty extreme position to take.

  No I'm advocating free speech. You are advocating banning things you disagree with.

  Tyranny masquerading as political correctness.
  
• 

  cofty

  such videos should be discussed in Parliament, with a view to banning them on incitement to hatred grounds. The video goes beyond people stating their opinion on homosexuality - it's more like brainwashing children, implying that 'God will destroy all those who choose a gay lifestyle - LUHE

  Christians and Muslims teach their children that all non-believers will burn in hell. Should we alert our MP?
  
  
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Christians and Muslims teach their children that all non-believers will burn in hell. - I think I get what you're saying: it's not just gay people that are the target of religious people's ire. This statement goes beyond simply stating an opinion. People shouldn't be teaching their children that anyone will burn in hell.

  Should we alert our MP? - perhaps we should.

  I'm all for freedom of speech (a person stating that they think homosexual acts are wrong is ok with me) but there must be sensible limitations. Making a vid that brainwashes children (there's no debate - the other side isn't presented) clearly crosses a line.

  MPs can lecture parents that baby's bathwater is too hot, can tell us what words are offensive or not, can tell us what to think on a range of issues. But, again, they won't touch religious beliefs with a bargepole. Cowards.
  
  
• 

  rebelfighter

  I find this video totally disgusting but the part I find most repulsive is having Sofia go teach her friends at school her beliefs. First never a JW, if I am not mistaken wasn't it the WT and their legal team that got the pledge and prayer taken out of OUR schools here in America then DON'T start preaching your religious beliefs on our school properties!! Furthermore don't be preaching that hatred to my grandchildren because my grandchildren will be preaching ARC, pedophile in KH, and your bloody sexist attitudes to your little Sofia and friends.

  I am with:

  slimboyfat2 days ago

  Death throes of bigotry. They will disown this video and their homophobic rhetoric within 10 years is my prediction. It's just not sustainable in the modern world.

  OK, history lesson here in the US, I have never been in a KH but I am sure some older members of this forum can verify what I am about to say in the 1960's and prior if you walked into a KH it was WHITE or it was BLACK it was not mixed. Ceasars laws started to change so did WT.

  What I do not understand is why they have held their ground on the sexist attitudes. And their attitude on child rape.

  I worked my way through college working for large national company that was dominated by men. When I graduated I had a degree in Finance with a minor in Business along with 4 semester in Business Law. The company I worked for was under a lot of pressure by the federal government to put females in lead SALES management or they were going to lose their federal contracts. I was offered one of these positions with all of the perks and moving expenses included. Thirty days into the new job the "old set in his way women don't belong" boss started his campaign to harsh me. Called me with you will no longer drive the company car to and from work. My response Not a problem as soon as you have new contract on my desk I will accommodate your wishes. One hour later he called me back I guess you can continue driving the company car and slammed the phone down. Thirty days later he called me and said I have your leave slip for Christmas, I am denying it because I need you to cover Dean's store and your store. My response Sorry that does not work for me for two reasons one I have use or lose leave which has to be used before the end of the year AND two Dean has not been employed long enough to have any leave. I will be taking my vacation. His response I will call you back. He called back. I approved your leave request. About 30 days after vacation he called me at 11 AM in the morning and said I understand that you are having a problem getting to work on time. No sir I am not. But you are more the welcome to hope on the next flight and open this store at 7AM tomorrow morning and close it tomorrow night 9 PM because that is what I have been doing for the last 4 weeks for a SALARY and no ovrrtime and hung up on him. Thirty minutes later my old boss called me (I swear this company word spread faster then fire in a building ) DO NOT put your resignation in writing the company is willing to pay for a move to transfer you.

  Thirty days later I got a call HD was forced to retire for his pressure on the 3 female store msnagers.

  The store they sent me to I cleaned house 6 men got either lost their jobs, demoted or forced to retire.
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  I believe that the most important thing we can show our kids is the ability to talk about anything, any topic, as long as it is kept in the bounds of respect. Thus, to tell them not to talk about religion at school, to me, is telling them that there are ideas out there that they should not be able to reject, analyze, discuss or accept.

  Sophia: God hates gays.
  Other girl: Why?
  Sophia: Well, its written in the bible.
  Other girl: Yeah, that says God hates gays but doesn't explain why. So, why?
  Sophia: Cause they can't make babies?
  Other girl: Does it make sense to sentence them to death for it?

  The idea here is that little JW are thought how to defend ideas that don't make sense. I believe every kid of all background and religion should also learn how to defend their beliefs what ever they are. It is through the exchange of these believes that they will make up their minds. Otherwise, you end up with parents who never asked themselves "why".
• 

  Island Man

  cofty, do you think freedom of speech means that a person should be able to publicly teach that tea made with Oleander leaves (deadly poison!) is a good remedy for the common cold, without facing any criminal charges?

  Don't governments have a responsibility to protect their gullible, ignorant citizens? If govts have a responsibility to protect the physically weak from being harmed by others then they also have a responsibility to protect the intellectually weak from being harmed by others.

  Freedom of speech is good as long as the speech does not hamper the freedom of life and wellbeing of others. Tell me what harm results from criminalising the public dissemination of ideas which are not provably true and which, when followed, result in the harm of others.