Posts by wizzstick

75

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

by alanv in

the anti gay video that watchtower recently produced has now had over 1,000,000 views.

of those who selected to like or dislike the video, over 92% disliked it.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnk52bu92oe.

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.

75

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

by alanv in

the anti gay video that watchtower recently produced has now had over 1,000,000 views.

of those who selected to like or dislike the video, over 92% disliked it.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnk52bu92oe.

wizzstick

This is the biggest hole in your argument:

If you go up to somebody in the street and start shouting and swearing at them and calling them obscene names you should expect to be arrested. That has nothing to do with limiting your freedom of speech.

Racists would (and have) said that they can do this as under freedom of speech. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" and all that nonsense.

They are of course utterly wrong. Calling people names doesn't kill them, but is does cause psychological harm and that is why we won't permit this.

75

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

by alanv in

the anti gay video that watchtower recently produced has now had over 1,000,000 views.

of those who selected to like or dislike the video, over 92% disliked it.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnk52bu92oe.

wizzstick

Personal abuse has nothing to do with this issue.

So personal abuse does limit freedom of speech?

I am convinced that the christian gospel is psychologically harmful.

What all of it? Every single element? Every doctrine?

Is there not a difference between statements/doctrines that aren't harmful (God is three persons in one) and statements that are harmful (Gays can change).

One has almost no possibility of being harmful.

The other does.

This is why that video has so may dislikes.

You seem to be taking an all or nothing approach. I would suggest that's pretty extreme. If a statement of belief is harmful (Gays can change) then yes if should be banned.

Think whatever you want - but that doesn't mean you're free to state it. That applies to religious statements as much as racist statements.

75

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

by alanv in

the anti gay video that watchtower recently produced has now had over 1,000,000 views.

of those who selected to like or dislike the video, over 92% disliked it.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnk52bu92oe.

wizzstick

the law should not be used to limit people's right to hold and state stupid ideas.

And that is where I would add on the point about being harmful.

If a person states a stupid statement that causes harm then yes it should be stopped.

Calling an asian person a 'Paki' is both stupid and harmful. It will cause distress and a lot of hurt. I absolutely believe that whilst people can hold whatever stupid ideas they want, there are limits to what they can state.

This would apply to racist terms such as the one above.

Whilst people can hold whatever stupid ideas they want over gay people, there are limits to what they can state. And that includes the nonsensical and harmful idea that 'gays can change'.

75

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

by alanv in

the anti gay video that watchtower recently produced has now had over 1,000,000 views.

of those who selected to like or dislike the video, over 92% disliked it.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnk52bu92oe.

wizzstick

You did previously say:

If we are asking for governments to get involved in limiting the rights of religions to state their beliefs I would suggest we start with mainline theism.

But you seem to have shifted a bit to:

We should not ban stupid ideas even if they are harmful.

You're right, you can't ban stupid ideas. You can't ban someone from believing that the earth is flat. But, as nuts as that idea is, by and large it doesn't harm people.

But should beliefs that cause harm be allowed to be preached?

As you stated above:

If we are asking for governments to get involved in limiting the rights of religions to state their beliefs...

If the teaching of hellfire to children warrants the 'limiting the rights of religion to state their beliefs' it's not unreasonable to apply that 'limiting...to state their beliefs' to teaching children that Gay people can change when that is a) not a view shared by the scientific community, and b) will cause a lot of harm to the children who will grow up gay or have gay parents.

75

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

by alanv in

the anti gay video that watchtower recently produced has now had over 1,000,000 views.

of those who selected to like or dislike the video, over 92% disliked it.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnk52bu92oe.

wizzstick

Thank-you for your response.

So, just to clarify, when you write this about a child:

Telling them they will end up in hell if they don't accept certain superstitions is child abuse.

You're saying that it is child abuse but acceptable under freedom of speech?

75

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

by alanv in

the anti gay video that watchtower recently produced has now had over 1,000,000 views.

of those who selected to like or dislike the video, over 92% disliked it.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnk52bu92oe.

wizzstick

My point is around the limits of freedom of speech.

For example, there have been some video's on social media post Brexit showing racist attitudes.

Are they utterly wrong?

Or do they fall under the bracket of freedom of speech?

Do you feel there are limits to freedom of speech Cofty?

When you write:

Telling them they will end up in hell if they don't accept certain superstitions is child abuse.

It feels like you do believe that there are limits.

Would you feel comfortable re-writting that statement to apply to a teenager like this:

Telling them they will die at Armageddon if they don't accept the Bible is right about condemning their sexuality, is abuse.

Therefore would you not agree that the WT (and other Christian groups) were wrong and pushing freedom of speech too far?

75

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

by alanv in

the anti gay video that watchtower recently produced has now had over 1,000,000 views.

of those who selected to like or dislike the video, over 92% disliked it.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnk52bu92oe.

wizzstick

Would you write what you did if the WT had a belief that black people were in some way lesser people to white people?

Imagine they had such a doctrine. Would you write the below?

My statement included two clauses ...
1 - I disagree with the Watchtower's view on black people
2 - anybody who cares about freedom should defend their right to say it.
So either they agree with the Watchtower's position on black people or they disagree with freedom of speech.

So would you feel comfortable writing the above?

Genuinely curious.

37

Nobody at work knows what JWs believe

by Athanasius in

recently susie, one of my co-workers mentioned that her husband's family were all jws.

the family converted after susie's husband left home, so he never joined the jws, nor does he intend to.

anyway another co-worker asked her: "what do the jws believe?".

wizzstick

This was actually something that helped during my recovery process.

Over 100 years and countless billions of hours of preaching, and what do people know of the JW kingdom message?

It's possibly the most disastrous advertising campaign in history. How can they say they fulfilled scripture when people don't know why they come round?

How can God start Armageddon when people don't get it?

It's another example of their grandiose thinking.

81

No! No! No! This can't be true? brexit? No!

by purrpurr in

it seems britain has voted to leave the eu in a move of total madness!

the markets are already in free fall and the moronic bigots who campaigned for this are celebrating the demise of our country .. i can't see how a 49-51% split can be democratic?

there is still the postal vote to come in, maybe there's hope in that?

wizzstick

Headline tomorrow

If the above headline is true, this is turning into the biggest political cluster f**k ever.

I really wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing fizzles out. Remember the referendum was advisory. Unless Article 50 is triggered, we don't leave.