Be tolerant or we will beat you into submission!

Fair enough, but Leffe seems to be implying that the aggressive reaction was legally permissible. Are you willing to go that far?

 

What a cop out. The guy was holding a sign which condemned most people I know, in some way. They turned up to a gay pride event, which was a deliberate act, aiming to offend.

You accused the others of intolerance, yet the first act of intolerance was with the religious types (as usual).

I do not believe that I have to be tolerant of bigoted, self righteous people who wander around telling others they are bad people, because of some religious make believe nonesense. They simply do not deserve it.

 

Guns are inanimate objects, man.

 

I think that fat guy should have been arrested, that is the law. I don't think the other two religious types should complain too much the reaction that they provoked.

- - - Updated - - -

I did no such thing.

 

Then don't be tolerant. These two crossed the line when they beat on the preachers. If they were to maintain some composure and simply tell them to get lost they might have stayed out of legal trouble. Do you go around beating up intolerant religious people for merely speaking their mind?

 

Not all Christians are like this. In fact, very few are.. Yes you get your bad examples, but if Christians were really like this, you would have had more than two trolls there wouldn't you.

 

Tea is really cheap in China, man.

 

You bet! Probably full of other (*)(*)(*)(*), too..

 

You said "It's called blow back and I'm all in favour of it." Was that a reference to the aggression shown in this incident? What does "in favour of it" mean here if not that it should be legal? If you favour it, why not defend it as legal?

 

They are likely to find opposition and that's fine. But, why does it have to rise to the level of aggression? Why do those claiming to support tolerance resort to violence against peaceful protesters? Also, why are the two preachers not allowed, in your opinion, to express their views like everyone else?

- - - Updated - - -

Your original point was your claim of the Bible being violent. When the issue was raised of violent novels, you said they are not being used to convert people. So, is your problem with the violence in the book or the attempt at conversion?

 

This is not a good excuse for those who are like this , do you know how they used to execute gays in medieval Europe? they hang them upside down so they couldn't pass out and hack them into two pieces with a saw and there was usually a good bunch of faithful spectators enjoying the procedure. Faithful spectators and firebrand preachers fell in the same category.

 

I won't. These two preachers crossed the line when they decided to judge others on behalf of god, then go to a place where they knew there would be people to condemn and condemned them. I'm not supporting the fat guys aggression, I'm simply fed up with religious types who cannot keep their views to themselves. If you dress up as a deer in shooting season, don't be surprised if you get shot at.

 

Should people be arrested for free expression based on the grounds it is offensive or unpopular?

 

I don't actually believe in opinions. They're make-believe.

 

So nobody should try to hit someone with a book. Unless, of course, the one hitting is a homosexual at a gay pride event.

 

Only if it is useful to me personally. And by me I don't mean gays or whatever, I mean me.

 

I did and it was a reference to the reaction that they sought and lets be honest, that's exactly what they wanted. The legality is neither here nor there; alcohol and everything else of that guys sign are legal, yet this idiot went there to tell all these law abiding people, whether drinkers or whatever else he had on his sign, that they were bad people for doing perfectly legal things.

They're idiots, plain and simple and while I already said the fat guy should have been arrested, I have little sympathy for the two christian idiots, who provoked the reaction.

 

Uh... No.

 

Do they deserve the right, like everyone else, to express their opinion freely without being battered with physical violence?

 

Oh, I wouldn't care about the conversion part if you edit the violence out of the book. Then it wouldn't be a violent teaching. I don't care that much anyway. I'm more concerned with economic issues.

 

It's not an excuse for those that are like this.. I'm simply challenging your generalization that Christians are like this.. Very few are.. You acted like all Christians are like this.. Only a tiny minority are.

Your generalization is in the present tense, in today's world... I'm not talking about the middle ages, when obviously things were different.

 

This is a very disingenuous rationale "Why do those claiming to support tolerance resort to violence against peaceful protesters?". I do not have to be tolerant to the intolerant. You have the right to believe in which ever religion you want, you do not have the right to force it on others.

This is the very reason people left the NL, sailed to England and on to the New World all those years ago. Not because they wanted relgious freedom (as is the American myth), they did not want religious freedom, they had that. They wanted to force everyone else into their beliefs, Europeans wouldn't accept this extreme version of christianity, so they left to the New World and they live there today, still trying to force their extremism on others.

 

The pathological, the same who wrote the book. Do yourself a favour, and dump your pathologization.

 

Reducing regulation, auditing the Fed, and cutting taxes?

 

Again, and I don't know how many times I must repeat myself.

The fat guy should have been arrested.

The two religious types haven't got much room to complain about how they were treated.