Franklin Graham Uk Tour Venues Cancelled ….

[naomi24]

… under pressure from LGBTQ+ campaigners who say statements Graham had made were incompatible with their values, and that his appearance would be divisive, could be disruptive or lead to a breach of the peace. His lawyers are trying to reverse the decision.

Franklin Graham is the son of US evangelist Billy Graham.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/07/us-preacher-franklin-graham-will-try-to-reverse-uk-tour-cancellations

Should he be allowed to speak? Your thoughts?

[jim360]

I don't measure victory that way. I win when I've persuaded you.

Coincidentally, I don't win very often on this site.

[sanmac]

"It would have been obvious to a 10-year-old." That statement sneakily implies that Spicerack is "dim", and the use of that word, I suspect, is why his answer was removed.

[naomi24]

//I don't win very often on this site.//

And you've failed again so perhaps you should reflect. This conversation conjures up echoes of 'Democracy doesn't mean what you think it means'.

[jim360]

Bear in mind that by the same measure you clearly aren't winning either. Somehow I don't think you'll be reflecting on that -- perhaps because it's obvious why you aren't "winning".

All you need to do is reverse the logic and you'll understand my response to your unhelpful advice. I reflect on our conversations a great deal.

[naomi24]

// I reflect on our conversations a great deal. //

You really must try harder then. Bet you're all for the school in Birmingham that's teaching the kids all about LBGT issues - despite their parents' objections.

[jim360]

Reflecting on our conversations is not synonymous with deciding I was wrong though :P

I don't see a problem with teaching children LGBT topics alongside normal sex and relationships education. Objecting to the first but not the second is clearly discriminatory and wrong. You'd get more traction out of arguing that the kids at the school are too young for *any* sort of sex ed, which is fair enough if they were 5 or whatever.

[naomi24]

//I don't see a problem with teaching children LGBT topics //

Haaaaaaaaaaaa! Who'd a guessed?! Great innit ... free speech! :o)))

[jim360]

Selective quoting again, I see. Cut the sentence mid-way through and miss the point. I know it's your favourite trick but it's clear to everybody what you are trying by that.

[jim360]

Moreover there's no relevance to the OP. The parents are free to protest, within sensible limitations, and the school is free to ignore them.

[naomi24]

Keep digging, Jim. It's quite entertaining. :o)

[jim360]

I'm sorry you have so little respect for me that giggling is all you feel worth your while doing. But that is for you to fix. I will continue to make my points as I see fit.

[jim360]

Put another way, I wish you'd try to show me the errors of my ways for a change. If you tried to persuade me you might even succeed. Or not. But at least it would lead to a more interesting discussion.

[naomi24]

In all seriousness, Jim, giggling at your posts is my last resort to your irrational posts - but in my opinion preferable to blowing a fuse at your determination to flout decent, moral principle in favour of dubious personal agenda. And since you mention it, as I've said before, respect is earned.

[jim360]

Basic respect is unconditional. As to the irrationality, that's subjective and then some. It isn't enough just to say so. *Show* me where I'm being irrational. All you do is state it, again and again, as if that is ever enough.

I don't recognise anything in the rest of your post. I don't have the agenda you clearly think I do; I don't recognise even remotely the idea that I'm flouting any basic principles. Again, as in this discussion, the simple point I'm making is that there is no right to speak at a given venue, and therefore no right has been taken away from anybody in this case. I don't see anything you've said that refutes that yet, and I don't see how anything can.

Nor do I see the relevance of LGBT education in schools. As long as it's part of normal sex education, and as long as it's presented in a neutral way, then what issue is there? We risk returning to the days of Section 28 if you are meaning to imply that LGBT education is necessarily part of some "gay agenda", or whatever, rather than a call for understanding and acceptance.

[naomi24]

//Basic respect is unconditional.//

By whose rules? Not mine. Respect is earned.

//a call for understanding and acceptance. //

Shout louder. Your microphone is faulty. It's only working one way.

[jim360]

Then you should revisit your book. At the very least, you are surely confusing two different levels of respect. The basic respect given to somebody as a person is different from the respect, or lack of it, you may have for their views. We are far too far apart for me to expect that you'd ever respect many, if any, of my opinions, but it's a shame you can't separate that from the decorum you ought to show to people as a matter of basic decency. *That's* the unconditional part of the respect that you are apparently incapable of showing; that we are talking on a forum, as opposed to in person, doesn't excuse you from that.

And, if you don't buy that, then: "Treat others as you would like to be treated and respect other people’s opinions." Rule one of this site.

[naomi24]

Oh do stop spouting Site Rules, Jim. It's childish and I left school a long time. If you followed your recommended advice and treated others as you would like to be treated, rather than regarding them as uninformed idiots whose opinions are fit only for removal you would respect them and welcome their contributions. In my world respect is not given on capitulation to demand. It's earned. Always.

[jim360]

I'll stop spouting them when you start respecting them.

[jim360]

Also, another piece of nonsense. I don't treat people on this site like idiots. Never have done, and never will do. If that's what you see, then look again.

[naomi24]

Take a breath, Jim. I'm going to bed.

Night.