BEL: Three Columbine Seniors 03-12-2003
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Just finished listening to this show and it was AWESOME!!! Classic Bob! If anyone is curious as to what Bob Enyart is all about listen to this show!
These three kids will have much to think about for the next few days.
These three kids will have much to think about for the next few days.
Actually Zakath.... Bob is extremely cordial to these boys.Originally posted by Zakath
I did not listen to the show, but your titling and post would seem to indicate that Enyart is reduced to beating up on high school seniors now.
Tell me I misunderstood and that it isn't that bad.
It's to bad your so biased against Bob, as his show is something that is so different from most shows. Like his views or not.... the show is certainly interesting.
Jefferson... how would you respond to Zakath's comment....
From the man himself.
From the man himself.
Let me begin by saying I am Greg Schreier, Columbine senior who was on the show. If you want to contact me, flame me, insult me, go right ahead. Because I am going to be CANDID.
"These three kids will have much to think about for the next few days"
Yeah, like how I am even more firm in my beliefs. The protests are merely a symbol of the perceived superiority of those conducting the protests. They are right in their own minds and their own minds alone. They fail to see that morality is perceived differently by all. What is moral to one is not necessarily moral to another, and that DOES NOT mean that their moral judgment is inferior, merely because it is conflicting.
"If high school seniors want to debate issues with Bob, what is he supposed to do? Refuse to talk to them"
Actually, HE wanted US on the show. MY presence was requested. So therefore, judging from the feedback, I'd say Bob got exactly what he wanted - a fruitful discussion.
"I think the main reason these kids didn't like the protest is because the pictures proved to them that, as pro-lifers, they could no longer remain complacent. People don't like to alter their comfortable life-styles."
No, I didn't like it because I have the decency as a human being to respect the opinions of others, and not forcing mine upon them in a manner not consistent with the marketplace of ideas. Instead of thrusting a graphic image and assumptions on people (ie Klebold and Harris killed kids too), maybe they could have presented FACTS. A graphic image is not a FACT. This is something NO ONE seemed to understand. They did not foster dialogue, but only hostility. I'm not sure how that can be viewed as successful. Furthermore, who are you to pass judgment upon me? Bob wanted my opinion, and he got it. I'd LOVE to see you say that to my face.
Finally, the radicalism of the protests got no one anywhere. The argument seemed to be that the means (a graphic protest) justified the ends (perceived saving of lives). But by that standard, where is the world left? We could easily decimate Iraq, and its leader, and its people, and say we rid the world of that problem. However, we also kill thousands. Means DO NOT justify ends. That is a message that was not clearly conveyed by myself on the show.
In any event, the show was an awesome opportunity, and it was a pleasure to debate with Bob. But there are facts that must be straightened out first, hence my post here.
From the man himself.
Let me begin by saying I am Greg Schreier, Columbine senior who was on the show. If you want to contact me, flame me, insult me, go right ahead. Because I am going to be CANDID.
"These three kids will have much to think about for the next few days"
Yeah, like how I am even more firm in my beliefs. The protests are merely a symbol of the perceived superiority of those conducting the protests. They are right in their own minds and their own minds alone. They fail to see that morality is perceived differently by all. What is moral to one is not necessarily moral to another, and that DOES NOT mean that their moral judgment is inferior, merely because it is conflicting.
"If high school seniors want to debate issues with Bob, what is he supposed to do? Refuse to talk to them"
Actually, HE wanted US on the show. MY presence was requested. So therefore, judging from the feedback, I'd say Bob got exactly what he wanted - a fruitful discussion.
"I think the main reason these kids didn't like the protest is because the pictures proved to them that, as pro-lifers, they could no longer remain complacent. People don't like to alter their comfortable life-styles."
No, I didn't like it because I have the decency as a human being to respect the opinions of others, and not forcing mine upon them in a manner not consistent with the marketplace of ideas. Instead of thrusting a graphic image and assumptions on people (ie Klebold and Harris killed kids too), maybe they could have presented FACTS. A graphic image is not a FACT. This is something NO ONE seemed to understand. They did not foster dialogue, but only hostility. I'm not sure how that can be viewed as successful. Furthermore, who are you to pass judgment upon me? Bob wanted my opinion, and he got it. I'd LOVE to see you say that to my face.
Finally, the radicalism of the protests got no one anywhere. The argument seemed to be that the means (a graphic protest) justified the ends (perceived saving of lives). But by that standard, where is the world left? We could easily decimate Iraq, and its leader, and its people, and say we rid the world of that problem. However, we also kill thousands. Means DO NOT justify ends. That is a message that was not clearly conveyed by myself on the show.
In any event, the show was an awesome opportunity, and it was a pleasure to debate with Bob. But there are facts that must be straightened out first, hence my post here.
Re: From the man himself.
Re: From the man himself.
Re: From the man himself.
Glad you decided to participate. Welcome to TOL.
Do you believe in absolute right and absolute wrong?
Are all opinions worthy of respect? Are Osama bin Laden's opinions worthy of respect? Were Hitler's opinions worthy of respect? (Note: I'm not comparing your opinions to Hitler's. I'm just pointing out logical falacies.)
But they did kill kids too. That is a fact. The signs pointed out that people who abort their own babies are no better than Klebold and Harris.
Pictures don't lie.
Good. Mission accomplished. Is child killing with tranquility a good thing or a bad thing? Which one?
Christians are commanded in the Bible to judge:
- John 7:24 - Do not judge according to appearance but judge with righteous judgment.
- I Corinthians 2:15 Those who have the mind of Christ judge all things.
- Romans 12:9 - Don't let your love be with hypocrisy, hate evil.
- Luke 12:57 - And why, even of yourselves, do you not judge what is right?
- I Corinthians 6:2-5 - Don't you know the saints will judge the world? We will judge angels.
- Proverbs 24:25 - Those who rebuke the wicked will have delight and a good blessing will come upon them.
- Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
- 2 Timothy 4:2 preach the Word, be instant in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.
- Titus 2:15 Speak these things, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.
- 2 Timothy 4:2 preach the Word, be instant in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.
- 1 Timothy 5:20 Those who sin, rebuke before all, so that the rest also may fear.
- Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother trespasses against you, rebuke him. And if he repents, forgive him.
- Ezekiel 3:18 When I say to the wicked, You shall surely die; and you do not give him warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked one shall die in his iniquity; but I will require his blood at your hand. Yet if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.
- Ezekiel 3:21 But if you warn the righteous so that the righteous does not sin, and if he does not sin, he shall surely live because he is warned; also you have delivered your soul.
- Ezekiel 33:8,9 When I say to the wicked, O wicked one, you shall surely die; if you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked one shall die in his iniquity; but I will require his blood at your hand. But, if you warn the wicked of his way, to turn from it; if he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity, but you have delivered your soul
rasputen, in your high school text books (perhaps history or sociology) I'm sure you have seen graphic photographs of black people hung after a lynching in the old south. I'm sure you have also seen those famous pictures of Vietnamese children with their flesh dangling off of their bones after a United States napalm attack. I'm also sure you have seen in your text books gruesome pictures of the Nazi holocaust on the Jews. Why are these pictures not protested by the students?
Last edited by a moderator:
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Re: Re: From the man himself.
Re: Re: From the man himself.
Jefferson,
I'm sure Rasputen will reply in his own way, but your post was too tempting to ignore...
Perhaps because all those events took place between thirty to fifty years ago. What possible good would be accomplished by protesting them now?
Re: Re: From the man himself.
Jefferson,
I'm sure Rasputen will reply in his own way, but your post was too tempting to ignore...
No, but in America all opinions are given equal access to the marketplace of ideas. Whether they survive or not is a completely different story.
Pictuers can be very misleading. Or perhaps you've never heard of "Hollywood"?
Christians are also commanded in the Bible to "turn the other cheek", not to engage in foolish debates, not to return evil for good, not to lie, not to steal, etc. Many of you appear very selective in apply what appears to be a long list of commands.
Perhaps because all those events took place between thirty to fifty years ago. What possible good would be accomplished by protesting them now?
Re: Re: Re: From the man himself.
Re: Re: Re: From the man himself.
Zakath writes...
Zakath continues....
Zakath continues....
Zakath continues...
Zakath if you felt so compelled to answer for Rasputen..... couldn't you have found it within you to make at least one good point?
Re: Re: Re: From the man himself.
I'm sure Jefferson will reply in his own way, but your post was too tempting to ignore...Originally posted by Zakath
Jefferson,
I'm sure Rasputen will reply in his own way, but your post was too tempting to ignore...
Zakath writes...
And a completely different answer to a completely different question which Jefferson didn't ask.
Zakath continues....
Are you insinuating that pictures of aborted babies are "faked"?
Zakath continues....
Nothing you mentioned is relevant to the discussion at hand.
Zakath continues...
Jefferson was drawing a correlation to the pictures of aborted babies. A very good correlation I might add.
Zakath if you felt so compelled to answer for Rasputen..... couldn't you have found it within you to make at least one good point?
Am I in favor of displaying graphic images of aborted babies? No of course not! The images are awful!
The images break my heart!
However, drastic times take drastic measures.
Exposing the reality of abortion is an extremely effective way of saving babies.
I would much rather have no need to show these images. I would much rather our country have not legalized murder.
Flipper
New member
Many people think that war is inherently immoral, and that if the public were appropriately informed about the realities and costs of war, then they would be more opposed to it.
The Pentagon is keenly aware of this, and so spends a lot of time and money steering journalists away from grisly sights and sites (unless there is a certain amount of PR capital to be made) and trying to ensure that they see only what they want them to see. A number of newspapers will also practice self-censorship to avoid publishing upsetting images.
This leaves people with an unrealistic but government-sanctioned view of war as a generally bloodless and video-game like affair, created by the more sterile pieces of gun-camera footage that do get released.
Now, people opposed to war, or at least people who want their fellow citizens to be appraised of the true cost, think that the more graphic imagery should be published there and then.
Do you support that? If not, why not? Is it ever okay if it does not directly compromise allied operational efficiency or safety?
The Pentagon is keenly aware of this, and so spends a lot of time and money steering journalists away from grisly sights and sites (unless there is a certain amount of PR capital to be made) and trying to ensure that they see only what they want them to see. A number of newspapers will also practice self-censorship to avoid publishing upsetting images.
This leaves people with an unrealistic but government-sanctioned view of war as a generally bloodless and video-game like affair, created by the more sterile pieces of gun-camera footage that do get released.
Now, people opposed to war, or at least people who want their fellow citizens to be appraised of the true cost, think that the more graphic imagery should be published there and then.
Do you support that? If not, why not? Is it ever okay if it does not directly compromise allied operational efficiency or safety?
Zakath
Resident Atheist
"legalized murder" is a fine example of religionist "newspeak".
Murder is, by definition, "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."
An action cannot be both legal and unlawful. For a group of people who spend inordinate amounts of time arguing about the meanings of words, I find your cavalier misuse of the language fascinating. I can think of only two likely possibilities:
It was a mistake or you are seeking to mislead people by misusing the language.
Which one was it, Knight?
Last edited:
- Status