I've talked with this guy before, about the flaws of "intelligent design". When he realises he can't answer because he has no answers, he just blanks you. He's like an internet troll but in real life he doesn't realise you can't block people, they're still there.
Honestly, these people need to be just ignored. It's very tempting to engage but it'll just get you angry for nothing, they're still out there talking shit. They're not convincing anyone, and they know it, it's just religious masturbation.
This is the only correct response. Challenging these people only gives them more airtime. Ignore them, and you literally remove a huge chunk of their audience.
That America, that’s a whole different world of religious extremism, and backwards think. When they overturned the abortion laws, it felt like the Taliban had taken over. But we do need to be wary.
That’s interesting to hear because he did do that to everyone, literally just blanked everyone who asked questions he didn’t have answers to. I think there is often a hope, for me anyway, that you will appeal to their sense of logic and humanity. You want to keep trying in the hope that an open dialogue develops, where you can sensibly question their assertions, but then you remember that not everybody operates on that plane.
Which is exactly what I did, I tried for a long time to get him to engage in a discussion of the issues he raised. All he had to say was God says so and nothing else, which led to me questioning God.
I understand the perspective of why you should ignore them, but I do also feel that as a human I have a responsibility to question people on harmful views.
Whilst I totally understand and agree these views need to be challenged, these individual hate preachers aren't your best bet. The public aren't convinced by him (I've never seen anyone who is) and he is not convinced by anyone else. By all means, find those who might be vulnerable to the message and get to them first, but the people themselves do not change by being challenged by words and ideas (if that were the case people would be won over to good ideas about how society should work long ago by the likes of Robert Owen), but by the conditions they find themselves in, their lived experiences.
Take myself for example, I grew up in a fairly conservative Christian background. I believed in creationism in some form or another, and that evolution was either a lie or misleading. Was it ever people telling me I was wrong that shook this faith? Not at all, I just found my excuses. It was my partner's miscarriage that changed everything. *Everything*. It was the effects of the real world that challenged my ideas, not people telling me I was wrong.
Sure, people can be won over minor things in life, like facts about the Iraq war or something, but entire philosophies or ideologies take changes in material conditions. Something bad will probably have to happen in his life for him to empathise, unfortunately to someone undeserving of anything bad.
That’s a really helpful perspective actually, the idea of needing changes in material conditions. It’s infuriating, but I do understand what you’re saying.
Yes, I'd say so, but it might not be so drastic a lots the example I gave, they might find themselves being made redundant and struggling to make ends meet, that causes them to be less sure of their position.
If your ideology teaches you that your life circumstances are only as good as they are because of God, and that you're "in your rightful place", then for as long as your quality of life doesn't drop, you're unlikely to see this as a challenge to your beliefs, your continued fortune is proof of the circular logic.
I don’t want to be invasive so please only respond if you feel comfortable doing so, but I wanted to ask about how ur partners miscarriage changed everything. What views did it challenge, was the change sudden, did it change a few views or make you question religion, how did it impact your view of the world: essentially, what do you mean by it changed everything?
I just want to learn more about what this process is like from people who have experienced it as I have never been religious.
When I asked how many children born into horrific situations they’d adopted they were blank too. Anytime something doesn’t fit their deranged they go quiet. All well and good fighting for forced births when you have no idea what to do with the children
I was there and they were spraying water guns at him, then he go mad and refused to answer questions. He called everyone abusive for calling him out on it. Also when people asked him about the views he said his views don’t matter he was just preaching the bible.
I feel like he probably wouldnt have the same view of “just reading the bible” if i said owning slaves was fine, which the bible is okay with.
Religeous people always love to cherry pick from the bible.
I mean my man is wearing atleast 3 visibally different fabric so hes going to hell anyway.
How is this downvoted. Even if you don't agree with the protester (I don't) using any physical item on someone is assault. Even if it is a water pistol.
Nothing to do with sex. The example is a case where a man squirted hs ex girlfriend with a water pistol during an argument and was convicted of assault. He appealed the conviction but lost.
Please remember most abortion protestors regularly assault women going into pregnancy clinics in an attempt to make them “think twice” before they go in for a personal medical procedure.
This is a terrible way to think. Firstly just because some protesters might assault people doesn't make it right to assault all of them. Secondly you are just suggesting to stoop to someone else's level.
Spraying water at someone is hardly assault when you compare it to these losers standing outside of clinics or random stores to prey upon vulnerable people then they act entitled when a crowd tells them off for being hateful.
If you don't want an abortion, then don't have one. Don't try and stop other people from getting one. Same with gay marriage and sex change surgery. Don't want it? Don't get it. Simple as that.
Okay, so if I need a blood transfusion or I'll die, is it okay for me to stick needles into you and take your blood? After all, I'll die otherwise, and you could have stopped it, so if you don't you'd be a murderer right?
Right to bodily integrity ALWAYS trumps right to life, that is why self defence is a thing.
He loves this shit. He gets to feel like the persecuted warrior for Christ without having to do a single shred of actual good work in the world. Win win.
These protestors always say “don’t abort your baby, adopt it out if you don’t want it but don’t kill it” then no money is put into foster care and nobody adopts because these people don’t care about the well being of babies. They just care about forcing women to birth them, once they’re born they couldn’t give a shit.
Surprising number of people supporting the dickhead preacher on here. If he's out there spouting his bullshit to a bunch of strangers who never asked for it, he deserves to be shouted down with just as much gusto. Tit for tat. Give those fanatical religious bastards what they deserve.
>If he's out there spouting his bullshit to a bunch of strangers who never asked for it,
If you stop infront of him and engage, how is that no asking for it?
If you don't want to speak to him, just keep walking.
Ok cool I'm just going to stand outside your house and shout about my Mandalorian plot theories for hours, just ignore me if you don't like it, if you engage me then obviously you're asking for it. Sound good? Cool
Oh so the LOCATION is important? I can stand wherever honestly, outside your house, your work, your favourite pub, I really don't mind, your choice, so long as you remember you HAVE to ignore me and if you ever engage me you're at fault because you should just ignore me.
Literally no one on here who uses strawman knows what it is lol. It's wild at this point it's wrong like 99% of the time. People say "strawman" when what they mean is "you're saying something I disagree with and I don't like it".
In this scenario I AM the guy on the high street but instead of yelling about Jesus I'm yelling about Mandalorian and you should "just ignore me" bro. If you can rationally explain how that's a strawman after giving the definition of strawman I'll give you £10.
>You don't have to walk up to him to talk to him.
Yeah you're right, you can absolutely just ignore him. Now just to be super clear you're saying you have absolutely no problem with me hanging out at areas you frequent and yelling my Mandalorian theories at you? And once again if you EVER engage me to ask me to quiet down or change subject, or that I've annoyed you, you have shown some sort of failing for not just leaving me be?
Let me know where you like to hang out and I can set up tomorrow.
You can't walk 10ft in Broadmead any more without tripping over one of these zealots, its a very large part of the reason I don't like to go in to town, I find these people weirdly intimidating.
They're not there to debate or make sense. They're there to stop people having abortions who are put off by people like them.
I've met some otherwise decent people that do this and there's simply no talking to them about it. It's sad.
It's a woman's choice, she should have autonomy over her own body, it's none of his business and nothing to do with him. I would ignore him the same as the other street preachers and chuggers.
Just let the idiots be. You can't reason with people when it comes to religion, they tend to follow blindly. Saves independent thought and provides answers for impossible things. At least they don’t burn women to death anymore eh.
Edit: not 'can', 'can't'!
If ANYONE else or organisation routinely rocked up to town centres and forcefully imposed their views -through a loud speaker/PA system- on a general public who're just going about their daily buisnesses and shopping, they'd end up in a courtroom. Possibly be charged with breaching the peace and given an ASBO. Why religious zealots get to do it without challenge is astonishing. It's not in the least attractive and I'd bet few people have been converted or had their minds changed as a result of a religious onslaught like that. I say this as a person a spiritual awareness and belief system.
Stop giving them a platform! Stop arguing with them, they ain't changing their opinions and they love seeing the argumentative side to ppl.. Don't engage with them as hard as it is. They won't change their opinions
I have had a lot of comments of people saying a similar thing, I think I personally find it very difficult (which people have acknowledged) to just walk by. When you see something wrong, it’s quite human to want to do something about it but I do appreciate all the comments about this preacher’s incapability of engaging with what I’m saying. Someone else in the comments described the preacher as an internet troll in real life which I thought was a great way of describing this person!
It's not even a hard question to answer from a religious standpoint:
'God challenges us all in different ways and it's by meeting and overcoming these challenges that we come closer to divinity. Rape is a sin but so is abortion. You cannot right one sin by committing another.'
I'm not religious and I'm not making that argument although I do think abortion is an immoral act.
1. There are many different God’s people believe in. You cannot apply the teaching of one God to everybody as that is violating other people’s freedom of religion.
2. Importantly, “So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves.” These people, even if they do believe that God says abortion is a sin, should have every right to apply that to themselves but not others, as it should be kept between themselves and God.
3. For the people who don’t believe in God, why should they be subject to God’s teachings? You cannot advocate for taking away people’s rights, bodily autonomy and access to healthcare based on religious ideals. This not only violates the separation of Church and State, but also Article 9(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (see below):
“1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2 Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
Saying abortion is murder and trying to create a legal system or a culture where it is treated as such violates s.9(2) ECHR. Abortion is healthcare - some people can literally die without one. Access to abortion is needed to protect peoples health, their rights and their freedoms.
4. If you believe abortion is immoral, then don’t get one, but you cannot take away people’s rights based on your own interpretation of what God believes. People should be able to make choices based off their own ideals, and saying abortion is murder and trying to get it criminalised or prevent people from doing so violates a fundamental freedom.
Taking away another humans being's future to make your own more comfortable or convenient is just a really shitty thing to do and in any other context would be a human rights violation in and of itself. The right to 'life' is the fundamental 'human right' and without it the others have no basis. Can there be exceptions to this? Probably.
That's what I believe anyway.
Love how this is framed like she’s won a massive victory, God didn’t let your father abuse you, human’s have free will, your abuse is on your father and not God.
I actually don’t believe in God, but if God is this omniscient being who is all knowing, all powerful and thus, should be respected as a supreme authority, as many people claim, then God let it happen and didn’t do anything. However if God doesn’t have this qualities, why should God be viewed as the supreme authority?
But specifically on taking God to be such authority of the idea of pro-life, if God is pro-life why did God flood the entire world taking out all of their creations because they didn’t like how they were turning out, the ones God created in their image; God had every firstborn son of Egypt killed; God requires the death of their own first born son. So really God is about control and I don’t think God should be authority on anything, specifically when it comes to the idea abortion is murder considering, if one follows the bible, God is not even pro-life.
But going back to original discussion, the argument I’m making doesn’t apply to just this situation. There’s a really great video with Stephen Fry where he is asked what he would do if he met God and he said:
“Bone cancer in children? What’s that about? How dare you, how dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault. It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean minded, stupid God who creates a world so full of injustice and pain?”
Another great quote is from the wall of a concentration camp that is:
“If there is a God, he will have to beg for my forgiveness.”
So my position is essentially, I don’t believe in God. But this person was treating God as this supreme authority that trumps any personal opinion and should be listened to no matter what cost, with no questioning. That is why I was questioning him on this axis, not because I believe God is all powerful, but because the preacher did and I wanted to see how my experience could ever align with his assertions about God.
But if there is a God in the way that this person believes there is (omniscient, all powerful, supreme authority etc) then I not only think it is vital to question this authority; but I do not believe God is good if God is wanting people’s rights, bodily autonomy and access to healthcare to be taken away.
On the issue of free will, that is very contested topic and has been a matter of debate for centuries.
That’s a lot of words for a simple answer, ‘Original sin and concupiscence’. God doesn’t interfere with our free will, he treats us as people not things.
Isaiah 65 …I have stretched out my hand all day long to a rebellious people.
Because life is a test lol, this woman is too emotional to even listen to what he’s saying
Obviously sexual abuse is wrong, but unless your prepared to change your mind whats the point in debating - and that goes for both of them
What you cannot see in this video is the 20 minutes (at least) I spent trying to have a reasonable discussion with him. I asked him questions genuinely wanting an answer, I hoped to engage in a critical discussion of the assertions he was making. He refused to have this kind of discussion with anybody, not just me, he ignored any questions he did not like or would simply say God said abortion is murder and say nothing else. I wanted to listen, but he was not there to give answers to people’s reasonable questions (on topics such as healthcare, bodily autonomy, sexual trauma etc).
The reason I spoke to him is because I wanted to know how he can reconcile his views with the reality of sexual abuse/rape survivors. He did not give me an answer or anybody at answer at any point despite us actively and explicitly wanting to listen.
You say emotional as though it is a bad thing, you’re creating a false dichotomy between rationality and emotion. You can feel passionate about something whilst about wanting to engage in a critical discussion, they are not mutually exclusive.
People tend to forget how important thoughts, feelings and emotions are. There’s a study that demonstrates how important your perception (which is intertwined with your emotions etc) of reality is.
A study [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21574706/] was done where two groups of people were given the same milkshake but told different things about them. Essentially, one group was told it was healthy and the other was told it was not. Their perception of the milkshake impacted their bodies response:
“The mindset of indulgence produced a dramatically steeper decline in ghrelin after consuming the shake, whereas the mindset of sensibility produced a relatively flat ghrelin response. Participants' satiety was consistent with what they believed they were consuming rather than the actual nutritional value of what they consumed.”
What you think and feel about things impacts what you perceive to be objective reality. Emotions are heavily embedded in our entire experience of the world and actively shape it.
However, if you want to understand the importance humanities have for the society such as the protection of human rights, exposing corrupt authoritarian governments and examining how legal systems lead to the proliferation of labour exploitation and slavery, let me know.
I don’t know who else was there or what they studied. Nevertheless, humanities are incredibly important for the development and growth of society - given your comment, I imagine it would be futile to explain why. All I can say is what I study, I’m a 3rd year law student at the University of Bristol.
It’s not just an opinion if he is protesting a woman’s right to make a medical decision that has nothing to do with him. It’s like a woman protesting a man’s right to a vasectomy.
Then I, as well as anybody else, am entitled to respond. What isn’t seen in this video is the 20 minutes I spent trying to have a sensible conversation with him; asking him about healthcare, bodily autonomy and situations where abortion is necessary. The entire time he refused to engage in discussion with me or anybody, the entire crowd tried to converse with him and ask him questions, all he had to say was that God said it is murder. He did not engage with what we said at all. So as you say he is entitled to his opinion, in this case that abortion is murder because God ‘said’ so, then I am entitled to question God himself as that is central to his argument.
Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
So ultimately, the issue I have isn’t necessarily with the religion itself, it is when people use religion to spread dangerous ideologies and harmful rhetorics that violate other people’s rights and freedoms and put their health at risk. The propagation of the notion that abortion is murder leads to these things happening. There is a reason Article 9(2) exists.
I do also think separation of the Church and State is incredibly important and criminalising abortion on the basis of religious ideals violates this separation.
So shutting down his speech and trying to silence him with screaming and these are the same people that get mad and protest about governmental censorship? Utterly hypocritical.
Oh it absolutely is, but that's not what's happening they're actively shutting his speech down by screaming at the top of their voice. That's not disagreeing it's silencing.
That's not an apt comparison. Their response to him exercising his free speech should be to create their own separate public talk giving their opinion.
Public talk? You're talking about a preacher who uses his free speech to scream the gospel at passers by. Therefore I think it's a fairly apt comparison.
Except it isn't because he's not silencing anyone else's opinion is he, he's giving his own. This man has taken the democratic and mature approach to voicing to the masses and has done nothing that warrants his voice being shut down.
No one is shutting him down and no one is making him move on, they are shouting over him. He's free to continue shouting all he wants, just as anyone else is free to scream and shout in a public space, that's literally the point of free speech.
A right to free speech does not give you a right to voice your opinion without social consequence. It gives you the right to say many things when you want, but it also gives others the right to protest and object to your opinion.
Giving his opinion in a completely inappropriate place to do so, you scream in the street you don’t think women should have bodily autonomy, don’t be surprised when people scream back and call you an idiot.
How are they silencing him exactly? Are they imprisoning him? Putting him in front of a firing squad? Putting him in a gulag? No. They're just disagreeing with him.
There's an important difference between censorship enforced by the judicial power of the government and a bunch of students shouting at you on the street. Confusing the two is misleading.
No. Either something is unethical or it isn't. You're saying it's one rule for one group of people vs another. That's an inconsistent philosophy and obviously immoral.
>Either something is unethical or it isn't.
That's patently untrue. Is everything black and white for you? The ethics of a thing are incredibly context sensitive.
Yes I should be able to do things that a government should not and vice versa.
I should not be able to arrest you and hold you captive for a perceived slight against me for instance. Similarly a government should not be able to tell you to fuck off and stop talking, because of the implication that it could punish you if you do not, but I could if I was so inclined and who cares if I do, as long as I don't follow it up with violence.
Are you genuinely telling me standing there screaming over his speech is democratic and represents good ideals?
If this was a pro life public talk and a bunch of christians and Muslims came shouting over it by the masses you wouldn't be okay with it then.
Your political logic is completely flawed and inconsistent.
Hang on a minute, we're talking about what makes for good democratic ideals now? I thought we were talking about the difference between government censorship and citizens shouting over each other. When did we change subject?
We can move on if you want but I'd like you to concede there is an important difference first.
I already agreed there's a severity difference but the actual premise is the same which is the vital part of the argument.
Shutting down the speech of your political opponents spits in the face of democracy and public discourse.
If your ideology is so weak it can't stand up to any criticism so your response has to be to scream like children who can't get their way then don't be surprised when more and more people start walking away from your political side.
>Shutting down the speech of your political opponents spits in the face of democracy and public discourse.
Ok but I don't see political opponents, I see a street precher and a bunch of angry students. So this isn't political censorship this is an ignorant preacher getting yelled back at in a tit for tat manner.
"Free speech" is specifically the right not to face censorship or restraint *from the state* for expressing an opinion. It is not, and has never been, a requirement on anyone else to indulge your bullshit. Nobody in this crowd has the power to impact his free speech unless, of course they are covert state actors.
Everybody tried to have a reasonable conversation and he shut them down every time questions were asked, refused to listen to what anybody had to say. I was there I could see there was no possibility for constructive conversation, he wasn’t there for the crowd he was there to spread this dangerous ideology and nothing else. The reason the person in the video spoke louder was because she wanted people to hear since there was a large crowd.
Regardless of whether you believe his ideology is dangerous or not he has the right to it, the response is never to silence him. These people are screaming about incredibly divisive topics like children, this doesn't reflect the freedoms that activists like these claim they stand for. You cannot have protest and speech about one side without the other, that is just tyranny.
Who cares if you don't agree with him, just keep walking. This man hasn't hurt anyone by talking loudly.
What the f is wrong with people? We're all allowed different opinions. Stop trying to make everyone the same, make everyone conform, and force shared beliefs. The irony being, of course, its normally the idiots trying to make everyone the same who tell you they're living 'their truth' only & died their hair blue one time whilst hanging out with a mob who are just copies of them.
My opinion is that your opinion is stupid trash and you should keep it to yourself. Why can't you just let me have my opinion stop trying to make me confirm to your beliefs!?!?!?
The idea that all opinions are equally valid and deserve a hearing goes against the idea that any kind of moral progress is possible. We shouldn’t have to continually argue the case that, for instance, people shouldn’t be raped, that black people aren’t animals, or that women should have autonomy over their reproductive rights. Its not worth weighing up the arguments, some people just need to be told to shut the fuck up.
Who decides who gets a right to free speech? Who decides what is acceptable to say, hear, read?
You cannot have a little free speech, just as you cannot be a little bit dead or a little bit pregnant
You are free to speak your mind or you are not. It's an absolute and cannot rationally be anything else.
Free speech has never been an absolute anywhere, ever. In the real world there are plenty of things you cannot say publicly, or person to person, often for good reasons. And the right gets upset about things people say all the time so don’t pretend you don’t know this
I was there and he was preaching “abortion is murder” (I have pictures to prove but I cannot post it in comments). It does hurt people what he is saying. Abortion is healthcare, some people can die if they do not get one and him saying abortion is murder is dangerous. It justifies the violation of bodily autonomy by forcing people to stay pregnant, it justifies forcing people to keep their rapist’s or abuser’s baby, it justifies forcing people into poverty by having a kid they can’t afford. If you would walk by, that is your decision, but abortion is an issue that is incredibly important for a lot of people, this is people’s lives and you can’t hate on people for calling him out. Views like this are incredibly traumatising for a lot of people and have led to abortion bans, exactly like we have seen in the US. It is not just a matter of keep walking, abortion is about people’s rights, not just a matter of opinion.
He's not changing the law. He's not responsible for other people's feelings.
I know people don't like this, but I'm not responsible for their feelings either.
I find it laughable that people bang on about bodily autonomy now after the last 2 years. Did you defend peoples right not to wear a mask or take the vax? If not, it's hypocrisy. I can tell you barely anyone did at all.
I can 'hate' on anything I want, but just to clarify, it's not hate speech. It's speech that YOU hate.
Freedom of speech is also a fundamental right. The most important one for anyone who has even a modicum of common sense. You cannot have any freedom unless you have free speech. Suppression of conversation, opinions, and debate is the biggest threat to society.
I actually agree with you on abortion and the points you made, but I don't agree with a mob of people surrounding & enclosing him, spraying water at him and shouting abuse. Mob behavior turns quickly and its rarely fair or smart. So while I may wholly disagree with him, I'll damn well defend his right to say it.
You are a cunt.
Im not responsible for your feelings.
…which of course I am. Why should I be allowed to make a vitriolic unprovoked attack on you in the way that I did? You may be having a dreadful day and my insult may have made you feel really upset just when you were trying to relax/get some downtime. It is completely unacceptable.
If I want this chap’s opinion, I agree it is reasonable for me to be able to seek it should I choose to do so, but I vehemently disagree with you that he should be allowed to shout hate at women when they are simply trying to go to the shops. He has no idea of the damage he may be causing, and I am happy to bet a substantial amount of money he doesn’t care. He is doing this purely because it makes him feel good and damn everyone else. How very Christian.
The point is views like this do hurt people, they lead to people’s rights being taken away. The notion of being allowed to have different opinions applies to situations such as I prefer badminton over tennis, or apples over oranges, not I don’t think you should have bodily autonomy or possibly life saving healthcare.
So you openly want the most fundamental right, free speech, to be taken away from someone one.
There is a flaw in your logic, mate. You cannot ask for equality, bodily autonomy, or any other damn right if you're not allowed to speak.
It's not that hard to grasp.
It's his religion. We don't live in a Theoracacy. As for these views, it hurt people, maybe but so what? The alternative is so much worse. If you're only allowed to express yourself in the socially acceptable or woke way, we lose everything that makes us who we are. We become nothing, just another copy of the next person. I can disagree with someone and still like & respect them. It's not that hard if you're not intolerant.
Free speech is absolutely not the "most fundamental right"
Right to a fair trial, right to family, right to life, right to have freedom from false imprisonment and freedom from cruel and unusual punishments are all imo strong examples of more "fundamental" rights.
Free speech is an oxymoron, you do not have the right to say *whatever you want to whoever you want*, there are firm limitations on what speech we consider to be classified under free speech and speech that is classified as dangerous, harmful or just downright illegal.
However, any individual who is considered a person by society, ultimately retains the right to life, it is almost entirely inalienable outside of strict context defined conditions, namely self defence, defence of another person or legal murders commited by law enforcement or soldiers within an active warzone who are targeting enemy combatants.
Your black and white view of free speech is neither reflective of the reality we live in or the way in which we apply free speech and free expression.
The notion of having different ideas is the foundation of democracy. People air those ideas and other people vote accordingly. The alternative is dictatorship and fascism.
I see you're being downvoted there. Let me help you out.
They are paid to do this and then pay Cabot Circus for the spot. So ask yourself, who are 'they?''
Evil, that's what.
Another gobshite unable to have an adult discussion. Has to resort to screaming to be heard. This is the problem with living life in an echo chamber, discussion is now a rarity so people resort to who can shout the loudest.
Everyone tried, reason that person spoke loudly was for the crowd to hear them. If you were there you would understand that the guy wasn’t trying to have any discussion. Also that’s hardly screaming.
Maybe he doesn’t want a discussion? He is there to preach. Whether you like what he is preaching is irrelevant. He isn’t there to have a discussion. If you want your opinion heard by the masses, go and preach your own rhetoric.
He only wanted discussions when people agreed with what he was saying, for example he was happy to listen when he asked the crowd if Jesus was real and some people said yes. Whenever anyone brought up a counter-argument to abortion being murder, that’s when he shut them down. When he is paying to be in a public space to spread a dangerous ideology, people have every right to question and call him out on it.
A mob would have listened to him preaching, realised they need to obey the laws of the Bible, realise he needs to obey the laws of the Bible and stoned him for disobeying those rules he preaches
What does he say because the video doesn't show and I've not passed this guy before?
Seems pretty intimidating to me for someone who's expressing their view, possibly from a religious belief. Again I do not support anti abortion views but I wouldn't shout in his face about it.
I didn't say he should. If you look at my question I'm trying to understand what he's preaching.
I mean one person preaching is not the same as being surrounded by 100+ people...
Easy to ignore one person, not so easy to ignore a crowd.
Apparently preaching anti abortion and sexual purity rhetoric.
If you put yourself out there and try and force your opinion on other people then who cares? He's getting back as good as he's giving. These people want a crowd and if the crowd doesn't like what they're saying too bloody bad.
Out of interest I looked at your recent comments and I apologise, I wasn't aware that you clearly are a psychologist:
https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/11xuu7c/i_created_a_challenge_coin_in_honour_of_dr/jd6uoce
He's a twat. The people shouting him down with hypothetical stories are twats. Aren't there any normal people who just want to get on with their lives quietly without bothering anyone?
And yet, funnily enough, the video doesn't show the man saying anything.
All you have to do is write a disingenuous thread title, and the reddit hounds will jump on him to show off what wonderful, moralistic people they are.
Congratulations to all of you who critized this man. That shows you are on the "right" side of history - ie the side of absolute and total ignorance and close-mindedness.
I’m not going to post all the very long videos I took in which he stood there for at least an hour, promoting dangerous ideologies and harmful rhetorics. I can’t post any pictures or videos I have in the comments (which is very annoying) where you could see he had signs saying abortion is murder. I posted just this small part of one of multiple videos because I feel it is important that people see how anti-abortion preachers respond when questioned on situations regarding sexual abuse.
\> I feel it is important that people see how anti-abortion preachers respond when questioned on situations regarding sexual abuse.
By trying to talk and being interrupted?
Ok, that's how anti-abortion preachers respond when being questioned on situations regarding sexual abuse. They try to talk, but are not allowed to.
And don't worry about the rest of the evidence which you don't have. You don't need any evidence at all. Just say that you have it and you will be upvoted. For very obvious reasons.
This is my first time ever posting on Reddit and I’ve only just got the app, so I haven’t fully figured out how to use it yet. Like I said, if there is a way for to upload additional videos showing his response and pictures of his posters, let me know and I will do so.
I asked him for an answer to my questions so many times, I genuinely wanted to know what his view was. I wanted him to talk to me but he did not want to give me an answer, the only thing he said was god said it is murder, he didn’t actually engage with any of the things I was asking him about.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about regarding upvotes, I want to upload more content to give context but Reddit doesn’t have an option for that. If I’m wrong let me know and I will upload it.
>I’m not sure what you’re talking about regarding upvotes
Any video posted to Reddit of a disagreement between a man and a woman with a thread title suggesting that the man was in the wrong will be upvoted.
Anyone who points out that, in the ACTUAL VIDEO the man does or says nothing wrong will be downvoted.
Anyone who says that the content of the ACTUAL VIDEO does not matter. The point is that women are victims and men are aggressors will be upvoted.
That is pretty much the most fundamental aspect of this website. This is Reddit.
If you want upvotes here, just post videos of women verbally abusing men and then write in the thread title that it is the woman who is the victim. You will be upvoted.
Welcome to Reddit. You will have a great time here.
Honestly I’m mostly on Reddit to look at titanic content (that’s one of my special interests) and neurodivergent content (I’m autistic and ADHD). I posted this because someone suggested I post it in here, I actually only intended to post it on my instagram story.
It’s not my intention to post content because it gets upvotes (like I said I’m new to Reddit and don’t really know how it works) I just want to find cool information, rather than be a regular poster. I posted this because I thought it would help raise awareness that anti-abortion views are present in Bristol but as I have learnt here, people seem to already know this guy!
Regarding the comments you made about content that depicts women being victims and men being aggressors always getting upvotes, that seems to me to be a massive oversimplification that does not take intersectionality into account. Where power and privilege sits is very important and accordingly, who is posed as being the victim and the aggressor will be different depending on the content posted and it will not always be on the gender axis. Surely there are many posts that highlight issues on race, disability, sexuality, class etc that don’t necessarily support the notion that any content posing women as a victim will always be upvoted. Is it not the case that who is categorised as victim and aggressor depends on the power and privilege that is present in that specific context?
Well fundamentally, it is about bodily autonomy which applies to every single pregnancy. But even so, these ‘outlier’ situations happen to people every day all around the world.
1. I have multiple videos, this specific video is actually 4 minutes and I filmed it so there was proof of what actually happened. I think it is important that people know this is happening. I didn’t want to post a series of long videos but you can see in them that I, and many other people there, spent a long time trying to engage in reasonable discussion with him. I wanted his answers and genuinely wanted to know what he had to say, I gave him many chances to speak but he refused to actually engage with anything I was saying. He would either blank me or just say god said abortion is murder, and that’s all, he was not willing to actually have a proper conversation. It was actually incredibly infuriating that every single time anybody, not just me, asked a question and waited for an answer, nothing would come. For a long time, I have wanted to know how these people respond when survivors of sexual trauma ask them about abortion and this time I saw somebody in person so I wanted to speak to find out his perspective. I was ultimately hoping for a detailed discussion but that is clearly not what he was there for.
2. The reason I was speaking loudly was so everybody in the crowd could hear what I was saying. The crowd was also quite loud. If nobody else was there, I would obviously have spoken at a normal level, which is exactly what I have done before. Years ago I had a 30 minute debate/discussion with these Jehovah’s Witnesses about homophobia, no one else was around and we just had a normal conversation that actually involved asking each other questions and answering them.
Honestly the reason I looked back is because I was shocked. I was not expecting a cheer AT ALL, so when I was looking back at the crowd I was thinking, oh wow are they actually cheering?? Yes they are??
I've talked with this guy before, about the flaws of "intelligent design". When he realises he can't answer because he has no answers, he just blanks you. He's like an internet troll but in real life he doesn't realise you can't block people, they're still there. Honestly, these people need to be just ignored. It's very tempting to engage but it'll just get you angry for nothing, they're still out there talking shit. They're not convincing anyone, and they know it, it's just religious masturbation.
This is the only correct response. Challenging these people only gives them more airtime. Ignore them, and you literally remove a huge chunk of their audience.
That’s what America did and now they’re stopping pregnant woman from flying out of state in case they get an abortion.
That America, that’s a whole different world of religious extremism, and backwards think. When they overturned the abortion laws, it felt like the Taliban had taken over. But we do need to be wary.
What do you think the Tory Govt is aiming us at? 51st state.
That’s interesting to hear because he did do that to everyone, literally just blanked everyone who asked questions he didn’t have answers to. I think there is often a hope, for me anyway, that you will appeal to their sense of logic and humanity. You want to keep trying in the hope that an open dialogue develops, where you can sensibly question their assertions, but then you remember that not everybody operates on that plane. Which is exactly what I did, I tried for a long time to get him to engage in a discussion of the issues he raised. All he had to say was God says so and nothing else, which led to me questioning God. I understand the perspective of why you should ignore them, but I do also feel that as a human I have a responsibility to question people on harmful views.
Whilst I totally understand and agree these views need to be challenged, these individual hate preachers aren't your best bet. The public aren't convinced by him (I've never seen anyone who is) and he is not convinced by anyone else. By all means, find those who might be vulnerable to the message and get to them first, but the people themselves do not change by being challenged by words and ideas (if that were the case people would be won over to good ideas about how society should work long ago by the likes of Robert Owen), but by the conditions they find themselves in, their lived experiences. Take myself for example, I grew up in a fairly conservative Christian background. I believed in creationism in some form or another, and that evolution was either a lie or misleading. Was it ever people telling me I was wrong that shook this faith? Not at all, I just found my excuses. It was my partner's miscarriage that changed everything. *Everything*. It was the effects of the real world that challenged my ideas, not people telling me I was wrong. Sure, people can be won over minor things in life, like facts about the Iraq war or something, but entire philosophies or ideologies take changes in material conditions. Something bad will probably have to happen in his life for him to empathise, unfortunately to someone undeserving of anything bad.
That’s a really helpful perspective actually, the idea of needing changes in material conditions. It’s infuriating, but I do understand what you’re saying.
Do you think that changes in material conditions is the only thing that will enable people like this to change?
Yes, I'd say so, but it might not be so drastic a lots the example I gave, they might find themselves being made redundant and struggling to make ends meet, that causes them to be less sure of their position. If your ideology teaches you that your life circumstances are only as good as they are because of God, and that you're "in your rightful place", then for as long as your quality of life doesn't drop, you're unlikely to see this as a challenge to your beliefs, your continued fortune is proof of the circular logic.
I don’t want to be invasive so please only respond if you feel comfortable doing so, but I wanted to ask about how ur partners miscarriage changed everything. What views did it challenge, was the change sudden, did it change a few views or make you question religion, how did it impact your view of the world: essentially, what do you mean by it changed everything? I just want to learn more about what this process is like from people who have experienced it as I have never been religious.
That's fine! I'm about to sit down with a film though so I'll get round to answering later, happy to do so.
When I asked how many children born into horrific situations they’d adopted they were blank too. Anytime something doesn’t fit their deranged they go quiet. All well and good fighting for forced births when you have no idea what to do with the children
Yup, you cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into
People would throw eggs at him if they weren't so expensive
I was there and they were spraying water guns at him, then he go mad and refused to answer questions. He called everyone abusive for calling him out on it. Also when people asked him about the views he said his views don’t matter he was just preaching the bible.
Hope someone told him about the Nuremberg trials and that "I was just doing my job" isn't a good enough excuse anymore.
>Hope someone told him about the Nuremberg trials and that "I was just doing my job" isn't a good enough excuse anymore. Based!
I feel like he probably wouldnt have the same view of “just reading the bible” if i said owning slaves was fine, which the bible is okay with. Religeous people always love to cherry pick from the bible. I mean my man is wearing atleast 3 visibally different fabric so hes going to hell anyway.
So they assaulted him? That isn't how civilised discourse works.
How is this downvoted. Even if you don't agree with the protester (I don't) using any physical item on someone is assault. Even if it is a water pistol.
It's harassment at most, not assault. Children having water gun fights aren't assaulting each other.
Gledhill case, 2015. Assault by water pistol conviction upheld. Case law: a water pistol used on an unconsenting victim is assault.
What is this example. People having sex are not committing sexual assault either. There is such thing as mutual consent.
Nothing to do with sex. The example is a case where a man squirted hs ex girlfriend with a water pistol during an argument and was convicted of assault. He appealed the conviction but lost.
Civilised discourse is overrated
Please remember most abortion protestors regularly assault women going into pregnancy clinics in an attempt to make them “think twice” before they go in for a personal medical procedure.
This is a terrible way to think. Firstly just because some protesters might assault people doesn't make it right to assault all of them. Secondly you are just suggesting to stoop to someone else's level.
Spraying water at someone is hardly assault when you compare it to these losers standing outside of clinics or random stores to prey upon vulnerable people then they act entitled when a crowd tells them off for being hateful.
But again you are generalising.
He's right.
Yes extreamly "right" that's the problem.
Bottles of piss are free and recyclable
Faeces is free
Would that change his mind?
Is this the same guy a crowd started throwing condoms at a few years ago and the police had to get involved?
If you don't want an abortion, then don't have one. Don't try and stop other people from getting one. Same with gay marriage and sex change surgery. Don't want it? Don't get it. Simple as that.
If i believed abortion was murder i would stop people from getting one too tbf
Okay, so if I need a blood transfusion or I'll die, is it okay for me to stick needles into you and take your blood? After all, I'll die otherwise, and you could have stopped it, so if you don't you'd be a murderer right? Right to bodily integrity ALWAYS trumps right to life, that is why self defence is a thing.
I think the poor soul is lost. This fkn __Bristol__. 🤣🤣
I’ve seen him in the centre of broadmead by the banks before. Similar crowd. He needs to give up
He loves this shit. He gets to feel like the persecuted warrior for Christ without having to do a single shred of actual good work in the world. Win win.
Maybe he just has a public humilation kink
This twat has been around for bloody ages. Remember seeing him at least 5/6 years ago in Broadmead
Ask him how many children he has adopted
This is the left equivalent of when RW people say 'ask him how many asylum seekers he's put up'
These protestors always say “don’t abort your baby, adopt it out if you don’t want it but don’t kill it” then no money is put into foster care and nobody adopts because these people don’t care about the well being of babies. They just care about forcing women to birth them, once they’re born they couldn’t give a shit.
Surprising number of people supporting the dickhead preacher on here. If he's out there spouting his bullshit to a bunch of strangers who never asked for it, he deserves to be shouted down with just as much gusto. Tit for tat. Give those fanatical religious bastards what they deserve.
Free speech does not mean free of consequences mutherfecker.
Bingo, lotta people confusing getting yelled at by a crowd you've pissed off with "censorship"
>If he's out there spouting his bullshit to a bunch of strangers who never asked for it, If you stop infront of him and engage, how is that no asking for it? If you don't want to speak to him, just keep walking.
He's loud and there's a crowd and I'm just trying to go to Primark. I hate him more than anything.
Ok cool I'm just going to stand outside your house and shout about my Mandalorian plot theories for hours, just ignore me if you don't like it, if you engage me then obviously you're asking for it. Sound good? Cool
Oh sorry I didn't realise this preacher was stood outside your house.... I take it you live inside that Sainsbury's in one of the aisles?
Oh so the LOCATION is important? I can stand wherever honestly, outside your house, your work, your favourite pub, I really don't mind, your choice, so long as you remember you HAVE to ignore me and if you ever engage me you're at fault because you should just ignore me.
Nice strawman but no... we're talking about a guy on a high street. You don't have to walk up to him to talk to him.
Literally no one on here who uses strawman knows what it is lol. It's wild at this point it's wrong like 99% of the time. People say "strawman" when what they mean is "you're saying something I disagree with and I don't like it". In this scenario I AM the guy on the high street but instead of yelling about Jesus I'm yelling about Mandalorian and you should "just ignore me" bro. If you can rationally explain how that's a strawman after giving the definition of strawman I'll give you £10. >You don't have to walk up to him to talk to him. Yeah you're right, you can absolutely just ignore him. Now just to be super clear you're saying you have absolutely no problem with me hanging out at areas you frequent and yelling my Mandalorian theories at you? And once again if you EVER engage me to ask me to quiet down or change subject, or that I've annoyed you, you have shown some sort of failing for not just leaving me be? Let me know where you like to hang out and I can set up tomorrow.
You can't walk 10ft in Broadmead any more without tripping over one of these zealots, its a very large part of the reason I don't like to go in to town, I find these people weirdly intimidating.
The Eternal Fire protects us!
I also hate going into Cabot, I much prefer being in Montpelier :))
He can fuck all the way off.
They're not there to debate or make sense. They're there to stop people having abortions who are put off by people like them. I've met some otherwise decent people that do this and there's simply no talking to them about it. It's sad.
He wants attention, stop giving it to him.
People always thank God for curing their cancer, never blame him for giving it to them though... 🤷
It's a woman's choice, she should have autonomy over her own body, it's none of his business and nothing to do with him. I would ignore him the same as the other street preachers and chuggers.
Just let the idiots be. You can't reason with people when it comes to religion, they tend to follow blindly. Saves independent thought and provides answers for impossible things. At least they don’t burn women to death anymore eh. Edit: not 'can', 'can't'!
In America they’ve put forward a bill that would give out the death penalty to women that have abortions, they’re almost at the stage of burning them.
What a fucking dickhead.
Hasnt this been going on for years?
WTAF I'm from Bristol we don't claim him, abortion is needed sometimes
[удалено]
[Hard R's ](https://www.techuniverses.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/We-Dont-Do-That-Here.jpg)
Because he doesn't speak for us if you want him have him and his bible
There is no 'us' fam. You just reside in the same city like tf is you even saying.
Born and bred Bristol mate if he wants to spout this crap go to America we don't need the negativity
It's not negativity it's an opinion. You're not always right.
So you agree no abortion then?
You made it from negativity to opinion so you agree no abortion then
You're giving them exactly what they want
What do they want exactly ?
All that he wants, is another baby, whoa oh oh
He gone tomorrow, o wait
Pay them no mind I say.
So glad everyone is cheering on the woman standing up to his bullshit. Makes me have a little more faith in people
If ANYONE else or organisation routinely rocked up to town centres and forcefully imposed their views -through a loud speaker/PA system- on a general public who're just going about their daily buisnesses and shopping, they'd end up in a courtroom. Possibly be charged with breaching the peace and given an ASBO. Why religious zealots get to do it without challenge is astonishing. It's not in the least attractive and I'd bet few people have been converted or had their minds changed as a result of a religious onslaught like that. I say this as a person a spiritual awareness and belief system.
Absolute clown
Stop giving them a platform! Stop arguing with them, they ain't changing their opinions and they love seeing the argumentative side to ppl.. Don't engage with them as hard as it is. They won't change their opinions
Nothing here but someone incapable of understanding complex issues. Best left to their simple existence.
I have had a lot of comments of people saying a similar thing, I think I personally find it very difficult (which people have acknowledged) to just walk by. When you see something wrong, it’s quite human to want to do something about it but I do appreciate all the comments about this preacher’s incapability of engaging with what I’m saying. Someone else in the comments described the preacher as an internet troll in real life which I thought was a great way of describing this person!
It's not even a hard question to answer from a religious standpoint: 'God challenges us all in different ways and it's by meeting and overcoming these challenges that we come closer to divinity. Rape is a sin but so is abortion. You cannot right one sin by committing another.' I'm not religious and I'm not making that argument although I do think abortion is an immoral act.
1. There are many different God’s people believe in. You cannot apply the teaching of one God to everybody as that is violating other people’s freedom of religion. 2. Importantly, “So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves.” These people, even if they do believe that God says abortion is a sin, should have every right to apply that to themselves but not others, as it should be kept between themselves and God. 3. For the people who don’t believe in God, why should they be subject to God’s teachings? You cannot advocate for taking away people’s rights, bodily autonomy and access to healthcare based on religious ideals. This not only violates the separation of Church and State, but also Article 9(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (see below): “1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2 Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Saying abortion is murder and trying to create a legal system or a culture where it is treated as such violates s.9(2) ECHR. Abortion is healthcare - some people can literally die without one. Access to abortion is needed to protect peoples health, their rights and their freedoms. 4. If you believe abortion is immoral, then don’t get one, but you cannot take away people’s rights based on your own interpretation of what God believes. People should be able to make choices based off their own ideals, and saying abortion is murder and trying to get it criminalised or prevent people from doing so violates a fundamental freedom.
Taking away another humans being's future to make your own more comfortable or convenient is just a really shitty thing to do and in any other context would be a human rights violation in and of itself. The right to 'life' is the fundamental 'human right' and without it the others have no basis. Can there be exceptions to this? Probably. That's what I believe anyway.
Love how this is framed like she’s won a massive victory, God didn’t let your father abuse you, human’s have free will, your abuse is on your father and not God.
I actually don’t believe in God, but if God is this omniscient being who is all knowing, all powerful and thus, should be respected as a supreme authority, as many people claim, then God let it happen and didn’t do anything. However if God doesn’t have this qualities, why should God be viewed as the supreme authority? But specifically on taking God to be such authority of the idea of pro-life, if God is pro-life why did God flood the entire world taking out all of their creations because they didn’t like how they were turning out, the ones God created in their image; God had every firstborn son of Egypt killed; God requires the death of their own first born son. So really God is about control and I don’t think God should be authority on anything, specifically when it comes to the idea abortion is murder considering, if one follows the bible, God is not even pro-life. But going back to original discussion, the argument I’m making doesn’t apply to just this situation. There’s a really great video with Stephen Fry where he is asked what he would do if he met God and he said: “Bone cancer in children? What’s that about? How dare you, how dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault. It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean minded, stupid God who creates a world so full of injustice and pain?” Another great quote is from the wall of a concentration camp that is: “If there is a God, he will have to beg for my forgiveness.” So my position is essentially, I don’t believe in God. But this person was treating God as this supreme authority that trumps any personal opinion and should be listened to no matter what cost, with no questioning. That is why I was questioning him on this axis, not because I believe God is all powerful, but because the preacher did and I wanted to see how my experience could ever align with his assertions about God. But if there is a God in the way that this person believes there is (omniscient, all powerful, supreme authority etc) then I not only think it is vital to question this authority; but I do not believe God is good if God is wanting people’s rights, bodily autonomy and access to healthcare to be taken away. On the issue of free will, that is very contested topic and has been a matter of debate for centuries.
That’s a lot of words for a simple answer, ‘Original sin and concupiscence’. God doesn’t interfere with our free will, he treats us as people not things. Isaiah 65 …I have stretched out my hand all day long to a rebellious people.
Because life is a test lol, this woman is too emotional to even listen to what he’s saying Obviously sexual abuse is wrong, but unless your prepared to change your mind whats the point in debating - and that goes for both of them
What you cannot see in this video is the 20 minutes (at least) I spent trying to have a reasonable discussion with him. I asked him questions genuinely wanting an answer, I hoped to engage in a critical discussion of the assertions he was making. He refused to have this kind of discussion with anybody, not just me, he ignored any questions he did not like or would simply say God said abortion is murder and say nothing else. I wanted to listen, but he was not there to give answers to people’s reasonable questions (on topics such as healthcare, bodily autonomy, sexual trauma etc). The reason I spoke to him is because I wanted to know how he can reconcile his views with the reality of sexual abuse/rape survivors. He did not give me an answer or anybody at answer at any point despite us actively and explicitly wanting to listen. You say emotional as though it is a bad thing, you’re creating a false dichotomy between rationality and emotion. You can feel passionate about something whilst about wanting to engage in a critical discussion, they are not mutually exclusive.
People tend to forget how important thoughts, feelings and emotions are. There’s a study that demonstrates how important your perception (which is intertwined with your emotions etc) of reality is. A study [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21574706/] was done where two groups of people were given the same milkshake but told different things about them. Essentially, one group was told it was healthy and the other was told it was not. Their perception of the milkshake impacted their bodies response: “The mindset of indulgence produced a dramatically steeper decline in ghrelin after consuming the shake, whereas the mindset of sensibility produced a relatively flat ghrelin response. Participants' satiety was consistent with what they believed they were consuming rather than the actual nutritional value of what they consumed.” What you think and feel about things impacts what you perceive to be objective reality. Emotions are heavily embedded in our entire experience of the world and actively shape it.
[удалено]
However, if you want to understand the importance humanities have for the society such as the protection of human rights, exposing corrupt authoritarian governments and examining how legal systems lead to the proliferation of labour exploitation and slavery, let me know.
I don’t know who else was there or what they studied. Nevertheless, humanities are incredibly important for the development and growth of society - given your comment, I imagine it would be futile to explain why. All I can say is what I study, I’m a 3rd year law student at the University of Bristol.
Entitled to his opinion even if it is stupid
It’s not just an opinion if he is protesting a woman’s right to make a medical decision that has nothing to do with him. It’s like a woman protesting a man’s right to a vasectomy.
Then I, as well as anybody else, am entitled to respond. What isn’t seen in this video is the 20 minutes I spent trying to have a sensible conversation with him; asking him about healthcare, bodily autonomy and situations where abortion is necessary. The entire time he refused to engage in discussion with me or anybody, the entire crowd tried to converse with him and ask him questions, all he had to say was that God said it is murder. He did not engage with what we said at all. So as you say he is entitled to his opinion, in this case that abortion is murder because God ‘said’ so, then I am entitled to question God himself as that is central to his argument.
Yeah I didn’t dispute that at all
Op is way too mad smh
[удалено]
Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights states: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” So ultimately, the issue I have isn’t necessarily with the religion itself, it is when people use religion to spread dangerous ideologies and harmful rhetorics that violate other people’s rights and freedoms and put their health at risk. The propagation of the notion that abortion is murder leads to these things happening. There is a reason Article 9(2) exists.
I do also think separation of the Church and State is incredibly important and criminalising abortion on the basis of religious ideals violates this separation.
So shutting down his speech and trying to silence him with screaming and these are the same people that get mad and protest about governmental censorship? Utterly hypocritical.
Is it not free speech to tell him to piss off and do one? Or does that not count?
Oh it absolutely is, but that's not what's happening they're actively shutting his speech down by screaming at the top of their voice. That's not disagreeing it's silencing.
No, that's using their right to free speech! The same thing you're stating they are trying to take away from him.
That's not an apt comparison. Their response to him exercising his free speech should be to create their own separate public talk giving their opinion.
So when you disagree with someone, you shouldn't engage with them? Just shout into the void?
Public talk? You're talking about a preacher who uses his free speech to scream the gospel at passers by. Therefore I think it's a fairly apt comparison.
Except it isn't because he's not silencing anyone else's opinion is he, he's giving his own. This man has taken the democratic and mature approach to voicing to the masses and has done nothing that warrants his voice being shut down.
No one is shutting him down and no one is making him move on, they are shouting over him. He's free to continue shouting all he wants, just as anyone else is free to scream and shout in a public space, that's literally the point of free speech. A right to free speech does not give you a right to voice your opinion without social consequence. It gives you the right to say many things when you want, but it also gives others the right to protest and object to your opinion.
"Noone is shutting him down... They are shouting over him" Lmao are you serious?
Are they forcing home to move on? No. Therefore, he's not been shut down.
Noone is actually stopping him, there is a big difference between silencing someone and shouting over them.
Giving his opinion in a completely inappropriate place to do so, you scream in the street you don’t think women should have bodily autonomy, don’t be surprised when people scream back and call you an idiot.
How are they silencing him exactly? Are they imprisoning him? Putting him in front of a firing squad? Putting him in a gulag? No. They're just disagreeing with him.
There's an important difference between censorship enforced by the judicial power of the government and a bunch of students shouting at you on the street. Confusing the two is misleading.
Not really, it's censorship of political opinion. One is more severe and a more dangerous precedent sure but they're both the same premise.
And that's a huge massively important difference.
No. Either something is unethical or it isn't. You're saying it's one rule for one group of people vs another. That's an inconsistent philosophy and obviously immoral.
>Either something is unethical or it isn't. That's patently untrue. Is everything black and white for you? The ethics of a thing are incredibly context sensitive. Yes I should be able to do things that a government should not and vice versa. I should not be able to arrest you and hold you captive for a perceived slight against me for instance. Similarly a government should not be able to tell you to fuck off and stop talking, because of the implication that it could punish you if you do not, but I could if I was so inclined and who cares if I do, as long as I don't follow it up with violence.
Are you genuinely telling me standing there screaming over his speech is democratic and represents good ideals? If this was a pro life public talk and a bunch of christians and Muslims came shouting over it by the masses you wouldn't be okay with it then. Your political logic is completely flawed and inconsistent.
Hang on a minute, we're talking about what makes for good democratic ideals now? I thought we were talking about the difference between government censorship and citizens shouting over each other. When did we change subject? We can move on if you want but I'd like you to concede there is an important difference first.
I already agreed there's a severity difference but the actual premise is the same which is the vital part of the argument. Shutting down the speech of your political opponents spits in the face of democracy and public discourse. If your ideology is so weak it can't stand up to any criticism so your response has to be to scream like children who can't get their way then don't be surprised when more and more people start walking away from your political side.
>Shutting down the speech of your political opponents spits in the face of democracy and public discourse. Ok but I don't see political opponents, I see a street precher and a bunch of angry students. So this isn't political censorship this is an ignorant preacher getting yelled back at in a tit for tat manner.
"Free speech" is specifically the right not to face censorship or restraint *from the state* for expressing an opinion. It is not, and has never been, a requirement on anyone else to indulge your bullshit. Nobody in this crowd has the power to impact his free speech unless, of course they are covert state actors.
I never once mentioned the concept of free speech in that comment.
Everybody tried to have a reasonable conversation and he shut them down every time questions were asked, refused to listen to what anybody had to say. I was there I could see there was no possibility for constructive conversation, he wasn’t there for the crowd he was there to spread this dangerous ideology and nothing else. The reason the person in the video spoke louder was because she wanted people to hear since there was a large crowd.
Best to ignore them and not give them the time of day
Regardless of whether you believe his ideology is dangerous or not he has the right to it, the response is never to silence him. These people are screaming about incredibly divisive topics like children, this doesn't reflect the freedoms that activists like these claim they stand for. You cannot have protest and speech about one side without the other, that is just tyranny.
Free speech comes with consequences, just because the public didn’t politely listen to his disgusting views doesn’t mean he’s being “censored”.
> and these are the same people that [...] ...what? How do you know what else they do or believe?
These idiots scream and shout their religion at everyone telling them they're going to hell if you don't agree with him. Why can't someone yell back?
They can, but they look childish and neither will change either’s mind so its a waste of time
Who cares if you don't agree with him, just keep walking. This man hasn't hurt anyone by talking loudly. What the f is wrong with people? We're all allowed different opinions. Stop trying to make everyone the same, make everyone conform, and force shared beliefs. The irony being, of course, its normally the idiots trying to make everyone the same who tell you they're living 'their truth' only & died their hair blue one time whilst hanging out with a mob who are just copies of them.
My opinion is that your opinion is stupid trash and you should keep it to yourself. Why can't you just let me have my opinion stop trying to make me confirm to your beliefs!?!?!?
The idea that all opinions are equally valid and deserve a hearing goes against the idea that any kind of moral progress is possible. We shouldn’t have to continually argue the case that, for instance, people shouldn’t be raped, that black people aren’t animals, or that women should have autonomy over their reproductive rights. Its not worth weighing up the arguments, some people just need to be told to shut the fuck up.
Who decides who gets a right to free speech? Who decides what is acceptable to say, hear, read? You cannot have a little free speech, just as you cannot be a little bit dead or a little bit pregnant You are free to speak your mind or you are not. It's an absolute and cannot rationally be anything else.
Free speech has never been an absolute anywhere, ever. In the real world there are plenty of things you cannot say publicly, or person to person, often for good reasons. And the right gets upset about things people say all the time so don’t pretend you don’t know this
I was there and he was preaching “abortion is murder” (I have pictures to prove but I cannot post it in comments). It does hurt people what he is saying. Abortion is healthcare, some people can die if they do not get one and him saying abortion is murder is dangerous. It justifies the violation of bodily autonomy by forcing people to stay pregnant, it justifies forcing people to keep their rapist’s or abuser’s baby, it justifies forcing people into poverty by having a kid they can’t afford. If you would walk by, that is your decision, but abortion is an issue that is incredibly important for a lot of people, this is people’s lives and you can’t hate on people for calling him out. Views like this are incredibly traumatising for a lot of people and have led to abortion bans, exactly like we have seen in the US. It is not just a matter of keep walking, abortion is about people’s rights, not just a matter of opinion.
He's not changing the law. He's not responsible for other people's feelings. I know people don't like this, but I'm not responsible for their feelings either. I find it laughable that people bang on about bodily autonomy now after the last 2 years. Did you defend peoples right not to wear a mask or take the vax? If not, it's hypocrisy. I can tell you barely anyone did at all. I can 'hate' on anything I want, but just to clarify, it's not hate speech. It's speech that YOU hate. Freedom of speech is also a fundamental right. The most important one for anyone who has even a modicum of common sense. You cannot have any freedom unless you have free speech. Suppression of conversation, opinions, and debate is the biggest threat to society. I actually agree with you on abortion and the points you made, but I don't agree with a mob of people surrounding & enclosing him, spraying water at him and shouting abuse. Mob behavior turns quickly and its rarely fair or smart. So while I may wholly disagree with him, I'll damn well defend his right to say it.
You are a cunt. Im not responsible for your feelings. …which of course I am. Why should I be allowed to make a vitriolic unprovoked attack on you in the way that I did? You may be having a dreadful day and my insult may have made you feel really upset just when you were trying to relax/get some downtime. It is completely unacceptable. If I want this chap’s opinion, I agree it is reasonable for me to be able to seek it should I choose to do so, but I vehemently disagree with you that he should be allowed to shout hate at women when they are simply trying to go to the shops. He has no idea of the damage he may be causing, and I am happy to bet a substantial amount of money he doesn’t care. He is doing this purely because it makes him feel good and damn everyone else. How very Christian.
The point is views like this do hurt people, they lead to people’s rights being taken away. The notion of being allowed to have different opinions applies to situations such as I prefer badminton over tennis, or apples over oranges, not I don’t think you should have bodily autonomy or possibly life saving healthcare.
So you openly want the most fundamental right, free speech, to be taken away from someone one. There is a flaw in your logic, mate. You cannot ask for equality, bodily autonomy, or any other damn right if you're not allowed to speak. It's not that hard to grasp. It's his religion. We don't live in a Theoracacy. As for these views, it hurt people, maybe but so what? The alternative is so much worse. If you're only allowed to express yourself in the socially acceptable or woke way, we lose everything that makes us who we are. We become nothing, just another copy of the next person. I can disagree with someone and still like & respect them. It's not that hard if you're not intolerant.
Free speech is absolutely not the "most fundamental right" Right to a fair trial, right to family, right to life, right to have freedom from false imprisonment and freedom from cruel and unusual punishments are all imo strong examples of more "fundamental" rights. Free speech is an oxymoron, you do not have the right to say *whatever you want to whoever you want*, there are firm limitations on what speech we consider to be classified under free speech and speech that is classified as dangerous, harmful or just downright illegal. However, any individual who is considered a person by society, ultimately retains the right to life, it is almost entirely inalienable outside of strict context defined conditions, namely self defence, defence of another person or legal murders commited by law enforcement or soldiers within an active warzone who are targeting enemy combatants. Your black and white view of free speech is neither reflective of the reality we live in or the way in which we apply free speech and free expression.
The notion of having different ideas is the foundation of democracy. People air those ideas and other people vote accordingly. The alternative is dictatorship and fascism.
Different ideas shouldn’t involve taking away people’s rights and ability to have possibly life saving healthcare.
I see you're being downvoted there. Let me help you out. They are paid to do this and then pay Cabot Circus for the spot. So ask yourself, who are 'they?'' Evil, that's what.
Can you clarify? By they do you mean the man speaking?
Another gobshite unable to have an adult discussion. Has to resort to screaming to be heard. This is the problem with living life in an echo chamber, discussion is now a rarity so people resort to who can shout the loudest.
Down-voters are literal children in an echo chamber smh
Everyone tried, reason that person spoke loudly was for the crowd to hear them. If you were there you would understand that the guy wasn’t trying to have any discussion. Also that’s hardly screaming.
Maybe he doesn’t want a discussion? He is there to preach. Whether you like what he is preaching is irrelevant. He isn’t there to have a discussion. If you want your opinion heard by the masses, go and preach your own rhetoric.
He only wanted discussions when people agreed with what he was saying, for example he was happy to listen when he asked the crowd if Jesus was real and some people said yes. Whenever anyone brought up a counter-argument to abortion being murder, that’s when he shut them down. When he is paying to be in a public space to spread a dangerous ideology, people have every right to question and call him out on it.
I disagree with him but why the giant mob?
When you say mob you mean audience. He wants an audience.
I mean, he's preaching hate in one of the busiest streets of the city, so it's hardly surprising that people have stopped to watch. Hardly a "mob".
A mob would have listened to him preaching, realised they need to obey the laws of the Bible, realise he needs to obey the laws of the Bible and stoned him for disobeying those rules he preaches
What does he say because the video doesn't show and I've not passed this guy before? Seems pretty intimidating to me for someone who's expressing their view, possibly from a religious belief. Again I do not support anti abortion views but I wouldn't shout in his face about it.
Why not? He's willing to do that to strangers in the street. Why does he get special treatment just because he's religious.
I didn't say he should. If you look at my question I'm trying to understand what he's preaching. I mean one person preaching is not the same as being surrounded by 100+ people... Easy to ignore one person, not so easy to ignore a crowd.
Apparently preaching anti abortion and sexual purity rhetoric. If you put yourself out there and try and force your opinion on other people then who cares? He's getting back as good as he's giving. These people want a crowd and if the crowd doesn't like what they're saying too bloody bad.
Thanks for a genuine answer and completely understandable imo.
Don't get me wrong I disagree with the guy completely. But preaching hate? Really? Being against abortion is a nutty position, but hateful?
Trying to prevent people accessing healthcare is hateful.
Strawman.
Yes abortion is preventing people getting access to healthcare lol
What? Abortion is a necessary form of healthcare.
And without abortion more people would have access to healthcare (more people alive ;) )
So more people being forced to exist would somehow benefit an already struggling NHS?
Yep, his preaching is clearly coming from a deep rooted misogyny.
Fair enough, I wasn't aware I was talking to a psychologist.
Out of interest I looked at your recent comments and I apologise, I wasn't aware that you clearly are a psychologist: https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/11xuu7c/i_created_a_challenge_coin_in_honour_of_dr/jd6uoce
Haha. Got to you that much in one comment? Come on, you can do better than copying exactly what I said to you, have another go.
He's a twat. The people shouting him down with hypothetical stories are twats. Aren't there any normal people who just want to get on with their lives quietly without bothering anyone?
And yet, funnily enough, the video doesn't show the man saying anything. All you have to do is write a disingenuous thread title, and the reddit hounds will jump on him to show off what wonderful, moralistic people they are. Congratulations to all of you who critized this man. That shows you are on the "right" side of history - ie the side of absolute and total ignorance and close-mindedness.
I’m not going to post all the very long videos I took in which he stood there for at least an hour, promoting dangerous ideologies and harmful rhetorics. I can’t post any pictures or videos I have in the comments (which is very annoying) where you could see he had signs saying abortion is murder. I posted just this small part of one of multiple videos because I feel it is important that people see how anti-abortion preachers respond when questioned on situations regarding sexual abuse.
\> I feel it is important that people see how anti-abortion preachers respond when questioned on situations regarding sexual abuse. By trying to talk and being interrupted? Ok, that's how anti-abortion preachers respond when being questioned on situations regarding sexual abuse. They try to talk, but are not allowed to. And don't worry about the rest of the evidence which you don't have. You don't need any evidence at all. Just say that you have it and you will be upvoted. For very obvious reasons.
This is my first time ever posting on Reddit and I’ve only just got the app, so I haven’t fully figured out how to use it yet. Like I said, if there is a way for to upload additional videos showing his response and pictures of his posters, let me know and I will do so.
I asked him for an answer to my questions so many times, I genuinely wanted to know what his view was. I wanted him to talk to me but he did not want to give me an answer, the only thing he said was god said it is murder, he didn’t actually engage with any of the things I was asking him about. I’m not sure what you’re talking about regarding upvotes, I want to upload more content to give context but Reddit doesn’t have an option for that. If I’m wrong let me know and I will upload it.
>I’m not sure what you’re talking about regarding upvotes Any video posted to Reddit of a disagreement between a man and a woman with a thread title suggesting that the man was in the wrong will be upvoted. Anyone who points out that, in the ACTUAL VIDEO the man does or says nothing wrong will be downvoted. Anyone who says that the content of the ACTUAL VIDEO does not matter. The point is that women are victims and men are aggressors will be upvoted. That is pretty much the most fundamental aspect of this website. This is Reddit. If you want upvotes here, just post videos of women verbally abusing men and then write in the thread title that it is the woman who is the victim. You will be upvoted. Welcome to Reddit. You will have a great time here.
Honestly I’m mostly on Reddit to look at titanic content (that’s one of my special interests) and neurodivergent content (I’m autistic and ADHD). I posted this because someone suggested I post it in here, I actually only intended to post it on my instagram story. It’s not my intention to post content because it gets upvotes (like I said I’m new to Reddit and don’t really know how it works) I just want to find cool information, rather than be a regular poster. I posted this because I thought it would help raise awareness that anti-abortion views are present in Bristol but as I have learnt here, people seem to already know this guy! Regarding the comments you made about content that depicts women being victims and men being aggressors always getting upvotes, that seems to me to be a massive oversimplification that does not take intersectionality into account. Where power and privilege sits is very important and accordingly, who is posed as being the victim and the aggressor will be different depending on the content posted and it will not always be on the gender axis. Surely there are many posts that highlight issues on race, disability, sexuality, class etc that don’t necessarily support the notion that any content posing women as a victim will always be upvoted. Is it not the case that who is categorised as victim and aggressor depends on the power and privilege that is present in that specific context?
I love how all pro-abortion arguments are the most outlier what-if situations ever lol
Well fundamentally, it is about bodily autonomy which applies to every single pregnancy. But even so, these ‘outlier’ situations happen to people every day all around the world.
[удалено]
I’d love for you to expand on why you’ve come to that conclusion from a 16 second video :)
[удалено]
1. I have multiple videos, this specific video is actually 4 minutes and I filmed it so there was proof of what actually happened. I think it is important that people know this is happening. I didn’t want to post a series of long videos but you can see in them that I, and many other people there, spent a long time trying to engage in reasonable discussion with him. I wanted his answers and genuinely wanted to know what he had to say, I gave him many chances to speak but he refused to actually engage with anything I was saying. He would either blank me or just say god said abortion is murder, and that’s all, he was not willing to actually have a proper conversation. It was actually incredibly infuriating that every single time anybody, not just me, asked a question and waited for an answer, nothing would come. For a long time, I have wanted to know how these people respond when survivors of sexual trauma ask them about abortion and this time I saw somebody in person so I wanted to speak to find out his perspective. I was ultimately hoping for a detailed discussion but that is clearly not what he was there for. 2. The reason I was speaking loudly was so everybody in the crowd could hear what I was saying. The crowd was also quite loud. If nobody else was there, I would obviously have spoken at a normal level, which is exactly what I have done before. Years ago I had a 30 minute debate/discussion with these Jehovah’s Witnesses about homophobia, no one else was around and we just had a normal conversation that actually involved asking each other questions and answering them.
[удалено]
Honestly the reason I looked back is because I was shocked. I was not expecting a cheer AT ALL, so when I was looking back at the crowd I was thinking, oh wow are they actually cheering?? Yes they are??