Anti-Gay Dr. Michael Brown Confronts David for Saying 'Extremist Homophobes'
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ต.ค. 2024
- David joins Line of Fire Radio with Dr. Michael Brown to discuss Brown's World Net Daily article. Article link: www.wnd.com/201...
Website: www.davidpakman...
Become a Member: www.davidpakman...
Be our Patron on Patreon: / davidpakman
Discuss This on Reddit: www.davidpakman...
Facebook: / davidpakmanshow
Twitter: / davidpakmanshow
TDPS Gear: www.davidpakman...
24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP
Subscribe to The David Pakman Show for more: www.youtube.com...
Support TDPS by clicking (bookmark it too!) this link before shopping on Amazon: www.amazon.com/...
Broadcast on April 17, 2014 David's Instagram: / david.pakman --Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj
--Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930
--Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt
--Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj
--Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930
--Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt
Homophobes hate being called homophobes. What they don't realize is, living out a lifestyle of hatred and discrimination is a choice. Being gay is not. Being a homophobe is unnatural, Being gay is not.
All I could hear during that interview was "wah wah wah i wanna be a homophobe and not be called out for it"
shows how shit your brain is then doesn't it
When I first saw the photo above of the stylish middle-aged guy with glasses and moustache, I thought instantly "middle aged gay man". Then I find out he is anti-gay. Hmmm...
"WAIT What was my point anyway!!? He's making me look like an idiot!! QUICK, Roll the music over him!!"
Good job David!
Schweí Übersteigen This was your understanding?
“A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously -translates what he hears into something he can understand.”
@G G somebody with any ideal what reason and logic are would not be using fundamentalist talking-points like "gayism" ore talk about some kind of dictatorship when people simply would lilke to not be opressed and have their rights respected.
When was the las time the gay empire forced you to do anything?
You know, except for not being allowed to discriminate anybody?
@G G If you cannot abide reality and truth - You get out of here.
Why sould I ?
I love how Brown used music to cut David off.
Phil Hmp How about the incapacity of David to understand Dr. Brown's legitimate requests? He could not comprehend reciprocity. Poor lefty.
+Cris S If you can understand Browns request then please explain it here?
It seems to me that Brown agrees with, and advocates for biblical homophobia yet seems offended by being labelled a homophobe himself. Sorry but he can't have it both ways. He's either opposed to marriage equality, therefore a homophobe or he supports it therefore he's not. It's his choice. If he chooses to believe in the man made Bible and it's primitive bigotry, as though it was dictated by some angry jealous creator of the universe, therefore he needs to accept responsibility for the consequences of his chosen beliefs.
If the homophobia label fits then so be it. He needs to grow a spine, accept the label and stop deceiving himself.
Cris S Nope, you got it backwards. It's Dr. Brown who can't seem to understand a simple answer.
+Phil Hmp You are very brainwashed by the leftist social engineering! It is really sad! The "homophobia" label is widely used nowadays by those who cannot engage in an honest discussion! The Bible is not homophobe, it is about right and wrong - and because it is not convenient for you based on this new ideology, you are throwing labels that you don't quite understand! Marxists and nowadays neo-Marxists preach the gospel of equality plagiarized from the Bible and wrongly understood. God speaks about equal dignity not equal in all respects. Biology doesn't matter to the new social engineers. What are you talking about an jealous Creator? You don't make any sense. Dr. Brown has a spine and as a believer, is congruent with Biblical teachings. BTW: all religions promote man-woman relationship. It's not just Christianity or Judaism! Papa Marx thought that he is a new God and created a political religion. Well, Dr. Brown and myself reject the pseudo-religion and follow the Bible. Capisci? If you don't understand is either (1) advanced brainwashing, either (2) genetic accident.
You mentioned extremist each time, Brown just kept throwing himself into the "extremist" group and then kept trying to get you to explain why YOU did that. You didn't and Brown didn't get it. This guy had an agenda.
"these extremists are close to the edge"
"why are you saying all homophobes are going to go further"
ummm he didn't lol.
Jay L That's all you understood?
Well, a stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously -translates what he hears into something he can understand.Unfortunately nor David nor you understood what Dr. Brown tried to bring out. David was too defensive to understand. Said!
Cris S yes, very said.
that "good guest" comment made me say "OOOOOOOOOHH " subconsciously lol
Oh, dear. This guy apparently thinks that the secular government's definition of marriage corresponds to the Bible's definition of marriage.
Separation of church and state. Why don't people get it?
^Belrox, known racist far right partisan hate troll, ignore!
Mr.Belrox
Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
The first amendment thus states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Therefore, passing laws regarding marriage (for example, that the US government would recognize a same-sex marriage as a valid partnership and would receive the same rights as those in opposite-sex marriages) has nothing to do with any religion's definition of marriage.
After all, it would be a pretty pointless endeavor to attempt to modify a piece of literature which is thousands of years old. People's other rights don't come from the Bible, so why should those regarding marriage be any different?
*****
I've got a quote in a previous comment about the first amendment, if you'd like to see it.
***** Explain separation of church and state to those who want to enforce the gay agenda on religious peoples' conscience!
^Oh look, the hate troll thinks it's people. The rulings over, equal protection under law isn't debatable. Fuck off!
Time for "Doctor" Brown to come out of the closet.
way to go David great job on the interview
"I like to be a good guest"... I love that remark.
that was fun :)
"Hang on, this whole interview is only because I didn't specifically exclude you from the list of homophobes that are on the edge of going berserk?
"We are out of time, bye David!"
David handled Michael Brown's monolithic repetitive interview like a champ.
Dr. Brown I will never wish death on you.
I am not gay, I have a family and I'm happily married to the love of my life.
But I support peoples rights to do what they please as long as it is truthful doesn't hurt others and doesn't spread insane disinformation.
Spreading hate in the name of religion is just as bad as spreading hate in any other way.
Why do you care of someone is married to another person of the same sex? Who cares? You cannot control people, would god really hold it against you?
I'm not religious but I say no he would not.
So let people be! Who cares! It just seems weird that some people have such an obsession against gay marriage.
Why are they wasting their time?
Homophobe: could you define homophobia
David: defines homophobia
Homophobe: could you define homophobia
David: defines homophobia
Homophobe: could you define homophobia
Me: good grief!
On both clips you said "Extremist". Brown must consider himself an extremist. You clarified that not all religious people. He said "radical muslim" which is the same as extremist.
***** Then there is no such thing as a Christian anymore, in that thought process all equals to nothing of belief except the original members, and to be fair, Jesus was Jewish. He didnt live to the total standards of being a jew so that denounces him at that.
***** If you live your life through a book used to control people then I suppose that you are an extremist. The god in your fairy tale commits mass murder (innocent babies), encourages incest, adultery (how many servants had their employers children), polygamy among other extreme, radical and crazy shit. If you think that the voices in your head come from that book, you should really get yourself checked into a mental hospital. (Jay 4:25-28)
***** Just in case you didn't get it in my last comment, I do NOT believe in your god...its a false god and book that you are following. Funny thing is that you act so arrogant and cocky about it.
Jay L You act like a person who has no God.
Cris S The gogo dancers at the club were pretty godly...... just like a God from Greece, very hot.
Hey David and Louis. We bought some sheets today and tried to do the purchase from your web site. I hope it worked. I tried before with a pretty expensive furnace part and could not tell ifit worked or not. Great job guys. Peace
You can be a homophobe without being a violent person
He's perfectly free to hold whatever religious viewpoint he'd like; however, where I have trouble is where he wants to push his religious viewpoint onto me, to restrict my rights as a gay man - and equal citizen of this country - because of his religion. Sorry but he does not have the right to do that, and to use whatever rationale he'd like to restrict my rights simply because I'm gay is without doubt homophobic.
I'm also curious - is this argument against "redefining marriage" the same argument they used when they were fighting against interracial marriage? Certainly seems like the same argument to me. Would you not refer to someone making that argument against interracial marriage as racist? I fail to see how he can seriously consider himself not homophobic.
The funny thing is that marriage has been "redefined" several times since biblical times. It's no longer just polygamy, women are no longer considered legal property, it's based on mutual agreement between two individuals instead of a business transaction between two families, it can be between different races instead of just being between two of the same race, and now it will be between two individuals of the same gender. So the argument that it will "redefine" marriage doesn't even matter. If anything, it is nothing more than an extension of the fact that it's a mutual agreement between two individuals. Marriage is a civil contract between two individuals and the government. If they want to bring up their religion as a reason to be against it, you can remind them that we are not a theocracy. If they want to bring up "tradition," the whole progressive redefinition of marriage refutes that argument. In short, they have no argument except, "it makes me uncomfortable". A lot of these people don't want to admit it, though, including this guy I'm sure.
1:23 Oh good grief, Dr. Brown. Typical of his passive-aggressive digs. David responded to this very well.
David Pakman was a class act in this interview.
I said it on Michael Browns comment section, and I'll say it here to give you a chance at a response. You were, and you know you were, being obtuse. You know exactly what you are doing when you casually toss terms around. I really wish you could be honest. Let us feel free to disagree, and even be angry at each other if we must, but for goodness sake, is honesty too much to ask for? You class people who believe in biblical morality as homophobes, and you casually tossed them into a pot with violent and murderous anti-semites. Your insistence in this talk with Brown, to keep inserting 'extremist' before 'homophobe' testified against you. It was an implicit admittance of guilt on your part for your rather clumsy (at best) or malicious (at worst) use of language (lumping hateful murderers in with those who are for Godly standards). Again, I just wish that we can all be at the very least honest in our disagreements. You were given the opportunity to address your clumsy language, but instead you pridefully played the fool and pretended not to understand what you understood perfectly. In fact, based on the evidence of listening to your interviews, I would say that your 'clumsy' language is in fact methodical. Like I said on Michael Browns page, it reminds be of former abortion advocate Bernard Nathanson describing the battle for getting abortion legalised. He reflected on the lies, the cooking of the stat books etc, and how at the time he felt it was the right and moral thing to do, because it was all about working for the end. The question is, do you and those who share your view, have the fortitude to be honest, even in the face of vehement disagreement? Because at this point, there is a distinct lack of such honesty from you.
TheJimitime are all extremist homophobes murderers?
How come all these debaters, guests and Pakman himself, all like to focus on "Look, you said this word!!" instead of actually debating?
He pronounced it like "the David Pac-Man show" that 2nd reference.
David, you handled the interview perfectly.
Dr. Brown is awesome. 👏 everyone should give him a listen, and check out all of his debates.
David I'm so impressed with your interview skills! Both being interviewed and doing the interviewing. I'm one of those people that after I have a conversation with someone, I wish I had said this or that! I wish I could think as clearly as you seemed to no matter what the situation! That Dr. Brown was making me angry. What did he want you to say?
You have proven Michaels point, just by your subject line, labeling Michael to be "anti-gay." David, you did not approach the issue with sincerity and Michael was right to call you on it for the duration of the interview.
LOLOL. Check out the captions in the beginning seconds. At approximately 18 seconds in, when the narrator says "theologian" the captions read, "be a lotion" !!!! considering the topic choice, I find this beyond hilarious! No blame to "Dr." Brown.... Oh wait. "Brown"??? "be a lotion"??? Dr. "I'm way too interested in your sex life Brown" coincidentally is being described as "be a lotion" I'm dying here.
XD I love the passive aggressive nature you two have towards each other
Why not do an intro like this:
"It's time for the David Pakman Show
with your host: DAVID PAKMAN!
David Pakman is the host of the
radio, television and internet program:
The DAVID PAKMAN Show
and your voice for DAVID PAKMAN in the world!
Here again is DAVID PAKMAN!"
you are a class act David! Truth and Integrity speak volumes.... as we see in just the first minute and thirty eight seconds... (BOOM!)
If he didn't feel as though he was a homophobe, he wouldn't be trying as hard to try to disassociate the term from himself. I feel like sometimes we on the left throw out terms so often, they end up having the same meaning colloquially. How about I make the definitions of these terms (based on my own opinions):
Lack of preference: You do not participate in the homosexual lifestyle, but do not take issue against the social group.
Homophobe: Someone who actively has a fear of gay people, and readily tries to stay away from them or not associate with them.
Anti-gay: Someone who does not agree with the homosexual lifestyle. This person is not only against homosexuality, but believes that their should be laws or practices that discriminate against such individuals (ex. Inability to marry, lack of incentives due to sexual preference, be barred from certain establishments, etc).
Also, I love the fact that he played you off with music, like you were talking too long at an awards show.
This is how I break it down. When you have views that you apply to yourself and perhaps your families then you are not an extremist. When you feel your views should be imposed on others you are an extremist. Gay people aren't telling people against homosexuality that they should be gay or that they should not have certain inalienable rights for not being gay so why should anti-gay people be telling homosexuals that they should be straight and don't deserve basic rights of equality if they are openly otherwise.
This is probably the worst interview I've ever heard. I'm glad David finally got to the point at the end, but I wish that had been towards the beginning, because leading up to that it was just a shit show.
He was going to just pound away at David no matter what he said. Notice how he had all the clips ready? It was clearly a setup that didn't work.
Oh clearly, I just don't know why David saved the obvious responses for the very end
As David said at the end of this interview, Michael Brown is very self centered.. He believes everything is directed at him when in reality all David is doing is just making generalized statements. Michael is trying to drum up controversy where there is none. I love how Michael cues up the music when David starts to make a logical well thought out point. It's obvious that Michael's ultimate intentions where to discredit David in the end.
Here's how to understand Dr. Michael Brown's way of thinking, all summed up in an article written by Don Baker of The Atheist Experience:
1.) I'm going to claim that I'm being persecuted because of my religious beliefs so that I'm allowed to victimize my chosen enemy.
2.) I don't want to be held accountable for what I say, and demand immunity from the consequences of my actions. I want to bully and persecute while simultaneously be protected from any retaliation for my bullying.
3.) I want to wash my hands of any personal responsibility for these efforts. I want to be a prick to gays but not have any fallout from being labeled a bigot. I want unwanted children to be born, but I don’t want to provide for them. I want to control people’s medical decisions, but be immune from any harm that comes from that control.
Whole article can be found here: freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2014/02/23/christian-prick-bills/
David is trying to say that rhetoric is not harmless. I would argue that extremism is expressing violence. and even those who denounce violence outright promote violence subtlety
I prefer The Ring of Fire with Pap. Nonetheless, good interview David!
Anyone that has a title like Coalition of whatever should raise red flags all over.
Why is it when someone who meets every definition by word and/or deed is accused of being racist or homophobe, they always deny it? Why not just be honest and admit it? But when confronted, they always deny the label.
I could tell early-on, as I am sure you could, that his only concern was that he might be included in the potential crazies that could end up going on a killing spree. What he clearly fails to realize is that while he may never do that, his rhetoric causes those who are at the tipping point to feel justified in doing exactly what he says he would never do. This may actually be worse, because there is just one of him, but he is reaching many of 'them' with his hateful bible-speak.
First he said he was a Jew, later he said he was Christian. Probably an Internet Doctor.
Cuts off David in the middle of explaining his views on homophobia...to ask David to explain his understanding of homophobia. That's some A+ interviewing.
This has to be one of the worst interviews I have heard in a while. The dude talked 90% of the time, and even when he let you speak, he would cut you off with music. That is not really an interview, it is more like "I am going to rant about how you are wrong, and cut you off if you disagree with me."
Hell, what was the point of him having other people on? Clearly he just likes the sound of his own voice.
animeisthewayhaha Did you listen to the content as well, or you got stuck in surface observations?
this is an ok interview. I wish David wouldn't have stay on the defense the entire time. I also wish he didn't allow the interviewer to play dumb. Overall. David did a good job clarifying himself and I love his final comments.
Classic case of "If the shoe fits..."
Brown should keep his beliefs out of the public sector.
Foisting your religious mumbo-jumbo on other free people is oppression.
I disagree. He should share if he's comfortable doing so. And be ridiculed by those who feel he's deserving of ridicule. Free market of ideas.
TheYouthHeroic It's a secular society; look it up, and stop foisting religion in the public sphere.
He's a crazed foister of some god-bull...as are you, it seems.
We are secular in the West. If you don't have credible proof, then keep that bull out of the public sphere.
If you want to live your life according to myths, then be my guest, but don't foist your religious guff on others....that's oppression.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
Stikibits Are you fucking kidding me? l: We all have the freedom of speech, and freedom of religion (at least in the west). That also means that we have the freedom to speak out against religions, should individuals feel the need or desire to. He has EVERY right to talk about whatever he wants on his program, just as I have every right to disagree and call him out on his bs. We're literally on the same side, but you're under some impression that certain people don't get to share their ideas and views openly. And that's plainly fundamental in having a free society (even if you disagree with what's being said on any particular topic).
TheYouthHeroic In the public sector, freedom of speech comes with the burden of proof. If you don't have credible proof, then it's oppression.
You (the religious) don't have any credible proof, so you cannot enter the public sphere with your bullshit.
You are welcome to keep your bull to your home and church, as you should, and nobody will care, but when you don't observe your burden of proof and start foisting in public, then you're a tyrant oppressing people with bullshit...religious bullshit.
Enlightenment; heard of it?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
Stikibits I like how you keep linking wikipedia articles to things that have little to no bearing on what you're talking about. Freedom of speech does not come with an asterisk of "burden of proof". People aren't required to argue evidence if they don't want to. I'm not religious, so you can shut the fuck up with that, by the way. You can talk in public about whatever you want, as long as you're not threatening to knife people. Crazy street preachers are not "oppressors". I'm sorry, but if you believe that, you're just as delusional as they are.
The interviewer stressed that he was jewish like David, but I could have sworn he slipped and identified himself as a christian at one point.
The word homophobia is so misused. You can be against homosexual behavior without being afraid of it as phobia suggests.
Here is how I would have answered the question.
"What I think you are trying to get me to clarify is that not everyone who has an irrational aversion to the gay lifestyle is an extremist, and I apologize for painting all of the guests on my show, including yourself, as extremist and on the edge of violence, since that is clearly not the case for all of my guests, and your belief system does not necessarily suggest that you are any more likely to commit violence than anyone else is. And, in fact, since there is are a lot of anti-gay people in this country, in certain circles that viewpoint is the norm, not the extreme. However, it is hard not to call someone who has an irrational aversion to the gay lifestyle a homophobe, since that is what that word means, just as it is hard not to call someone who doesn't eat meat a vegetarian. And I am stating that your aversion to the gay lifestyle is irrational because it is supposedly based upon the Bible, but the Bible says very little about homosexuality, and nothing about it in the New Testament, and there is no reason other than blind dogma to believe that this wasn't just the accepted custom of the time when the books were written, and there is no rational reason that these customs should not change over time. Thousands of years ago, the maintenance and growth of the population was critical to survival and to harvest season, etc. So it made sense to discourage a lifestyle that didn't lead to procreation. But now we have 7 billion people on the planet, and population growth is no longer a legitimate concern, so there's no reason for that custom to continue to be enforced."
It is hard to argue with somebody who has The Book as a reference for morality.
I wish you'd pointed out to him that your use of the word "extremist" is identical to his claim that he says "radical" muslims. You WERE saying that not all people are like that. It's like he didn't understand the meaning of words, but he obviously does; he's just attempting to prop up his "reverse persecution" agenda.
I have an acquaintance who is very Catholic and (I think) a lesbian. She did the right thing, got married and had two children. Now that they are at university, the marriage has broken up. Her husband sued for divorce and has 1 year of custody for 1 of her kids. Her life is disrupted.
Captain obvious says , "Some people are gay.". It is interesting how many gay men become priests. "My sins are forgiven, and I still get to play with the little boys."
Sorry about that. I copy/pasted a link to the wrong TH-cam window :/
It was nice of Michael to allow David to get a few words in during those songs of his.
Why don't we let people define themselves? In the whole "Roe-v-Wade" debate, you could call them "anti-life", but they prefer "pro-choice". We could call them "anti-choice", but they prefer "pro-life". Why isn't it the same in this debate? In this debate, we could call them "anti-gay", but they see themselves as "pro traditional marriage". All the name calling is just so hateful.
This interview seemed unnecessary to me.
Of course. it was done out of professional courtesy. Not because David wanted or needed to do it.
Wow... Dr. Michael Brown came across as very gracious while this other guy came across as a huge jerk! Above and beyond anything either of these two said, thats what stood out to me the most.
I don't think you were watching the same video that everyone else is.
Homophobes hate being called homophobes. Bigots hate being called bigots. "Don't be intolerant of my intolerance." That's basically what they're saying. Brown like to present himself as the "good Christian" who wouldn't wish harm on anyone, even The Gays. Yet he writes and says things that are very harmful to gay people. In the Christian Post he wrote an article entitled: "No One is Born Gay; No One." How does he know that no one is born gay? He just does. He says, "...the fact is that there is simply no reputable scientific evidence that anyone is born gay." There's also no scientific proof that God exists Michael yet you not only believe in God, you want laws and public policy to reflect your interpretation of the Bible.
***** I don't think anyone truly fears gays... fear only God.
***** Your parents must be so proud.
Kafir istani What happened to you? Are you sick?
suvariboy No one likes to be mislabeled. Hard to understand? I wish people would not speak so fluently the cliché language of the cultural-Marxism.
suvariboy Studies on identical twins show that gays were not born that way: www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647
What I don't understand is that this nation's law was founded on secular ideologies, so for religion to be the basis of laws regarding gay marriage or any other religious issues, is fundamentally un-American. Issues like these shouldn't even be contentious.
The very fact that the first thing on his list of things is that he's an activist, is quite telling.
He's a homosexual man who needs to embrace his gayness
The saying "A hit dog howls" comes to mind.
Was this entire interview planned to get David to just state that Dr.Brown will not act out violently against gays and is not homophobic?
Why so sly, David Parkman? Dr. Michael Brown, it seems to me that you are wasting your time with this guy. I just can't make sense out of Parkman's reactions and handling of this situation.
He's a doctor alright, a MAD doctor!.
Who is this guy? He was such a bad host, y'all need to get face to face on your show, you would crush it.
he's been on our show 2-3 times
Ok cool, I was just surprised at how bad of a host he was, then he mentioned youtube threats, come on, really? He needs to tighten up, your doing awesome, keep keeping it real. Thanks for the show, love it.
I'm glad you went on his show, learned a lot.
*then he mentioned youtube threats, come on, really?*
Oh really? Would you honestly say the same if it was threats against gay people?
Online threats are fine but refusing to bake a cake is worldwide news? Oh really?
What i've learned about the Gaystapo movement (not my words, this was from a gay man who opposed gay marriage) is that their version of 'equality' means that everything they do must not be opposed and everything everyone else does is wrong.
You can make threats against white straight males (oh really?) but not a single word must be spoken against LGBT activism.
This will not end well.
@@Peter-kl8jg
"You can make threats against white straight males "
Who said that you could do that?
I've never seen or heard anyone say that.
Only time that idea ever seems to pop up is whenever some 'straight white male' is having another hissy fit, insisting that he's the real victim and that everyone's out to get him.
this conversation got absolutely nowhere.
This "Dr" is completely misreading what David is saying. David is not saying everyone who disagrees with same sex marraige is an extremist he's saying there are extreme homophones that will commit violence. This guy is trying to put words in David's mouth
Jesus christ - his show sounds really shitty and unprofessional…he asks a question and as David answers really loud adverts start to play over them both? Hmmm. I feel like my ears got molestered around five minutes in.
Michael Brown simply wanted you to say: "Not all people who oppose same sex marriage are homophobes and not all will do violence to gay people."
Can you say that David?
Will you say it David?
He says it pretty much at 3.35
So, not all people who want blacks to ride at the back of the bus or drink from black-only water fountains are racists? Not all KKK members will do violence to blacks? Hmmm.
David : states facts .
"Dr" Brown : inserts music to drown him out
darth fury he does it to everyone
Wow, that was one of the most meaningless interviews I've ever listened to.
Homophobe should mean having an extreme or irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality, because that is what phobia generally means (as in claustrophia ) but my Merriam Webster dictionary app says it can mean "having an aversion to homosexuals or homosexuality." So by that definition I suppose an Bible believer could be labeled a homophobe.
I do not agree this issue is the same as racism, except there are hate-filled people in all camps.
I understand what Doc Brown (and his DeLorean) was saying here. He is trying to get you to say that "not all religious people are extremists." Technically, he is correct, since the majority of the country is religious, so that is the norm. I'm not sure it warranted a 15-minute interview just to get you to say this, but if you had cleared this up, you could have moved onto him asking you what is wrong with believing in Biblical principles, which would have been a more interesting deconstruction of his belief system.
A good game of chess David, you took most of his pieces and placed him in check.
As they say over on the other side of the pond, "Dr. Brown, what a Wanker!"
yeah, the article falsely equates extremism to any dislike or non-pro gay opinions regarding gay issues. and similarly(perhaps because he wrote the article) this guy thinks the same thing. arguing semantics never gets anyone anywhere. this guy was definitely a homophobe to whatever degree, but that does not make him an extremist. extremism describes people who have extreme views, ie stuff like gay people should die, or gay people should be able to be discriminated w/o reprecussion. but how extreme a view is depends on the person you are asking. nuance on top of semantics on top of colloquial opinion
Dang Dave, I feel bad for you man this guy was obviously trying to make u say that anyone who is against gay people are EXTREME homophobes. The key would I would have told him was EXTREME!!!!! You can be homophobic but not an EXTREME homophobe smh. I mean thats why the word is there to clarify it. He also kept asking you if he was a homophobe or an EXTREME one, if I were you I would have then asked him some questions like ok are you against anything gay related? Are you ok with gay people having their rights and liberties and freedoms taken away from them the same rights and freedoms that you have? Should all gay people be killed or rounded up and sent to an island or something that is just for gay people? If he says yes to some or any of those then yes you are homophobic and or EXTREMELY HOMOPHOBIC, and last 2 questions, would you be friends with a gay person or would you be against shaking a gay persons hand? And depending on that anseer would determine if he is a homophobe.
Riley's drunk comments are gone. Moderated by Pakman/admin/whoever, or deleted in shame?
we deleted nothing. we never delete comments unless they are personal direct threats. whoever's comments you are talking about must have been marked as spam by enough viewers to disappear
Could be. He's a regular troll on your vids, posted some completely nonsensical, typo-ridden junk last night.
David Pakman Show Michael Brown or some of his followers has deleted some of my comments I have posted on his videos. Here's one I posted a few days ago and it has been deleted.Hey Michael, you often use "ex-gay" testimonies in your videos as evidence that "ex-gay" is an option. So I was wondering if you have ever heard David Reimer's and Kirk Murphy's stories?Here's just a little about David's story. David Peter Reimer (August 22, 1965 - May 5, 2004) was a Canadian man born biologically male but raised female following medical advice and intervention after his penis was accidentally destroyed during a botched circumcision in infancy. Psychologist John Money oversaw the case and reported the reassignment as successful and as evidence that gender identity is "primarily learned". Academic sexologist Milton Diamond later reported that Reimer failed to identify as female since the age of 9 to 11, and transitioned to living as a male at age 15.Sadly David Reimer committed suicide in May 2004. There's also a book about David called, "As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl." Kirk's story is somewhat different from David's.In 1970, a five-year-old boy named Kirk Murphy was subjected to an ex-gay experiment. Under the care of Dr Ivor Lovaas and George Rekers, then a doctoral student, of UCLA, he underwent therapy to eliminate supposed effeminate behaviors. In 1974, Lovaas and Rekers jointly published a paper about the boy they renamed "Kraig," heralding his treatment for "childhood cross-gender problems" a success and claiming he had been transformed from a gender-confused homosexual-in-waiting to a healthy, heterosexual young man. Sadly in 2003, Kirk at the age of 38 years old and gay, he too committed suicide. You can watch more about Kirk's story here on youtube called, "The Sissy Boy" Experiment. David and Kirk, two completely different children with different doctors, doctors who that not only attempted to change David and Kirk and make them into something they were not, but also the outcome of the doctors intervention was the same !! I think people should hear these stories too, don't you Michael? Matthew 18:1-418 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”2 Then he called a little child over to sit among the disciples, 3 and said, “I assure you that if you don’t turn your lives around and become like this little child, you will definitely not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Those who humble themselves like this little child will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
+Ron luns (Ronlovesabba) You are talking about people who had medical intervention and biological problems plus raised to have a certain gender identity. Dr. Brown speaks of more "clear" cases, when a person lives a gay life, has the specific genetic make up of a man or woman, and later decides to become heterosexual. The examples are not equivalent! Dr. Brown is not a proud person, he is a decent man with a good degree of humility. What are you cherrypicking from the Bible at your convenience?
+Cris S From your comment, I can see you're just another one of " Dr" Quack Brown's brainwashed followers !
The rhetoric and eisegesis that Michael Brown spews is more than deserving of it's repercussions.
How hard is it to stop being so narcissistic ..... Not everything is about you Michael Brown.....
Who the heck besides this guy just randomly starts playing music in the middle of someone's sentence? Seems like he is trying really hard to keep David from calling him out on his bullshit.
For a second I thought the picture of Mike Brown looked like the guy on Tosh.O, who gives naked massages to guys.........just sayin'
I thought that was Edward James Olmos.
That was a really hard interview to follow, I don't know what Brown was trying to get at.
Wish their Dad come out of the closet and told them i had to hide it from everyone due to people like you.
Micheal is the male version of Nancy Grace. He is looking to force acceptance of his belief on others for the purpose of rating.
David missed the opportunity to question him about his "we're both Jews" and a minute later "I'm a good Christian" comment. You can't conveniently be whatever garnishes the most support and attention. Needless to say the point of view is wrong from an overarching standpoint; this is not a theocracy and laws and social acceptance should not be based on a "self reported" belief that you personally hold sacred.
trust me, we wouldn't have gotten very far with that.
+Joedy Barnes Jewishness is an ethnicity and religion too, so no problem to say "we are both Jews" and "I am a good Christian." You and I have also multiple identities ...
This guy is a Christian who wants to defend crazy people, because he shares the same views as them.
Great job David! This guy is trying to incite something that isn't there. It's pretty pathetic him.
'Define homophobia' really?!
Wow he's got a few different issues there. I love how you try to (painfully) drag the point out if him.
"We're both communicators", says Brown.
Maybe, but David is the only effective communicator in this duo. This Brown guy is really poor at articulating and expressing his ideas.
This does appear to be about his feelings being hurt and somehow expecting you to separate him from others with homophobic and/or extremist views... Like you should have to list people to exclude, I am fairly certain everyone understands or at least has an opinion as to what extremism is to them.
... 1:23
Ouch lol.
So he wants David to be specific what certain extremist do and don`t do in their extremism?.
Next time he can end a segment by saying, and remember audience.. not all rapists kill their victims.
Strange interview.
SO what exactly was this interview about?? it is not the lack of english comprehension because i always understand what david is saying and others as well, but i am at a loss what this blokes problem is.
The guys intro is awesome