polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 26^th, 2014 at 1:10pm:


Some values are universal:  freedom of conscience, religion, speech. Islam is against these and some other universal values. That is why the relativists argument Brain is peddling is spineless.

So when defending the Muslim enemies of the West, he is a universalist. When dealing with the Western critics of Islam,  he is a cultural relativist.

Hence the spineless label.

Soren wrote on Jul 27^th, 2014 at 5:32pm:


I call BS.

Brian has only ever defended muslims in response to attacks from people he interacts with directly - ie you people. I have seen no evidence that Brian wouldn't take the same "spineless" attitude to fascistic behaviour towards muslims in foreign countries, as he does to fascistic behaviour of muslims in foreign countries. If I'm wrong, please feel free to find some quotes that suggests otherwise.

freediver wrote on Jul 27^th, 2014 at 5:57pm:


No FD. If you can find evidence of a) Brian condemning the actions of some foreign non-muslim country towards muslims or b) indicating that its ok for members here to vilify a non-muslim religious group in the same way as (say) Sprint and yadda vilify muslims - then I'll happilly call him a hypocrite. Otherwise, his positions seem to me entirely true to a morally consistent philosophy.

freediver wrote on Jul 27^th, 2014 at 5:57pm:


As I said in the previous incarnation of this discussion, I actually think that such a stance is the opposite to spineless. It is not somehow automatically upstanding or "brave" to say you condemn the fascistic behaviour of other nations - and especially not so if it entails (as it so often does) the wholesale vilifying of every member of an entire religion (ie Sprint and Yadda). Anyone can do it, and indeed its desirable to do so in most public circles. At the very least such behaviour is towing the line, and being "safe", and at worst it is engaging in easy vilification  - itself the very definition of spinelessness.

As for the most spineless - by your criteria, I'm sure you'll concur that this gem is a prime contender:

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2007 at 12:48pm:

ok, dumbing it down for Soren...

Brian is applying a universal moral code for both situations: he feels obliged to stand up for what happens in his own backyard, but feels no obligation to do the same for things that happen in foreign countries that he has no association with.

FD has previously acknowledged this and called it "live and let live".

It is a common and entirely consistent moral code.

If you have evidence of Brian being inconsistent with this well known moral code, please share it.

freediver wrote on Jul 27^th, 2014 at 8:56pm:


Sure, why not?

Soren wrote on Jul 28^th, 2014 at 1:41pm:


He really does have you chasing your own tail!  Your question reveals so much about your thinking.  Why does it matter what Brian is?  Why do you find it so hard to answer his questions and instead have to attack messenger?   

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2014 at 12:44pm:


This thread will do Brian. You know how Gandalf feels about me starting new ones.

What did you mean by "the message of science"? Did science whisper something in your ear?

freediver wrote on Aug 13^th, 2014 at 9:56am:


I call strawman.  I can't find any reference to "Crusades" in any post by Brian when I've done a search.  So perhaps he'd like to provide a link to prove Brian has used the Crusades as an "excuse". 

So, FD you going to be consistent and hold DL to the same standards you're claiming to hold Gandalf to?   

Afterall you're the one who believes people should be consistent, right?   

freediver wrote on Aug 13^th, 2014 at 10:17am:


As against the inconsistency of criticism (ie it is perfectly OK for Adamant and DL to make up lies but it's a heinous crime when someone actually looks at Islam with an open mind).  Glad I now understand the rules of the game you play FD!