freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 12:58pm:


Of course criticism of others should be true. Who would argue anything else?

You have argued against Muslim immigration - you're arguing to discriminate on entry to Australia on the basis of religion. If this doesn't violate someone's freedom of religion, I don't know what does.

To me, freedom requires integrity. If you're shown to be wrong, admit it and change your mind. If your argument is proven wrong, change your thesis. If the facts you use to back up your argument are found to be false, don't deny this and excuse it and forrage around desperately for new facts, admit it.

Don't twist others' words, don't make up things they've said, don't use their lack of reply as proof of your argument. When you do this, you lose integrity, your credibility, and any freedom you have. As Jesus said, the truth shall set you free.

This is the process of reason, of the scientific method. It's how we come to consensus on truth. "Truth" is relative to the processes we use. If the process is faulty, any conclusion will be highly questionable. Likewise, if your intent or purpose is pre-determined, your conclusions wil be flawed.

You've already stated here that you have an anti-Muslim agenda. I'm stating here that I have no pro-Muslim agenda. If I'm an apologist, I'm an "apologist" for people I know who happen to be Muslims. I don't aim to defend Islam, and I'm against many Islamic practices - particularly Halal slaughter techniques.

I also know that many Muslim practices are not prescribed Islamic practices, despite Muslims almost universally adopting them as their culture. Head coverings are one example of this, circumcision is another. All the Muslim rape and crime articles here are just silly, particularly when the teachings of Islam forbid this. "Joining the dots" and making connections to Islam or Mohammed's teachings is impossible when you admit that you have an anti-Islam agenda.

If I admitted that I have a pro-Muslim agenda, you'd be equally free to take what I say with a grain of salt.

I don't hold that people should be free to "criticize" whatever they don't like. I do, however, believe that people should be free to criticize things, where necessary, that they have a sound awareness of - that they have actual experience with. Criticism isn't an end in itself, its goal should be improvement. Critics often fall into the trap of looking for faults. In itself, this does not make for good critique.

Civilisation requires restraint and humility. Civilisation is not an all-out war against a never-ending and ever-changing enemy. Such an understanding of civilisation (which is implicit in schools of thought like the neo-conservatism of Leo Strauss) owes much more to barbarism than an evolved and civilised social/political outlook.

While I admit that these competing views of civilisation are an important tension in Western thought, I believe such attitudes are implicitly anti-Western. As Western subjects, we define ourselves through our tolerance and fairness. Again, and I'll continue to remind you of this, without such a way or view of life, you're no different to those you "criticize". Without an emphasis on truth and honesty, you fall prey to superstition, gossip, and what Francis Bacon called the "idols of the marketplace" - those who were the subject of false rumours and mercilessly hunted down or excluded.

You can't argue for Freedom by ignoring the very basis of freedom, which requires certain restraints.

You will, I think, agree with this.

You have argued against Muslim immigration

I don't hold that people should be free to "criticize" whatever they don't like.

Of course you both do. Some grant themselves the liberty to criticize things they know nothing about on a daily basis.

And they know so little about their object of criticism that they feel compelled to make things up.

This isn’t freedom, it’s slavery.

Civilisation has its discontents. To live with others, a certain amount of forbearance is required. Tolerating people with placards is one concession. Putting up with the Bolts and the Divines and the Ackermans is another. This is how we are able to live in civil society with people who, for all intents and purposes, appear as enemies.

Jesus, of course, based his entire teaching on this: love your neighbour as yourself,  treat your enemy as a friend, turn the other cheek.

Y knows what I mean.

I don't hold that people should be free to "criticize" whatever they don't like.

Quote: