freediver wrote on Aug 18^th, 2015 at 9:42pm:


thats how I interpreted your reply to my claim on Iraq.

But happy to stand corrected - we can easily sort this out: do you accept the possibility that initially the US had no intention of setting up any sort of genuine democracy in Iraq?

Gandalf do you claim to be a standard bearer for modern liberal values?

Quote:


Which one? Can you quote it?

Quote:


This is using fake wishy washy western liberal morals to cynically attack Islam? Did I invent freedom to mock Islam?

Islam has been far more effective in undermining our freedom. It's not like we have an election to decide whether we should be afraid to make a Muhammed video. Much of the world still lives under the oppressive yoke of Islam. Even the 'good' examples of Muslim countries you put forward have some very worrying trends.

freediver wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 8:08am:


You only responded to that claim once in this thread. See if you can find it. Again, if its not a cynical dismissal of the argument, then I'm happy to stand corrected.

freediver wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 8:08am:


I'm not talking about the oppression in Islamic countries. That is a common deflection. The issue I'm interested here is what is undermining freedoms here in the west. You think its people feeling intimidated to mock Muhammad, whereas I think its our "unity ticket" parliament rubber stamping dangerous laws to undermine some pretty basic rights.

A big part of the problem, which Karnal has touched on before in detail, is the modern distortion of our idea of freedom. Nowadays "freedom" seems to be all about who can be the most offensive and to witch-hunt those who inevitably complain about being offended. You will never see a 'draw Muhammad' competition that includes entrants that are not offensive caricatures of muslims. Thats because stunts like these insist on making the two terms "freedom" and "be offensive" as completely synonymous. I take what you no doubt see as a quaint view that true freedom of speech should be something that is responsible and constructive to public discussion. You will no doubt counter that offending muslims and teaching muslims to accept offense is just what is needed for healthy public discourse. But this is absurd if you think about it: humans are emotional creatures, and you are never going to be constructive if you deliberately set out to create an emotional response. But what can you do? Obviously the solution is not censorship or taking away people's rights to be offensive - the only point I can make here is that we have distorted the idea of what it means to have freedom of expression. So by all means offend away and stand up for your right to be offensive - and I will be the first to condemn any violent reactions to it. But don't pretend that such a discourse will do any good in terms of bringing about social harmony and healthy debate.

Perhaps all this wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't such a one-way discourse. Freeeedom lovers like you I mean - saying that the right to insult per se is the be-all and end-all of freedom, and that people who object to that must be ruthlessly attacked. Some understanding of the hurt people are feeling and why its so destructive wouldn't go astray, and it can be perfectly consistent with standing up for true freedom: I condemn those people who react violently to those Muhammad cartoons - but I also condemn those who deliberately set out to offend and look for a reaction. Believe it or not, you actually can condemn someone while at the same time accept their right to be offensive. You seem to take the view that condemning someone for a certain expression is a bit too close to comfort to calling for banning such expressions. It is not. And you also seem to take the view that a few violent incidents automatically makes any peaceful reaction by muslims as cynical and illegitimate. Thus you will go to all sorts of ridiculous contortions to dismiss a muslim protest against a brazen attack on freedom and democracy - as somehow a front for anti-freedom. As well as mock muslims who protest against actual proposed censorship. These are the incidents that you should be praising if you were consistent with your professed values. Instead you will always find a way to turn muslim activity into sinister activity.

No doubt you will have a lot to say in reply, but I do ask that you depart from your usual style of slicing up my post sentence by sentence and responding to each with 30 meaningless one line quips. Try and make a meaningful response that I can make sense of.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 11:17am:


Dear Jesus give us strength.

'Muslim initiatives' - my arse!

Do you know what these really are?

The 'Muslim community' saw an opportunity to milk the dopey British government for millions under the guise of 'helping fight radicalism from within'.

When millions in government grants became available under the Homeland Security programs to counter the radicalisation of Britain's own born-and-bred Muslim youth - a thousand little Muslim agencies and committees popped up overnight like mushrooms in a damp forest to tap into this sudden bonanza being offered.

It has now become a profittable industry which capitalises on the naive idiots who run Britain's internal security programs.

Just look at how piss-weak the British government has been in dealing with the Muslim hordes the other side of the Channel. Utterly pathetic. British politicians are a push-over for opportunist Muslims who want to tap into British funding for the de-radicalisation rackets.

It has its parallel with our Aboriginal Victimhood Industry. Millions in grants every year ... with nothing ever to show for it ... and a few Abos growing rich on the side.


Where it's Muslims involved - always look for ulterior motives, deceitful practices, and hand-on-heart assurances that you can trust them.

Dear O dear O dear ... and Christ wept for His people ...

link

If only Google didn't make it so goddamned easy to winkle out these vermin that are working so hard to trash Western society from within their ubiquitous 'Muslim Communities and their Leaders'.

link

Gandalf do you claim to be a standard bearer for modern liberal values?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 11:01am:


Of course. When talking about the greatest threats to freedom and democracy, it is important to bound the discussion so as to exclude the greatest threats to freedom and democracy. Anything else is deflection.

Quote:


Perhaps you should be more specific Gandalf. I recall trying to convince you that holocaust denial laws are a bad idea. Is this an example of me ignoring the threat from our government?

Quote:


Please enlighten us as to the Islamic definition of freedom Gandalf.

Quote:


This may have something to do with the fact that Muhammed was a Muslim. In any case, you are free to have a competition to draw Muhammed in a positive light. It is not anyone else's fault you refuse to.

Quote:


So you are not anti-freedom, you just want to tell people what it really means?

Quote:


Expecting Muslims to tolerate freedom of speech is absurd? How should we handle this intractible conflict between Islam and freedom Gandalf? Why are Muslims so different from any other group that it is absurd to expect them to be tolerant?

Quote:


So it is not the emotional response that the government needs to control, but the intention of the person eliciting the emotional response?

Quote:


Here's a tip - figure out what freedom of speech really means. Get fellow Muslims to appreciate it.

Quote:


Because we mock Islam?

Quote:


How 'useful' do you think it would be to respond to threats from head hacking Muslims by self censoring?

Quote:


Which direction is it Gandalf?

Quote:


It is the be-all and end-all of freedom of speech. The right to say something you might not like.

Quote:


They must be stopped.

Quote:


That's why I let Muslims post here Gandalf. I'm open-minded like that.

Quote:


This is good Gandalf. You are making an important distinction. If Muslims could limit themselves to expressing their rage in a non-violent, non-legalistic manner, we would all be on the path to freedom. Though you leave me wondering why you keep mocking the interpretation of freedom as "no-one has the right not to be offended" and suggesting there is some viable alternative.

Quote:


Useless is perhaps a better term. Anything short of a clear and unqualified expression of support for freedom of speech puts them in the same camp as the head hackers, in the same way that groups like the IRA had a political arm.

Quote:


Are you talking about the Egypt thing?