Freedom is the absence of tyranny......

*Throws the monkey a banana*

Karnal wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 10:44pm:

The topic is YOUR evasiveness (as evidenced by all your posts), Paki B Vgger.

freediver wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 9:05am:


I think you are starting to get it but you are to busy being in smart-arse mode. It is, as I have pointed out before, really rather simple:

- "merely" avoiding having your head hacked off - is indeed self censorship, *IF* you otherwise believe expressing your view is a right and worthwhile thing to do - whether its because they have a genuine desire to stimulate a constructive debate through controversy, or whether they're just a dick who have no qualms with being a dick. A bit like if Soren suddenly refrained from posting personal abuse if he was convinced that doing so would earn himself a permanent ban - since we all know he sees nothing inherently wrong with hurling abuse.

- It is not self-censorship if you are struck by a sudden bout of empathy and you realise (by your own volition) that, hey, you know what? I wouldn't like being insulted like that, so I shouldn't do it to others - therefore I won't make this insulting expression. Or, in the case of the newspaper, realising that its not a responsible thing for a public news medium to stoke the flames of tension unnecessarily. Of course, if the newspaper refrained from publishing something they believed was worthy of being published *ONLY* because of fear of violence, and not because they believed it was the right thing to do, then that would be self-censorship

Quote:


well put it this way - do you believe that saying, in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attack, that the cartoons were irresponsible and shouldn't have been published, is against freedom?

Thats what you said. You pretended it was tantamount to self-censorship, but this is what you said. If you disagree and think that actually the above can be said while supporting free speech, then just say so, and we'll have no argument.


Quote:


I read the OP, and while I appreciate the gesture, it rather reaked of "you (muslim) are guilty by default - but I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself". The Sprint conversation would be interesting - here is a guy who wants to burn our mosques and deport all muslims and labels "totally justified" an assault on a business owner and his wife in Scotland for a crime that happened in Paris. I would also be fascinated to see how moses would go - someone who starts with the premise that muslims believe what they believe because they are mentally retarded due to inbreeding. My sense is that this exercise for the likes of sprint and moses would be for one purpose only: to collect as much ammunition that can be used against muslims. This is a consideration that is missing from your proposal - to think that getting sprint to launch into a discussion on theology with an unsuspecting random muslim could actually have a positive effect on sprint's attitudes towards muslims - given that he has only ever used his interactions with muslims to cement and justify his prejudices. Not to mention how uncomfortable and intimidating such a conversation would be on the average muslim. You'd do far better to simply encourage sprint to interact with muslims more - talk about everyday mundane matters to see how normal they are.

Soren wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 4:49pm:


No S, they are not mutually exclusive.

abuse is still abuse - regardless of whether its your right to say it or not.

Soren wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 7:07pm:


Yes I've heard it a million times. No need for the broken record routine.

My question to you though is, what do you call moses' argument that muslims (collectively) have inferior intellect because of inbreeding? A healthy critique of an ideology? Am I allowed to pull out the race card there?

Soren, I fully understand that you have a rock-solid case for insisting that *YOUR* criticism of Islam is not racist.

My question was about moses. I am not inbred, nor are any of the muslims I know. I also know from my education and qualifications that I do not have any sort of intellectual retardation that moses ascribes on muslims. Yet he would lump me and every muslim on the face of the earth into the same basket of genetic inferiors: a specific subset of humans who are mentally retarded due to inbreeding. For him, he literally can't see any other explanation for why people would be so stupid as to believe the tenets of Islam.

You come here day in day out mocking people for suggesting anti-Islam sentiment could ever have a racist element. As far as I'm concerned, this is a clear cut case of racism: prejudice on the basis of a perceived genetic inferiority - combined with outgroup homegeneity (all muslims are like this).

You can't possibly claim with a straight face that there is no anti-Islam sentiment that is racist.

Soren wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 4:49pm:


That's right, G. The old boy only ever redeems unflushable turds, Paki Bastards and dirty little inverts. He would never ever EVER call out intelligent, constructive debaters like Yadda, Moses, and the post-2007 FD. 

The old boy, of course, means it in the nicest possible way. It's all about redemption. 

No one has the right to not be offended, and all should be offended in the most pious, Lutheran way.

The old boy studied theology at the University of Balogney, you see.