Quote:


What is the politically correct term for Muslims getting people to stop drawing funny pictures of Muhammed (out of respect, rather than fear)?

Quote:


If this is your response to the massacre, along with mocking the solidarity movement, yes. It's the standard good Muslim / bad Muslim routine. You both want the same thing. You ask non-Muslims to do this out of respect, they ask us to do it out of fear. While the terrorism continues, it is inescapable that anything you do to further the agenda of the terrorists will, surprise surprise, further their agenda.

Do you think that getting people to "freely" refrain from mocking Muhammed will assist the terrorists in getting them to refrain out of fear?

What are these grievances that are more important than the threat to freedom of speech posed by self censorship in response to these attacks? If it is so important to address them instead, why can you not say what they are?

What are these expressions that "are wrong and should be avoided." Are they so wrong that you cannot even talk about them to explain what people should not say? Is this more important that standing in solidarity with victims of Islamic terrorism?

What, other than tolerating freedom of speech and pretending to support it, are these western liberal morals that you are the standard bearer for? Is not drawing pictures of Muhammed a western liberal moral?

Do you see any value in the solidarity movement that arose from the Charlie Hebdo massacre in defending freedom of expression?

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2015 at 8:26am:


Its as you always love to say a false dichotomy. Its not one or the other. I'm not proposing that anything is more important than freedom of speech - I'm saying you can criticise people's speech and even say they shouldn't have said it - and not be an underminer of free speech.

And what are those things? In this case I was talking about offense for offense's sake (as explained before). Its really nothing more than if I was debating someone about Islam and they said to me "your opinion doesn't count - you're a filthy muslim" - and I said in response "that was a stupid thing to say, and you shouldn't have said it". Presumably in your book, if that same person had previously been physically attacked for saying something similar, my response would be undermining freedom.

A global campaign by Muslims to undermine the Freeeeedoms of decent white people everywhere. Sinister, no?

Let’s all take a deep breath and blame Islam.

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2015 at 2:57pm:




No words.

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2015 at 9:18pm:


Once more with feeling FD: it is not one or the other - and by the way its not "getting people" to do anything, its saying what I believe is wrong, and (unlike you) not being terrified in saying so because the terrorists might happen to agree with me. Just like the example I used - there is nothing "anti-freedom" in telling someone that their abuse is stupid and uncalled for. And if you think that somehow amounts to calling for "self censorship" then you are completely clueless.

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2015 at 9:18pm:


This is unbelievably stupid FD. All the more frustrating given how specifically I explained this for you in the most simple language before. These grievances have nothing to do with the terrorists, they are just opportunists trying to exploit a sensitive atmosphere. Obviously its not them I'm talking about - but a marginalised muslim community feeling deep alienation and a deep sense of "us" vs "them" - due to a whole host of societal issues. The cartoons are just the tip of the iceberg. All explained before of course.

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2015 at 9:18pm:


This is why your freedom fails. I don't tell someone their abuse is wrong while carefully weighing up what the terrorists will make of it. I tell them its wrong because its wrong, and the terrorists don't even come into the equation. Its really as simple as that. Reference also to your brain-dead responses in your previous post about my freedom to say what I believe is wrong is wrong - is tied up to a grand global muslim conspiracy to shut down free speech. Your freeeeedom is not about promoting free speech for freedom's sake (otherwise you wouldn't be calling for self-censorship) - its about  religiously sticking to a meme to wedge muslims. To "take a side" - as you so eloquently put it before. Thats why (post 2007) you are so careful to avoid  standing up for freedom when Sprint and others call for muslims rights to be stripped here on a daily basis.

Quote:


I am not asking you to choose one and not the other. I am asking which is more important.

Quote:


What isn't? Being a standard bearer? What kind of standard bearer are you? Why bother making an argument that people should self censor if your intention is not the get people to self censor?

Quote:


Please see my previous response to this.

Quote:


Why is fear of terrorism the only thing that counts towards self censorship in your opinion?

Quote:


So why did you bring it up? Were the terrorists not motivated by these genuine grievances? Would addressing these grievances not help avoid terrorism? Is that not why you introduced the argument?

Quote:


So they do not share the genuine grievances of other Muslims? The Muslims who kill people for mocking Muhammed are in fact the only Muslims who are not offended by mockery of Muhammed?

Quote:


Have you not previously argued that this marginalisation is a cause of terrorism? Is it now nothing to do with terrorism?

Quote:


What is the rest of the iceberg?

Quote:


I wasn't asking you to. However, you are assisting their cause whether you like it or not, and whether they make anything of it or not. Hence my question about whether you realise you are assisting their cause - not what you think they make of it.

Quote:


It is tied to it, whether you like it or not. You are motivated by the same thing - Islam. You have the same agenda - getting people to stop mocking Muhammed. Willful ignorance of the consequences of your actions does not invalidate those consequences. As a standard bearer for freedom of speech you should recognise this.

Quote:


Is it unfair for me to suggest you might want to refrain from helping Muslim terrorists, the OIC, etc, destroy freedom of speech, merely on account of your claim to be the standard bearer for "true" freedom of speech?

Quote:


You have previously defended me when other Muslims and various apologists made the same accusation.

Quote:


Aren't you already the standard bearer?

Quote:


Most of the solidarity movement refrained from reproducing the cartoons. But they are still a long way from your response.

Do you think this solidarity movement is more important than encouraging people to do what the terrorists want them to do?

How do you suggest we address the "genuine grievance" Muslim terrorists have with regard to Muhammed cartoons?

What other expressions do you think are "wrong and should be avoided"?

What, other than tolerating freedom of speech and pretending to support it, are these "western liberal morals" that you are the standard bearer for? Is not drawing pictures of Muhammed a western liberal moral?

freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2015 at 12:43pm:


Ah yes, the global muslim conspiracy. I cannot object to offensive/abusive language without undermining free speech - because the very idea is apparently inseparable to a global campaign by terrorists - who also object to offense and abuse. Therefore I must self-censor if I value the importance of free speech. Make sense? Well it does if you continually dodge the fact that you're calling for self-censorship in an apparent bid to avoid self-censorship, like you do.