polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 21
st, 2016 at 9:22pm:
Poor FD, forced yet again into another 'Islam and freedom' discussion...
freediver wrote on Jul 21
st, 2016 at 7:16pm:
I think it is not to late to try to get Muslims to appreciate freedom and democracy.
I doubt very much you think that FD - based on your posting history. How can someone who holds Muhammad as the best example for mankind "appreciate" freedom and democracy? Thats your own argument FD, so I don't think you are being honest here. At best you would appealing to what you see as 'non-devout' muslims.
But on the same token, do you think its too late to convince people like sprint and herb that banning Islam is not the right way to go - using rational arguments? Frankly I do. Sprint has now literally restricted his responses to my reasoned arguments with "you're a cultist" type quips. If the patterns that go on here are any sort of guide, it seems Waleed is right - the more you appeal to reason, the more people dig their heels in.
freediver wrote on Jul 21
st, 2016 at 7:16pm:
What should we accomodate Gandalf? Does this mean no more Muhammed cartoons?
Actually with that argument I would have to "accommodate" banning muslim immigration.
But as I already said - the solution is not bowing to the other's argument, its more about agreeing to disagree. I think empathy has a big role to play - we are able to harden our attitudes on these debating points because we don't put ourselves in the other shoes: people who dismiss Sonia as a bigot need to appreciate the legitimate fear she has as a non-muslim for her and her children, just as Sonia needs to appreciate the legitimate fear that a
muslim would have, as a member of a vulnerable minority, when their own country officially says "muslims are not welcome to come here". Who knows, maybe exercising empathy is a starting point - a way of segueing into the rational debate. Whats clear though is that at the moment rational debate isn't working.
For Muslims the choice is stark: freedom and democracy OR Mohammed and sharia. There is no possibility of having both because they are incompatible. A liberal democratic sharia-compliant society is an oxymoron.
If you are for sharia then you are an enemy of liberal democracy.
And don't be so outrageously two-faced: the 'vulnerable minority' is responsible for the overwhelming wounding of their host societies around the world. You are the aggressors, not the 'vulnerable' minority. Muslims in the West have far, FAR more rights and privileges than they have in
any of the Muslim countries where they are not the 'vulenrable minority'. Yet they attack in the name of Islam. And you give them shelter as a 'vulnerable minority'.
What a disgrace you are, an outrageously dishonest and despicable, opportunistic distorter and propagandist. You must not be allowed to get away with such utter, stinking crap.
We never hear from you and the Waleed Alys of this world about the truly 'vulnerable minorities' persecuted - jailed, killed, mutilated, raped, humiliated - by Muslims the world over. But should someone point that out you you, you immediately writhe, whine and claim victim status.
What a disgrace.