Christians often forgive, muslims usually dont. How do you solve that equation?

By educating yourself about religion

:joker: ... Yes, certainly no judgemental, pig-headed Christians out there.

The meat and potatoes of this issue is that people confuse Freedom of Speech with not having to face consequences for what they say which is wrong because ALL opinions come with consequences regardless of Free Speech.

Freedom of speech is about being able to criticise dubious beliefs/practice carried out in the name of religion and such criticism not being stifled to appease any particular group. No subject matter should be beyond criticism as some on here seem to suggest.

What should be the consequences for criticising female subjugation within the Muslim religion in Britain in your opinion, particularly bearing in mind we are supposed to believe in sexual equality in this country. Seriously this is an important issue and should be addressed, not ignored.

Why cant your criticism be critiqued though?

It can, but to just resort to namecalling is not critique, it's an attempt to shut down further discussion on the subject. That then gets peoples' backs up and, well the rest is history.

Personally I think this problem would be resolved if you just had better opinions in the first place

So I guess calling - for example - a racist post 'racist' is okay, but calling the poster 'racist' is not okay? Like freedom of speech aside, is this your argument?

Sounds rather one-sided with no real interest in discussion. Just tell people what is and is not the right opinion to have. :shrug:

Well doesn't that depend on what was said for someone to make an allegation of racism - not every such allegation opwill necessarily be 'racist' and may just be that person's interpretation.

Just because someone cries racist doesn't make it true. If you disagree with a post you say why not just shout racist because you don't agree, for example to simply dismiss peoples' concerns on the effects of mass immigration as racist is unreasonable and incorrect.

This is all hypothetical, to try and understand what your opinions on freedom of speech really are cos youve contradicted yourself a few times..

Is writing an obviously sexist post okay cos freedom of speech?
Is calling the post sexist okay cos freedom of speech?
Is calling the poster sexist okay cos freedom of speech?

Can you just reiterate what your argument is by answering these Qs.

I have not contradicted myself. I have stated how hypocritical it is of a poster from the for immigration camp to accuse those from the against immigration camp of taking offence at criticism of their views when the person posting has previously taken offence at any criticism of their views by resorting to name-calling. What is that if not hypocritical?

If someone writes a blatant sexist/racist post it is open to both interpretation and criticism. But people should remember how they have reacted in the past before being quick to accuse others. That is my point.


.

i dont even believe you know what youre talking about anymore either

I don't believe you understand what you read, so best we leave it there.

The problem is that you only believe in free speech when it suits you (and your idea of freedom of speech doesn't extend to people you disagree with) and this thread is proof of that.

This post of yours is just a desperate attempt to move the goalposts to try to gain some ground and it's (once again) hypocritical since you're all for criticising things you dislike but you cry foul the second someone criticises your views. This whole bigot stuff is proof of that. You've gone from acting like a victim, trying to silence anyone who disagrees with you to acting like you are the defender of free speech when it comes to criticising Islam.

So which is it? Freedom of Speech for all or none at all? You're trying to have your cake and eat it and you'll keep tripping up until you make your choice.

Rubbish. Me trying to silence people - pot/kettle I think. It doesn't matter what I say the two of you will twist what I say to suit your agenda. It is for others to form their own opinions. - too tired to care right now.

When have I ever tried to silence you? I'd ask for receipts but I'm guessing you'd just respond with something non factual like 'there's plenty of people to back me up!' in lieu of actual proof. Any unfounded attacks on me will be disregarded for the lies they are unless you can actually back it up.

I've always questioned you on things, when you've accused me of things I've always given you the chance to back your claims up. When we're discussing things I question you so you can expand your thoughts. I don't silence anyone, I give you opportunities to back up your thoughts and to explain them further but you waste them because you believe your own opinion is untouchable.

I don't believe that about my own opinion as can be seen in plenty of threads in this section. If someone questions me on my opinion, I answer them and explain my position. I encourage discussion, you encourage insults and discourage actual debates.

You seem to be accusing me of things that you alone are guilty of. Projection?

To add to the freedom of speech debate.I read about this recently in Canada.
This university is trying to force everyone on campus to use these made up 'gender pronouns'.They're not even real words.Instead of 'he' or 'she' they want the students and staff to start calling people 'ze' and 'zir' among a whole list of other made up words.One proffessor is standing up against this and he says that forcing people to use these made up words to address people goes against freedom of speech.
'A raging debate over political correctness, gender identity rights and free speech led to a tense forum at the University of Toronto Saturday.
Professor Jordan Peterson, who has said he will not use ‘made up’ gender neutral pronouns like ze and hir instead of he and her, argued that rubbish science is being used to falsely claim that virtually all differences between males and females is essentially an invention of society.
His position has earned him two reprimand letters from his employer, the University of Toronto, and led to Saturday’s debate where he went up against two professors who vehemently disagreed with him.
Professor Mary Bryson, from the Department of Language and Literacy Education at the University of British Columbia, said scientists have no way of accurately looking at gender in the absence of sexism and misogyny.
“We can’t actually reach conclusions about what we take to be gender differences,” Bryson said. “A lot of what we’ve been hearing here is hate propaganda.”
Peterson said that kind of ‘social justice warrior’ thinking is behind the Ontario Human Rights Code and the new federal law Bill C-16, that protects gender identity and expression.
The laws make it very dangerous to speak one’s mind on gender issues, and has stifled free speech on university campuses, he said.
One lawyer he consulted told him that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal is a “kangaroo court” that should be abolished, Peterson said.'

http://m.torontosun.com/2016/11/19/i...sion-at-u-of-t

Here is a perfect example of freedom of speech and debate being shot down by narrow minded individuals using a derogatory umbrella term to denigrate the views of a sub section of society.
Another is 'political correctness gone mad', I have yet to have this term explained to me in any rational understandable fashion, for me it appears to be a blanket term for those who believe the policies which are in place to provide protections against any abuses of either persons, society or the wider environment do not fit in with the political ideology being advocated at the time.

Laws are there to protect the views of everyone not just the majority or those susceptible to groupthink.

However, this reminds me of the opinion of Germaine Greer as she accepted Caitlyn Jenner as a woman but not female, that wasn't against any law and was simply her opinion and yet the backlash was intense, I happened to agree with her on that issue.
The important thing is to separate the things which truly aresimply a differing of opinion and those which go against specific laws and/or human rights.

Freedom of speech does include the right to offend and the right to be offended by someone’s opinion on a topic. Unfortunately, that offence often resorts to personal name calling and of course, name calling isn’t protected as a ‘right’ under ‘freedom of speech’.

I use quite a few forum groups where politeness is seen as a weakness and rudeness is seen as a strength. Good manners aren’t mandatory, even on this site and this site has to be the strictest site I use when it comes to using correct protocol of the written word. Then again, this site is the most Right wing site I use (at least in serious debate) and a place where the use of language within a discussion seems to so often lack the ability to feel for others. I often leave here wondering what happened to compassion and I’m regularly astounded by the lack of diplomacy in this faux social setting.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with picking someone out and questioning them, disagreeing with them and even patronizing them. Hate is is an interesting one…. We can hate an opinion and we can hate a person who constantly has differing opinions to our own. Hating an opinion is what leads to or at least should lead to a good discussion; hating the person who carries that opinion leads to a cluster **** of nonsense that is neither eloquent or intellectual.

I worked out some years ago that its extremely difficult to have civilized political communication online with a bunch of strangers.

You have tried to silence people by dismissing their opinions as racist in previous threads, that is fact. Automatically accusing people of that because their views are not agreeable to you is a way of attempting to shut people down.

Disapproving of certain religious practice and not wanting such practice to be tolerated in this country when it is completely contrary to the beliefs of the vast majority of the modern world is not racist - it has nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with opposing tolerance of religious oppression and abuse for the sake of political correctness.

Telling people to produce 'evidence' that you have said this in the past is simply diversion tactics as who is going to waste their time going through endless old threads. If you forget you have said this, which personally I find hard to believe, that is your responsibility not that of others who point it out.

I don't believe my opinions are untouchable - I simply defend them like everyone else. Using adjectives such as racist or bigot is hardly productive and does not encourage discussion, it only serves to undermine opinions and set the tone of the post/thread. As for accusing me of projection, like everything else that is simply an allegation based on your own opinion, not fact.

Well there we have it, who has the right to offend?... Which is kind of what the thread is about however you haven't been accused of being a racist or bigot in this thread have you?

If you criticise the right leaning views of certain UK tabloids then you are accused of being 'red' a ' marxist' or maybe the worst slur a 'corbynista'...and if you agree with them you run the risk of being accused of being a bigot or a fascist due to their bigoted fascistic content.

Should you subscribe to one very narrow narrative then you can't be surprised when you are judged on that, as you have in essence nailed your colours to the mast.

I read this in full now, group bullying :laugh: nobody can win an argument against you :laugh: are you some kind of argument super hero :suspect: trying to silence you...erm deleting posts when thing don't go your way is you is one way to win an argument I guess! How on earth can you be silenced, I doubt you have ever had an infraction never mind be silenced :shrug: And finally I ask again who are you and yours?????

Accusations without proof are lies until proven otherwise.

Asking for receipts when you accuse me of things that didn't happen isn't diversionary tactics. Wild accusations are the true diversions here because you've tied yourself in knots with several hypocritical posts and you can't get out of it without admitting you are wrong.

Don't make accusations that you can't back up, it's a fairly simple concept to grasp.

Your posts in this thread speak for themselves, you've contradicted yourself repeatedly and these contradictions have been pointed out to you and you've ignored them. You are projecting everything you are guilty of onto me and that's plain as day for everyone to see.

This is pointless so if you have anything to actually add to the topic then do so. Personal attacks and made up incidents achieve nothing.