Originally posted by kea
View Post
Paris, anyone?
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Richard Barrett
-
while i agree with you kea on the masculine authoritarian response i do not as agree at all with your depiction of Radical Islam as family friendly .... as a father of a daughter i have no compunction in seeking to deny radical islam any sway on any human society let alone here ... the subjugation of women by an essentially hill tribe patriarchy in ignorant serfdom and sexual slavery [not to mention honour killing and acid attacks for the exercise of independent choice] is an anathema
an excellent and dispassionate account of Radical Islam on Panorama last night gives rise to further concerns at the spread and hold of such a toxic ideology [unbelievers may and should be killed] it is i fear a lot more threatening than i for one wanted to know .... the programme made abundantly clear that there are many British Muslims who are advocates of Civil Society and not the sharia nightmare that some mullahs promulgate and one hopes that there views will prevail but i am pessimistic
Radical Islam promotes itself as the enemy of what Gellner termed Civil Society ... we have no choice but to confront the spread of its toxic notions; promoting the education, independence and free choice of women across the globe is one route to do this .....According to the best estimates of astronomers there are at least one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by P. G. Tipps View PostOn the contrary, S_A has since confirmed the only meaning anyone could possibly interpret from his post. He insists that 'we bring it on ourselves' if we are insulted because of our beliefs. Indeed he thinks that all this is 'quite obvious'. I suppose, adopting similar logic, a lone woman walking home in the dark at night which might provoke a sex assault would be 'quite obvious' as well?
You really must be twisted. Insulting me by misrepresenting my views is one thing, and has nothing whatever to do with a woman's right to go about in safety dressed as she wishes.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostI haven't at all - that is deliberate misrepresentation.
You really must be twisted. Insulting me by misrepresenting my views is one thing, and has nothing whatever to do with a woman's right to go about in safety dressed as she wishes.
I haven't insulted you or misrepresented what you said at all. You appeared to suggest that a person's religious belief could be simply dropped if he/she wished to avoid insult.
If you didn't mean what you posted here's your chance to explain what you really did mean?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by P. G. Tipps View PostYou haven't answered the point made in #205.
I haven't insulted you or misrepresented what you said at all. You appeared to suggest that a person's religious belief could be simply dropped if he/she wished to avoid insult.
If you didn't mean what you posted here's your chance to explain what you really did mean?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostFreely assumed, a religious or other belief is best defended by not proclaiming offense when offense is subjectively defined by the view in question. The view should be capable of its own defense. Is that clear enough?
If not, I think we may well be edging (however unwittingly) towards some form of rare agreement here ...
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by P. G. Tipps View PostSo therefore you were quite wrong to yourself complain about being 'insulted' when the alleged 'insult' was 'subjectively defined by the view in question'? Or does your rule only apply to those with a religious belief?
If not, I think we may well be edging (however unwittingly) towards some form of rare agreement here ...
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostFreely assumed, a religious or other belief is best defended by not proclaiming offense when offense is subjectively defined by the view in question. The view should be capable of its own defense. Is that clear enough?
But please don't ask me to get into the complexities of Sharia Law. If a person can't love his neighbour, then religion can't be used to justify his actions, as far as I am concerned.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Oddball View PostThe meaning of your posts is rarely obvious, S_A, but you seem to have a very Christian attitude..............I'm finding this whole business is an excellent opportunity to review one's own beliefs, attitudes and inclinations.
But please don't ask me to get into the complexities of Sharia Law. If a person can't love his neighbour, then religion can't be used to justify his actions, as far as I am concerned.
As far as your comments on Sharia law are concerned, from the above point of view forced love would be a contradiction in terms.
Comment
-
Comment