Paris, anyone?

[Richard Barrett]

A strong, masculine approach is what's needed to defend the European way of life against Islam

You mean like invasions, occupations, drone attacks, that kind of thing?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

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 .....

[Serial_Apologist]

On 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?

I 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.

[P. G. Tipps]

I 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.

You 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?

[Flosshilde]

You mean like invasions, occupations, drone attacks, that kind of thing?

Richard, I think Kea was being ironic (or suggesting what the conservative rhetoric is about) - that wasn't what he/she really thinks.

[Serial_Apologist]

You 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?

Freely 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?

[vinteuil]

i am pessimistic
....

... I see Calum now has as a strapline أنا رئيف - [ 'ana ra'eef ] - je suis RVW?

It wd be nice to know its significance...

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

I am Raif [google translated]

[vinteuil]

I am Raif [google translated]

... thanks for the clarification; my apologies for levity.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

laughter never needs an apology eh?

[P. G. Tipps]

Freely 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?

So 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 ...

[Serial_Apologist]

So 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 ...

I would have been wrong had I complained - insult me as much as you like. Sticks and stones, like...

[Quarky]

Freely 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?

The 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.

[Serial_Apologist]

The 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.

Thanks - I think... Anyway, my views are founded on guided spontaneity, which is somewhat at odds with Christianity, whose mistrust of nature and especially human nature is so useful to those in whose interests it is to portray humankind as innately greedy, selfish and so on.

As far as your comments on Sharia law are concerned, from the above point of view forced love would be a contradiction in terms.

[Richard Barrett]

Richard, I think Kea was being ironic (or suggesting what the conservative rhetoric is about) - that wasn't what he/she really thinks.

Yes I know that and so was I, should have made more use of smileys I guess...