Do we need people to push boundaries in this direction? We have Breitbart, Alex Jones, Watson and Trump.... look which way they are pushing them.. Milo is in this gang as well...
Doesn’t he admit that himself though? He is clearly an intelligent man, he hasn’t built his career on making extreme provocative statements in order to spark debate, which he does very very well. Whatever his past, and his beliefs, he is very intelligent, and I think we need people like him to push boundaries. I don’t agree with some of what he does, but I do agree with some of the other stuff.
You're a nasty piece of work attempting to divert away from your own warped viewpoint.
I actually condemn all attempts to spread hate, including your own.
So say it then.
"I unreservedly condemn the Islamic scriptures that call for the murder of gays, apostates, and Jews."
Many people, such as Dawkins and myself, consider it to be the number one issue facing the West. I have personally seen the religious police in Muslim countries harassing people for crimes like holding hands while unmarried, or celebrating the New Year which they consider to be haram.
I guarantee that if you and others on this thread had seen the same things that I have seen, you would also be more outspoken about it. It's very important and yet most Brits are too cowed to talk about it because of the threat of being labelled as a bigot or racist.
I always find the so called 'right wing' very well read on Islam. Most seem to be very well educated on the qu'ran and in debates they tend to come out on top. Most of their opposition don't seem to know anything about Islam.
So say it then.
"I unreservedly condemn the Islamic scriptures that call for the murder of gays, apostates, and Jews."
You could do the same with the Bible and show it to be a work of evil.
This your not allowed to talk about it is an absolute myth!
They know a series of cherry picked passages which fit their narrative. And nothing else about Islam. You could do the same with the Bible and show it to be a work of evil.
But, as discussed earlier in the thread, Dawkins was barred from talking about it at UC Berkeley. So not a myth after all ...
but that one incident doesn't prove that you can't talk about it, that's ridiculous.
I am a big fan of Christopher Hitchen. Youtube is full of videos of him slating Islam, (and other religions) on TV shows and forums all over the world.
Dawkins is his wingman in several of them.
You seem to make a habit of taking one incident and using it to make sweeping generalisations.
I've lived next to Muslim families all my life and never had any problems with them apart from one guy who I've known since we were young and never seen eye to eye with - does that prove there is no problem with radicalisation in Islam, of course not.
In the same way that those carrying out atrocities don't prove that all Muslims are terrorists.
You’ve picked the wrong Hitchen
we've already done this! But the point stands, saying you can't criticise Islam is nonsense, Hitchen (Christopher! Perhaps Peter as well), Dawkins, Sam Harris, Douglas Murray etc are or have been massive critics of Islam.
To say it's above it is nonsense.
I've lived next to Muslim families all my life and never had any problems with them apart from one guy who I've known since we were young and never seen eye to eye with - does that prove there is no problem with radicalisation in Islam, of course not.
In the same way that those carrying out atrocities don't prove that all Muslims are terrorists.
You’ve picked the wrong Hitchen
we've already done this! But the point stands, saying you can't criticise Islam is nonsense, Hitchen (Christopher! Perhaps Peter as well), Dawkins, Sam Harris, Douglas Murray etc are or have been massive critics of Islam.
To say it's above it is nonsense.
No one is saying all Muslims are terrorists.
My neighbor in Singapore was a Muslim woman who was married to an Irish man. She refused to go back to Malaysia to visit family because she would be arrested by the religious police for the crime of marrying a non-Muslim. They could tell she is Muslim and therefore broken the religious law because her name in her passport showed she is Muslim. That's Malaysia which has a reputation of being the most moderate Muslim country in the world.
The problem again is not individual Muslims. It's the entire institutions surrounding Islam.
Yes, you can criticize Islam (as shown by this thread) but you can expect to be called a racist and bigot for doing so. Hitchens, Dawkins, Sam Harris, Douglas Murray have all been labeled bigots.
It's a good narrative to spread hatred of others though.
Is that the Quran you're talking about?
And tbf you've just summed up the response of the left wing 'but the Bible....'. They don't know enough about Islam to challenge it
Do we need people to push boundaries in this direction? We have Breitbart, Alex Jones, Watson and Trump.... look which way they are pushing them.. Milo is in this gang as well...
And that is a failure on behalf of Berkley in my opinion.
Yes we do? I think people are forced to conform to what society deems to be correct...
Or do you not agree with freedom of speech?
Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of pressure to suppress openness when it is critical of Islam, why, after all there is a lot to criticise as there is of Christianity.
Suppression of 'certain arguments' is here now, it sort of happened over the last 5 years. Yet we see this is accepted?
Corbyn faces backlash over speech at 'hardline Muslim' event
The sad thing is that the Islamic extremists will actually be happy about the sort of crap these lot come out with as it causes more division.
There's a reason why they were happy about Trump getting into office.
So we shouldn’t do anything that Islamist extremists are happy about? Just because bad people are happy about it doesn’t mean it is itself wrong...
Everytime we increase security and put the armed forces on the streets they are happy because they succeeded in their goals of creating terror.
How is creating division between ordinary people going about their lives not wrong?
Putting armed forces on the street and increasing security isn't one their goals. Their goal would be people being too scared to go about their daily lives. Ordnary people carrying on as usual alongside each other is not one of their aims.
How is creating division between ordinary people going about their lives not wrong?
Putting armed forces on the street and increasing security isn't one their goals. Their goal would be people being too scared to go about their daily lives. Ordnary people carrying on as usual alongside each other is not one of their aims.
No!! Their aim is to kill as many innocent men, women, and children as they can! They don't give a fuck who they kill, as long as they KILL! Forgotten Paris, Manchester, Egypt quickly didn't you. It's called Jihad.. or didn't you know?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?