Aussie wrote on Oct 27^th, 2014 at 1:25pm:


Don’t answer this, FD. It’s a trick question.

Quote:


You have stated, in the context of Koranic verses about Muhammed's example being perfect, that this particular incident is a great example for Muslims to follow. I have never said that all Muslims are murderers, or rapists, or arseholes. Muhammed certainly was, as are many of his most eager followers, past and present, but I am happy to acknowledge that many Muslims to not take it to this level.

Quote:


Yes they are Gandalf. They have already made people afraid to depict and mock Muhammed. I notice you are backpedaling towards what I actually said now. This is a good first step, but ideally you should simply quote people rather than misrepresenting what they post by only using half the sentence and making the other half up.

Quote:


I think the majority of Muslims in Australia would be in favour of further eroding our freedom of speech, and that they can and do vote accordingly. Of course, without a proper survey, I am not going to get any more specific than this.

Quote:


No it isn't. It is stupid. It is not what "people" are saying, nor does it reflect the outcome of the survey, no matter how much liberty you take with the ambiguities.

Quote:


As usual, the subtleties of balancing freedom of speech against other rights and freedoms is completely lost on you. No wonder you flip flop between labeling me an extremist and a hypocrite. As far as the law is concerned, you can do this. None of the laws designed to protect individual rights can be broadened to the protection of religion, or even historical religious figures, from mockery.

Quote:


I'll put this in the bleeding obvious category Gandalf. Rather than bothering me with this idiocy, please try to find one person here who agrees with your interpretation of the survey. Islam has blinded you to western values, to the point that you cannot even recognise them when you see them.

Quote:


That was a well conducted survey. It did not have the gaping flaws that yours does. Furthermore I did not need to do any reinterpreting of the results. They speak for themselves really. Though I acknowledge you made a valiant effort to reinterpret them, inventing ambiguities that are not there.

They made a compromise, Soren.  Politics is the art of compromise.   Obviously they decided getting the Muslim community onside over the new Terrorism Laws was more important than offending them by allow Islamophobes like you free reign.   Hang on a second, you do have free reign, so obvious 18c isn't as powerful as you seem to claim at stopping your freedom of speech, now is it?  Oh, dear, the contradictions!   

Soren wrote on Oct 28^th, 2014 at 9:20am:


Shurely shome mishtake. Abbott was simply listening to the Jewish lobby.

Freeedom, eh?

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2014 at 7:11pm:


Are you going to continue being dishonest by using the deliberately ambiguous term "muslims are..." - or are you going to acknowledge we are only talking about a tiny minority? Its a very obvious point, but you clearly have great difficulty acknowledging it - which speaks volumes about your mentality.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2014 at 7:11pm:


Evidence please.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2014 at 7:11pm:


Rubbish. Only the most spectacular efforts in mental gymnastics could split hairs like this. Religions don't exist without people following them. You don't make abstract mockery of "religions" without mocking the people who follow it - because one doesn't exist without the other - obviously. You won't find anyone who considers the Danish cartoons as anything other than insulting or offending muslims, and most Australians said at the time they thought it was wrong to do so. And consistent with this, most Australians say they think it should be unlawful to mock people on the basis of religion.

But once again, we see FD masterfully steering the discussion into irrelevant minutiae, just to distract from the core issue. Merely mocking people on the basis of religion alone is clearly something that should be sacrosanct under FD ideology, and should be protected at all costs. By rejecting this, the majority of Australians are displaying the very spineless apologetics that FD rails against day in day out (as long as they are muslims or muslim apologists).

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2014 at 7:11pm:


You are an extremist, and you are a hypocrite.

Going against what a majority of Australians believe about balancing freedom with protecting minorities makes you an extremist - by simple definition.

And the fact that you spinelessly apologise for non-muslims chipping away at our freedoms - whether it be regarding them wanting people to be protected against offense based on their religion, or wanting an historical opinion to be made a thought crime - makes you a hypocrite.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2014 at 7:11pm:


You said in a previous post that its anti-freedom - but only on the surface. Then you BS about some "flaws" that you have never elaborated on, and tried to dismiss the whole survey as not saying what it says.

Please tell me FD - how does believing people should not be insulted/offended on the basis of religion - somehow become not believing that people should not be insulted/offended on the basis of religion?

Good luck with trying to answer that and claim you are not the one reinterpreting the results at the same time.

Quote:


How is it ambiguous? Do I need to name names?

Quote:


How tiny? I believe my summary of my position on the matter covered pretty much everything.

Quote:


You need evidence that what I say I think is what I actually think? This reminds me of your arguments about the Pew survey.

freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2014 at 10:06pm:


Don’t quote the 2007 FD, whatever you do, G. That would be very poor form.

Let’s let sleeping dogs lie, eh?