freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:


No, I was referring directly to the "spineless" post. read it again. That is, my "on the surface" post.

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:


How hard is it to understand that what appears "on the surface" doesn't capture the true essence of the post? "I have no right or ability to criticise them". Who is "them" - he refers to "nations and their laws" - does that refer to individuals of a regime, or the nation as a collective? He doesn't say, yet everything he has said on the topic implies strongly that he is referring to the nation as a collective.

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:


Of course you do. You don't use the word spineless here to refer to something that you approve or endorse right? Obviously your judgment on this matter is based on your own personal moral compass. You find the idea that people should not be open to criticism morally objectionable. Thats why you call it spineless. Other people would consider it commendable to say criticism should be curbed - its just a point of view, determined entirely by their personal moral values.

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:


I happen to consider that pandering to bigots spineless - I don't happen to consider insisting that muslims be tarred with the same brush to be spineless. How is that hypocritical?

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:


Saying that the true sentiment is different to what appears on the surface is not reinterpreting it. If I realised how confused this simple phrase would cause you, then I wouldn't have used it. As I said from the beginning, I never meant that Brian wrote something but meant something different. He wrote what he wrote, and meant what he wrote. Forget about my "on the surface" phrase if it makes it easier for you.

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:


This is whats annoying: I never said how you or anyone else should interpret it - thats your trick. As I said in my last post, I have no beef with you claiming it is spineless, but as soon as you prance around insisting that everyone else finds it spineless, only then do I have a problem.

Quote:


I don't see how that makes it any less spineless - both unable to criticise "them" and without even the right to criticise, on the grounds that he is not a member of the nation or the religion, as if only Muslims may criticise Muslims, and only Iranians may criticise Iranians. This is barely scratching the surface, but already you see how spineless it gets don't you?. He also claims it is "their" right to chop a person's head off for thinking the wrong thoughts. Whether such a right is yielded to an individual or a collective, it is still an act of spinelessness.

Quote:


Not at all. Freedom can be exploited to conduct the immoral. Freedom should never be equated with morality. It is something entirely different. That is why we use two different words for them. Whatever license you think their subjectivity grants you to give them your own meaning, they are still different. What is it about Islam that makes Muslims incapable of comprehending any alternative concepts of morality? It's like you think everyone else got their morals from the back of a cereal box or something.

Quote:


Not many. And I don't believe you will find a single one who would put it quite as extremely as Brian, except of course the people who are chopping others' heads off to prevent people criticising them, but even they would not share Brian's eagerness to extend the "rights" to others as Brian does - only to themselves.

Quote:


That's like saying Hitler's attitude towards Jews is "just" a point of view.

Quote:


I just finished explaining the hypocrisy. I cannot put it any simpler. I suggest you read it again.

Quote:


You want me to forget the time that you conceded that Brian's post was indeed spineless? In the post where you explained how the real meaning is different, you used a different post by Brian with a different meaning to prove it.

Quote:


That's what you have been doing this whole thread. I have been quoting exactly what Brian posted, without any need for 'interpreting'. You have been avoiding at all costs mentioning what Brian actually said, and eagerly substituting other posts by Brian. We are now 14 pages in, and I believe your most recent post was the first time you acknowledged the contents of the spineless post. Both you and Brian have been insisting that I misunderstood it, while refusing to talk about it. You are defending the beauty of something you are afraid to cast your own eyes upon by quibbling over the meaning of beauty and telling everyone to look the other way.

Yadda wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 11:46pm:






Quote:


Therefore FD, gandalf is correct.

gandalf cannot be, anything, but, correct.

gandalf is a moslem.

therefore, gandalf is correct.






And you, FD, are not a moslem.

Therefore FD, YOU, are in error.

FD,

How can you, as a person who is not a moslem, think that you can possibly, properly comprehend concepts of morality ?

Ridiculous.

Just step aside FD, you must leave the adjudication of matters of morality to moslems.          

Moslems alone, are the people of virtue.



You, are not a moslem.

You, are a perverted transgressor [against morality].

Got it ?

I don't suppose we will hear from Brian very much any more, with his new found conviction to restrict his criticisms to atheist Australians.   


Quote:

Quote:


Quite the opposite actually. You have used the word spineless with clear meaning right here in this thread. I have not dictated any rules about it's meaning. I see no need to, as you appear to use the same meaning as I do. You have been begging me to define it for you, and I have refused.

Quote:


Again, you have no clue at all what shapes my moral values. It certainly is not a belief in freedom.

Quote:


I didn't say they do not exist. Brian is living proof of their existence. I am saying that they are so rare, and normally so reluctant to voice their opinion, that you will not find one. Brian is kind of unique in being so outspoken about being too spineless to speak out. I have never seen anything like that before. I hope I never see it again. There is something quite disturbing about it.

Quote:


To put it in really really simple terms, you are a hypocrit for saying something, then declaring you would never say what you just said.

Quote:


Actually you were telling everyone what Brian thinks. Of course, you were afraid to ask him what he thinks, preferring to substitute spine for all his ambiguity, contradictions and the bits you prefer to ignore.

Quote:


I said that Brian would not find one. You are the closest he has come.

Quote:


Yes on stilts. Here is but one example:

Quote:


There are plenty more, in case you feel tempted to split hairs.

Quote:


And agree with me "on the surface". You only disagreed with me about the "true meaning" of Brian's words, you you constantly insist I do not understand.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:


You said that what Brian said was spineless, and then boasted that not a single person on earth - including not a single muslim would disagree with you. You think thats not dictating? 

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:


I don't know what game you are trying to play here. You basically do nothing else here but argue the need for freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and how evil muslims are for trying to stifle you etc etc. You're right that I don't know what shapes this fanatisism of yours, but there is no question that this belief shapes your moral values. No doubt you are playing some obscure semantic game, but I'm afraid its a little over my head.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:


No offense, but you are incredibly naive. I promise you it is not rare, and they are most definitely not reluctant to voice their opinions. These people are unapologetic in declaring that what other people do, how they run their country is not their business, and they have no right to criticise or interfere - as long as they return the favour and don't criticise or interfere them. They are isolationists - not wanting to interfere with other people's lives, and not wanting to be interfered by them. In fact I'd go so far as to say the attitude is pretty mainstream. I consider your views - which basically amounts to cultural imperialism - far more extreme, and dare I say it, spineless. The people I refer to here have a lot of derogatory words for people like you - 'do-gooders', 'progressives', 'liberals', neo-liberals' etc

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:


Ok, to put it in really really simple terms - refer me to where I declared I would never say anything was spineless.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:


No, I offered my opinion on what *I* thought he said - big difference. If you disagree, then you'll have to show me where I insisted that everyone else must agree with what I said. Thats what you do, not me.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:


No, I asked Brian directly in my 'on the surface' post. Do keep up.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:


Example of what? Me defending myself against you putting words in my mouth? If it really has to spelled out to you, that is an example of me spelling out how you are wrong about what *I* wrote - not what Brian wrote. Again, I would never have entered this discussion if you hadn't put words into the mouth of the entire planet.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:


This was never about any perceived misunderstanding of Brian's post. I was never debating you about Brian's meaning, except to clarify my own interpretation of it, and defending myself when you started insisting that I said something that I didn't.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 7:45pm:


You say something is spineless then insist that everyone agrees with you. I don't care what sort of dictating you want to call it, but it is dictating.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 7:45pm:


Ideology/philosophy about personal freedom is entirely an issue of morality. Its as simple as that. You think its immoral to stifle personal freedom, others think its moral. I just want you to be aware that there are these different views on morality. You seem to think that the issue of personal freedom is some sort of universal value.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 7:45pm:


No, really its not. I think the issue is reciprocity: its like a pact - they will agree they have no right to criticise other cultures, as long as they in turn accept their right to run their culture the way they do.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 7:45pm:


You misunderstand.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 7:45pm:


Nope. Clarifying my position. Do you find words like "you won't find anyone who disagrees with me" - or words to that affect? No.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 7:45pm:


Well done.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 7:45pm:


I'm not interested in that discussion. I have one interpretation, you have another (and yes its pretty obvious what the differences are without having to spell it out). Like I keep saying, I have no problem with you having a different interpretation from me. However I will take exception when you start prancing around insisting that there definitely is no one who disagrees with your interpretation, and that you hold some sort of monopoly over what is and what isn't "spineless".