Prophet bride book appears in US

[NJS 4014]

I have a much better golden rule, one that you probably learned from your mam: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

 

Don't agree - All ideas and especially from my pov religions are there to be questioned, derided and if necessary attacked.

 

The limit should be incitement which is covered by law - but then again I could make a good case for prosecution of the publishers of the bible and the koran for incitement to racial hatred but I'd guess it would be thrown out because of over-respect.

[Guest alex]

PBUH all the same like

[Fop 1]

Do I believe that so-called "freedom of speech" is some shining and immutable rule that should be guaranteed to everyone? Not at all.

 

Thought so.

 

More I like it my way, but no one else's.

 

I have a much better golden rule, one that you probably learned from your mam: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

You're completely missing the point of freedom. Deserve has nothing to do with it.

 

Politeness is nice, but you can have polite oppression, tranny and murder.

Edited October 9, 2008 by Fop

[NJS 4014]

Our putting it this way we should have the absolute right to offend even if we're too polite to do so.

[Fop 1]

There are laws in the UK which cover people who preach racial hatred and incite violence and so on. These people can, quite rightly, be prosecuted if they fall into that category, which is more or less where the limits of freedom of speech extend to (in one sense at least). That isn't what the 'debate' about book is about though.

 

It's about standing up, as a society, to people that will do that. As convincing zealots never works.

[Fop 1]

Our putting it this way we should have the absolute right to offend even if we're too polite to do so.

 

 

Yup.

[Guest alex]

Do I believe that so-called "freedom of speech" is some shining and immutable rule that should be guaranteed to everyone? Not at all.

 

Thought so.

 

More I like it my way, but no one else's.

 

I have a much better golden rule, one that you probably learned from your mam: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

You're completely missing the point of freedom. Deserve has nothing to do with it.

 

Politeness is nice, but you can have polite oppression, tranny and murder.

Nothing with trannies, so long as they're polite

[Fop 1]

Do I believe that so-called "freedom of speech" is some shining and immutable rule that should be guaranteed to everyone? Not at all.

 

Thought so.

 

More I like it my way, but no one else's.

 

I have a much better golden rule, one that you probably learned from your mam: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

You're completely missing the point of freedom. Deserve has nothing to do with it.

 

Politeness is nice, but you can have polite oppression, tranny and murder.

Nothing with trannies, so long as they're polite

 

Well there might be something with trannies, and the rude ones are the best.

[acrossthepond 711]

Do I believe that so-called "freedom of speech" is some shining and immutable rule that should be guaranteed to everyone? Not at all.

 

Thought so.

 

More I like it my way, but no one else's.

 

I have a much better golden rule, one that you probably learned from your mam: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

You're completely missing the point of freedom. Deserve has nothing to do with it.

 

Politeness is nice, but you can have polite oppression, tranny and murder.

 

I get it. You don't like limitations on what you can and can't do, what you can and can't say - and you view religion as one of the major restrictions on your so-called freedom. No problem. It's your life. I just don't see why you insist on trying to impose this view on everyone else. Can't you see that it's self-contradictory? Doesn't freedom mean the ability to choose one's own way? So how can you force someone to be free? If everyone's free, going back to an example you attempted in an earlier argument, shouldn't that mean people should be "free" to wear religious symbols in university? I mean, it's their choice. It doesn't affect you (unless, of course, it offends you. But that's a debate for another time.) But you've already stated it should be banned. So here you are, ready to demand the protection of what you consider to be your freedom but equally ready to say what others can and can't do. It's ironic that you of all people would accuse me of trying to have my cake and eat it too.

 

Don't agree - All ideas and especially from my pov religions are there to be questioned, derided and if necessary attacked.

 

So it's ok for us Westerners to criticise others' practices, but when they start doing it, it's hate speech and terrorism. It's free speech when radicals here attack such things as FGM, child marriage, honor killing (which, disgusting and out-dated as they may seem to you, have been part of their culture for centuries. And who cares if it's disgusting to you? They're supposed to be free as well - or does that freedom only extend to white people?) but when the radicals on the other side of the world attack things in the West that they consider to be equally disgusting, it's not allowed. When your morals are offended, it's an outrage. But when their morals are offended - like those who found the Satanic Verses offensive - you don't care. Why? Are their morals, or their outrage, somehow less important than yours? Who decides that? You're another one who wants it both ways.

[Park Life 71]

Wtf is going on here?

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3284]

Do I believe that so-called "freedom of speech" is some shining and immutable rule that should be guaranteed to everyone? Not at all.

 

Thought so.

 

More I like it my way, but no one else's.

 

I have a much better golden rule, one that you probably learned from your mam: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

You're completely missing the point of freedom. Deserve has nothing to do with it.

 

Politeness is nice, but you can have polite oppression, tranny and murder.

 

I get it. You don't like limitations on what you can and can't do, what you can and can't say - and you view religion as one of the major restrictions on your so-called freedom. No problem. It's your life. I just don't see why you insist on trying to impose this view on everyone else. Can't you see that it's self-contradictory? Doesn't freedom mean the ability to choose one's own way? So how can you force someone to be free? If everyone's free, going back to an example you attempted in an earlier argument, shouldn't that mean people should be "free" to wear religious symbols in university? I mean, it's their choice. It doesn't affect you (unless, of course, it offends you. But that's a debate for another time.) But you've already stated it should be banned. So here you are, ready to demand the protection of what you consider to be your freedom but equally ready to say what others can and can't do. It's ironic that you of all people would accuse me of trying to have my cake and eat it too.

 

Don't agree - All ideas and especially from my pov religions are there to be questioned, derided and if necessary attacked.

 

So it's ok for us Westerners to criticise others' practices, but when they start doing it, it's hate speech and terrorism. It's free speech when radicals here attack such things as FGM, child marriage, honor killing (which, disgusting and out-dated as they may seem to you, have been part of their culture for centuries. And who cares if it's disgusting to you? They're supposed to be free as well - or does that freedom only extend to white people?) but when the radicals on the other side of the world attack things in the West that they consider to be equally disgusting, it's not allowed. When your morals are offended, it's an outrage. But when their morals are offended - like those who found the Satanic Verses offensive - you don't care. Why? Are their morals, or their outrage, somehow less important than yours? Who decides that? You're another one who wants it both ways.

 

Freedom without boundaries is meaningless.

[NJS 4014]

So it's ok for us Westerners to criticise others' practices, but when they start doing it, it's hate speech and terrorism. It's free speech when radicals here attack such things as FGM, child marriage, honor killing (which, disgusting and out-dated as they may seem to you, have been part of their culture for centuries. And who cares if it's disgusting to you? They're supposed to be free as well - or does that freedom only extend to white people?) but when the radicals on the other side of the world attack things in the West that they consider to be equally disgusting, it's not allowed. When your morals are offended, it's an outrage. But when their morals are offended - like those who found the Satanic Verses offensive - you don't care. Why? Are their morals, or their outrage, somehow less important than yours? Who decides that? You're another one who wants it both ways.

 

I don't care how long they've been doing FGM - it's fucking evil and I have the right to say so.

 

If Muslim clerics say that western women are whores they have the right to say so - where did I say they didn't?

 

They also have the right to be offended by The Satanic Verses - however if they threaten to kill the author then I have the right to object.

 

There are certain aspects of morality which are pretty universal - I would like to think that mutiliating or murdering your daughters or pimping them out when they are pre-pubescent would be ones we could all agree with - if people don't then I have the right to condemn their culture as rotten.

[Fop 1]

Do I believe that so-called "freedom of speech" is some shining and immutable rule that should be guaranteed to everyone? Not at all.

 

Thought so.

 

More I like it my way, but no one else's.

 

I have a much better golden rule, one that you probably learned from your mam: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

You're completely missing the point of freedom. Deserve has nothing to do with it.

 

Politeness is nice, but you can have polite oppression, tranny and murder.

 

I get it. You don't like limitations on what you can and can't do, what you can and can't say - and you view religion as one of the major restrictions on your so-called freedom. No problem. It's your life. I just don't see why you insist on trying to impose this view on everyone else. Can't you see that it's self-contradictory? Doesn't freedom mean the ability to choose one's own way? So how can you force someone to be free? If everyone's free, going back to an example you attempted in an earlier argument, shouldn't that mean people should be "free" to wear religious symbols in university? I mean, it's their choice. It doesn't affect you (unless, of course, it offends you. But that's a debate for another time.) But you've already stated it should be banned. So here you are, ready to demand the protection of what you consider to be your freedom but equally ready to say what others can and can't do. It's ironic that you of all people would accuse me of trying to have my cake and eat it too.

 

 

Except all that is not true.

 

Lets take your religion, for example; women aren't equal, dogs are Evil, homosexuals are abominations, and free speech shouldn't exist (just speech that in no way "offends" you)..... oh and your religion can and does lampoon other religions deities freely in cartoons (notably Jews, but others too), but no one can dare do it back (well they can, but riots and murders will ensue).

 

Quite a few "limitations" there don't you think? (and plenty more if you wish to become obtuse )

 

You can twist and turn all you like, but denying freedom of speech is NOT increasing freedom (nor is firebombing anyone), although I personally support your right to falsely claim it is.

 

 

 

Don't agree - All ideas and especially from my pov religions are there to be questioned, derided and if necessary attacked.

 

So it's ok for us Westerners to criticise others' practices, but when they start doing it, it's hate speech and terrorism. It's free speech when radicals here attack such things as FGM, child marriage, honor killing (which, disgusting and out-dated as they may seem to you, have been part of their culture for centuries. And who cares if it's disgusting to you? They're supposed to be free as well - or does that freedom only extend to white people?) but when the radicals on the other side of the world attack things in the West that they consider to be equally disgusting, it's not allowed. When your morals are offended, it's an outrage. But when their morals are offended - like those who found the Satanic Verses offensive - you don't care. Why? Are their morals, or their outrage, somehow less important than yours? Who decides that? You're another one who wants it both ways.

 

Freedom does not include breaking the law.

 

It's pretty interesting (although not unexpected) that you are PRO child marriage and honour killing though. Are you up for stoning some Homosexuals this weekend? You should fit right in with your local KKK (it's funny how fascists are all the same).

 

 

 

 

But you're still missing the point, you can be offended, that's your right. You just have no right to control what others say, just because it offends you.

[acrossthepond 711]

Do I believe that so-called "freedom of speech" is some shining and immutable rule that should be guaranteed to everyone? Not at all.

 

Thought so.

 

More I like it my way, but no one else's.

 

I have a much better golden rule, one that you probably learned from your mam: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

You're completely missing the point of freedom. Deserve has nothing to do with it.

 

Politeness is nice, but you can have polite oppression, tranny and murder.

 

I get it. You don't like limitations on what you can and can't do, what you can and can't say - and you view religion as one of the major restrictions on your so-called freedom. No problem. It's your life. I just don't see why you insist on trying to impose this view on everyone else. Can't you see that it's self-contradictory? Doesn't freedom mean the ability to choose one's own way? So how can you force someone to be free? If everyone's free, going back to an example you attempted in an earlier argument, shouldn't that mean people should be "free" to wear religious symbols in university? I mean, it's their choice. It doesn't affect you (unless, of course, it offends you. But that's a debate for another time.) But you've already stated it should be banned. So here you are, ready to demand the protection of what you consider to be your freedom but equally ready to say what others can and can't do. It's ironic that you of all people would accuse me of trying to have my cake and eat it too.

 

 

Except all that is not true.

 

Lets take your religion, for example; women aren't equal, dogs are Evil, homosexuals are abominations, and free speech shouldn't exist (just speech that in no way "offends" you)..... oh and your religion can and does lampoon other religions deities freely in cartoons (notably Jews, but others too), but no one can dare do it back (well they can, but riots and murders will ensue).

 

Quite a few "limitations" there don't you think? (and plenty more if you wish to become obtuse )

 

You can twist and turn all you like, but denying freedom of speech is NOT increasing freedom (nor is firebombing anyone), although I personally support your right to falsely claim it is.

 

 

 

Don't agree - All ideas and especially from my pov religions are there to be questioned, derided and if necessary attacked.

 

So it's ok for us Westerners to criticise others' practices, but when they start doing it, it's hate speech and terrorism. It's free speech when radicals here attack such things as FGM, child marriage, honor killing (which, disgusting and out-dated as they may seem to you, have been part of their culture for centuries. And who cares if it's disgusting to you? They're supposed to be free as well - or does that freedom only extend to white people?) but when the radicals on the other side of the world attack things in the West that they consider to be equally disgusting, it's not allowed. When your morals are offended, it's an outrage. But when their morals are offended - like those who found the Satanic Verses offensive - you don't care. Why? Are their morals, or their outrage, somehow less important than yours? Who decides that? You're another one who wants it both ways.

 

Freedom does not include breaking the law.

It's pretty interesting (although not unexpected) that you are PRO child marriage and honour killing though. Are you up for stoning some Homosexuals this weekend? You should fit right in with your local KKK (it's funny how fascists are all the same).

 

 

 

But you're still missing the point, you can be offended, that's your right. You just have no right to control what others say, just because it offends you.

 

You have once again failed to answer even one point in what I addressed to you. You fire off a one-liner "all of that isn't true, I said so, nya nya" and then you launch into yet another baseless attack on Islam. Do you have any other frustrations you want to get out? Why don't you just make a thread dedicated to how much you hate Islam and its practices so every discussion doesn't have to degenerate into the same? But wait...that's every thread you post.

 

The bolded bit is probably the most egregious straw man I have ever seen in my entire life. All who make fallacious arguments, regardless of color, class, religion, and creed, should bow down to you and call you king. I'd tell you a few things about me, like how my own brother is gay but in his 20 years of life I've managed not to get out the stones and "do God's will" on him, but I know I'd be wasting my breath.

 

Your clear and unashamed racism disgusts me. You are such a complete tosser that it's no longer worth writing even one more word to you.

 

EDIT: Unashamed racism, not unpretentious.

Edited October 9, 2008 by acrossthepond

[acrossthepond 711]

Do I believe that so-called "freedom of speech" is some shining and immutable rule that should be guaranteed to everyone? Not at all.

 

Thought so.

 

More I like it my way, but no one else's.

 

I have a much better golden rule, one that you probably learned from your mam: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

You're completely missing the point of freedom. Deserve has nothing to do with it.

 

Politeness is nice, but you can have polite oppression, tranny and murder.

 

I get it. You don't like limitations on what you can and can't do, what you can and can't say - and you view religion as one of the major restrictions on your so-called freedom. No problem. It's your life. I just don't see why you insist on trying to impose this view on everyone else. Can't you see that it's self-contradictory? Doesn't freedom mean the ability to choose one's own way? So how can you force someone to be free? If everyone's free, going back to an example you attempted in an earlier argument, shouldn't that mean people should be "free" to wear religious symbols in university? I mean, it's their choice. It doesn't affect you (unless, of course, it offends you. But that's a debate for another time.) But you've already stated it should be banned. So here you are, ready to demand the protection of what you consider to be your freedom but equally ready to say what others can and can't do. It's ironic that you of all people would accuse me of trying to have my cake and eat it too.

 

Don't agree - All ideas and especially from my pov religions are there to be questioned, derided and if necessary attacked.

 

So it's ok for us Westerners to criticise others' practices, but when they start doing it, it's hate speech and terrorism. It's free speech when radicals here attack such things as FGM, child marriage, honor killing (which, disgusting and out-dated as they may seem to you, have been part of their culture for centuries. And who cares if it's disgusting to you? They're supposed to be free as well - or does that freedom only extend to white people?) but when the radicals on the other side of the world attack things in the West that they consider to be equally disgusting, it's not allowed. When your morals are offended, it's an outrage. But when their morals are offended - like those who found the Satanic Verses offensive - you don't care. Why? Are their morals, or their outrage, somehow less important than yours? Who decides that? You're another one who wants it both ways.

 

Freedom without boundaries is meaningless.

 

And who sets those boundaries again?

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3284]

Do I believe that so-called "freedom of speech" is some shining and immutable rule that should be guaranteed to everyone? Not at all.

 

Thought so.

 

More I like it my way, but no one else's.

 

I have a much better golden rule, one that you probably learned from your mam: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

You're completely missing the point of freedom. Deserve has nothing to do with it.

 

Politeness is nice, but you can have polite oppression, tranny and murder.

 

I get it. You don't like limitations on what you can and can't do, what you can and can't say - and you view religion as one of the major restrictions on your so-called freedom. No problem. It's your life. I just don't see why you insist on trying to impose this view on everyone else. Can't you see that it's self-contradictory? Doesn't freedom mean the ability to choose one's own way? So how can you force someone to be free? If everyone's free, going back to an example you attempted in an earlier argument, shouldn't that mean people should be "free" to wear religious symbols in university? I mean, it's their choice. It doesn't affect you (unless, of course, it offends you. But that's a debate for another time.) But you've already stated it should be banned. So here you are, ready to demand the protection of what you consider to be your freedom but equally ready to say what others can and can't do. It's ironic that you of all people would accuse me of trying to have my cake and eat it too.

 

Don't agree - All ideas and especially from my pov religions are there to be questioned, derided and if necessary attacked.

 

So it's ok for us Westerners to criticise others' practices, but when they start doing it, it's hate speech and terrorism. It's free speech when radicals here attack such things as FGM, child marriage, honor killing (which, disgusting and out-dated as they may seem to you, have been part of their culture for centuries. And who cares if it's disgusting to you? They're supposed to be free as well - or does that freedom only extend to white people?) but when the radicals on the other side of the world attack things in the West that they consider to be equally disgusting, it's not allowed. When your morals are offended, it's an outrage. But when their morals are offended - like those who found the Satanic Verses offensive - you don't care. Why? Are their morals, or their outrage, somehow less important than yours? Who decides that? You're another one who wants it both ways.

 

Freedom without boundaries is meaningless.

 

And who sets those boundaries again?

 

the majority will of the people. Its called democracy.

 

Does my neighbour have the right to play loud music any time of the night? does that mean I only have the right to listen to that music? Do I have the right to kill. Does that mean people have the right to be killed. Does having the right to circumcised my daughter mean she has the right to be circumcised? Does she have the right to object? Freedoms of individuals rarely coincide with the freedoms of society to live freely and without fear.

[Fop 1]

Do I believe that so-called "freedom of speech" is some shining and immutable rule that should be guaranteed to everyone? Not at all.

 

Thought so.

 

More I like it my way, but no one else's.

 

I have a much better golden rule, one that you probably learned from your mam: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

You're completely missing the point of freedom. Deserve has nothing to do with it.

 

Politeness is nice, but you can have polite oppression, tranny and murder.

 

I get it. You don't like limitations on what you can and can't do, what you can and can't say - and you view religion as one of the major restrictions on your so-called freedom. No problem. It's your life. I just don't see why you insist on trying to impose this view on everyone else. Can't you see that it's self-contradictory? Doesn't freedom mean the ability to choose one's own way? So how can you force someone to be free? If everyone's free, going back to an example you attempted in an earlier argument, shouldn't that mean people should be "free" to wear religious symbols in university? I mean, it's their choice. It doesn't affect you (unless, of course, it offends you. But that's a debate for another time.) But you've already stated it should be banned. So here you are, ready to demand the protection of what you consider to be your freedom but equally ready to say what others can and can't do. It's ironic that you of all people would accuse me of trying to have my cake and eat it too.

 

 

Except all that is not true.

 

Lets take your religion, for example; women aren't equal, dogs are Evil, homosexuals are abominations, and free speech shouldn't exist (just speech that in no way "offends" you)..... oh and your religion can and does lampoon other religions deities freely in cartoons (notably Jews, but others too), but no one can dare do it back (well they can, but riots and murders will ensue).

 

Quite a few "limitations" there don't you think? (and plenty more if you wish to become obtuse )

 

You can twist and turn all you like, but denying freedom of speech is NOT increasing freedom (nor is firebombing anyone), although I personally support your right to falsely claim it is.

 

 

 

Don't agree - All ideas and especially from my pov religions are there to be questioned, derided and if necessary attacked.

 

So it's ok for us Westerners to criticise others' practices, but when they start doing it, it's hate speech and terrorism. It's free speech when radicals here attack such things as FGM, child marriage, honor killing (which, disgusting and out-dated as they may seem to you, have been part of their culture for centuries. And who cares if it's disgusting to you? They're supposed to be free as well - or does that freedom only extend to white people?) but when the radicals on the other side of the world attack things in the West that they consider to be equally disgusting, it's not allowed. When your morals are offended, it's an outrage. But when their morals are offended - like those who found the Satanic Verses offensive - you don't care. Why? Are their morals, or their outrage, somehow less important than yours? Who decides that? You're another one who wants it both ways.

 

Freedom does not include breaking the law.

It's pretty interesting (although not unexpected) that you are PRO child marriage and honour killing though. Are you up for stoning some Homosexuals this weekend? You should fit right in with your local KKK (it's funny how fascists are all the same).

 

 

 

But you're still missing the point, you can be offended, that's your right. You just have no right to control what others say, just because it offends you.

 

You have once again failed to answer even one point in what I addressed to you. You fire off a one-liner "all of that isn't true, I said so, nya nya" and then you launch into yet another baseless attack on Islam. Do you have any other frustrations you want to get out? Why don't you just make a thread dedicated to how much you hate Islam and its practices so every discussion doesn't have to degenerate into the same? But wait...that's every thread you post.

 

The bolded bit is probably the most egregious straw man I have ever seen in my entire life. All who make fallacious arguments, regardless of color, class, religion, and creed, should bow down to you and call you king. I'd tell you a few things about me, like how my own brother is gay but in his 20 years of life I've managed not to get out the stones and "do God's will" on him, but I know I'd be wasting my breath.

 

Your clear and unashamed racism disgusts me. You are such a complete tosser that it's no longer worth writing even one more word to you.

 

EDIT: Unashamed racism, not unpretentious.

 

 

Aye another common quality of fascists (whatever their flavour; political, religious, racial, tribal or some mixture) is they tend to run away when they cannot refute points put to them.

 

We both know I'm right, but of course only one of us will ever admit it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

On that note, something else you will not/cannot answer: if someone wanted to stone your brother to death in the name of the religion you serve who would be in their right and would you agree with their "right" to do so?

[Fop 1]

 

 

I also do love how you always fall back on that one. It's never been true on any of the other times you've tried it on, and it's still not, but you do get points for trying.

 

 

As I've said before I have nothing against Islam (well once you get rid of the sexism, cynophobia and homophobia - but there's a few other religions with similar issues too), and there are many aspect to admire in it (as there are most religions).

 

 

 

However I do have a very big issue with zealots/religious fascists like yourself, your problem is that you cannot (and will not, I suspect) separate criticism of that from criticism of all things (it is actually a key political strategy, and a very effective one). And that's partly why "you" end up firebombing publishers.

 

It's like saying criticising Communism in the USSR means you hate all Russians....... no, you're just criticising Communism.

 

 

 

 

You can keep trying to shift the issue to something it is not, but it's never going to work.

[Park Life 71]

"This is radio freedom". [KLF/]