llap Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 I am not an Atheist but I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins and I am outraged to see the persecution and censorship of Atheists by the loony left PC thought police (they're not the real left) and their Islamic terrorist buddies. Richard Dawkins censored from giving a talk in America, not because of criticising Christianity but because while criticising ALL religions he has happened to criticise Islam. Truly pathetic. Richard Dawkins sets the record straight about the BS argument that Islam is a race. It's a religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llap Posted August 8, 2017 Author Share Posted August 8, 2017 Could you ever even meet a more amiable chap as Richard Dawkins? The idea that he is stirring up hate speech by promoting reason and science is absolutely laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarne Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 They feel threatened by him, and it is ludicrous. Growing up, being forced to endure assemblies where you had to say the lords prayer, I had hoped that religion would play a lesser part in the world as I grew older but instead it's just been replaced with radical islam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 It's hard to argue against Dawkins' points. I've read a lot of his stuff, and listened to/watched several of his debates. Never heard him spread hate. Just logic and reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 And a plethora of divisive 'faith schools'. With the full support of the vicar's daughter. How these establishments are promoting a more inclusive society is beyond me. What society needs is freedom FROM religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Tarne said: They feel threatened by him, and it is ludicrous. Growing up, being forced to endure assemblies where you had to say the lords prayer, I had hoped that religion would play a lesser part in the world as I grew older but instead it's just been replaced with radical islam. To be fair the Lords prayer hardly did any harm did it? Endure? It's twenty seconds . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 He's not really been censored - he can say anything he likes, post it on the internet etc. He's been treated rudely - was invited to something, then dis-invited. But the idea that's restricted his free speech isn't really true - he could hire a room and give a press conference about it and I bet the world's press would turn up! Deplatforming is rude, but it is only peripherally connected with freedom of speech issues - if a state deplatformed you then yes, your being censored, but a private organization deciding it doesn't want to hear what you've got to say, after all. Well, any radio show makes those sorts of decisions every day ... ask Stu Peters when he decides not to read a text from the nutter who spams every show. There is an issue in that both the Alt-Right and the Ctl-Left purposely put their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to anyone who doesn't believe what they do. It isn't a way to solve differences, or practically change opinions, and so speech becomes simply about confirming biases, virtue signalling, and preaching to the choir. That is a problem, but I don't think Dawkins is necessarily facing a free speech or censorship issue - he can get his opinions in the national news media very easily, his speech isn't censored. Its just that idiots refuse to listen to him. More fool them. Though you've got to worry when such idiots are close to controlling major parties on both sides of the political spectrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 3 hours ago, llap said: Could you ever even meet a more amiable chap as Richard Dawkins? The idea that he is stirring up hate speech by promoting reason and science is absolutely laughable. I believe you will find that in Britain at least and possibly elsewhere the anti-racism laws were adapted to include Jews and Sikhs which are not strictly races rather a people but which have been accorded this exception as protection against racial attack etc. There is no country called "Jewland" and you can be Jewish and be from any race. Some of the founders of Zionist Palestine and Israel were Irish Jews and which when I recount this brings about gales of laughter "Irish Jews indeed!" I do not know if Muslims/Islam have been accorded the same protection as the Jews and Sikhs by way of race laws..Probably not... Then there is the issue of "racial profiling" whereby you turn an issue into a race issue by way of selective abuse, threats etc ie tarring everyone with the same brush. ie "All blacks are....." "All whites are......"..."All Afrikaaners are".....Whatever... I note that some states in the USA and also administrative regions/counties/cities do have something like racial profiling laws so I assume that racial profiling of Muslims or Islam could if presented under certain circumstances such as allegedly done by Mr Dawkins thus constitute a racial slur or attack of some sort. Then there are laws about hate crimes.. For the definitive answer ask a lawyer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 Racial profiling.. I was part of the panel interviewing to hire a new manager for the sheltered housing where I live. I said that we don't want any more Africans as they are useless. (But very cheap labour) Which they were! (The ones we had that is)... I was told by the Bosses that I was "racial profiling" and warned about it! Well, whatever, the reality was that we had no more Africans...Nothing to do with me speaking plainly of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llap Posted August 8, 2017 Author Share Posted August 8, 2017 I would suggest it is never a good idea to bring up Jews as a specific example to extrapolate or make general statements about anything that relates either to religion, race, civilisation, or nation. They are none of these things and yet they are all of these things; they are an anomaly and there's no point in trying to put them into any category. I am less familiar with the Sikhs but can appreciate how they too would not fit into neatly created categories made up by deluded western sociologists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llap Posted August 8, 2017 Author Share Posted August 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Chinahand said: That is a problem, but I don't think Dawkins is necessarily facing a free speech or censorship issue - he can get his opinions in the national news media very easily, his speech isn't censored. That's true. Despite being censored and having his free speech encroached on in this particular case, Dawkins can get his opinions heard elsewhere. But let's remember some wise words from Star Trek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 5 hours ago, Mr. Sausages said: It's hard to argue against Dawkins' points. I've read a lot of his stuff, and listened to/watched several of his debates. Never heard him spread hate. Just logic and reason. Not too great at maths though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 4 hours ago, Chinahand said: ...ask Stu Peters when he decides not to read a text from the nutter who spams every show. That's a filthy lie...Stu did read out one of my texts once...I think it was on 26th April 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 13 hours ago, llap said: I would suggest it is never a good idea to bring up Jews as a specific example to extrapolate or make general statements about anything that relates either to religion, race, civilisation, or nation. They are none of these things and yet they are all of these things; they are an anomaly and there's no point in trying to put them into any category. I am less familiar with the Sikhs but can appreciate how they too would not fit into neatly created categories made up by deluded western sociologists. Do Hasbara pay you by the world or just a monthly fee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Quote the loony left PC thought police (they're not the real left) and their Islamic terrorist buddies Comedy post of the year winner 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.