There is a logical reason that I used the term no right to not be offended. It is not sophistry. All persons have the right to be offended, but the reverse is not true. The incorrect notion that one has a right "to not being offended", can only be countered with there is no right "to not being offended". I know of no clearer way to say this. If you can do better, please do so.
Sophistry in that it is a go nowhere argument. I am far less concerned about our "lack of rights" than our responsibilities and our rights. That's all. Those discussions lead some place productive. I see no purpose in discussing "that we have no right to not be offended." Finally, for the third time, I never wrote that we have a right to not be offended.
You are the one that first proffered that statement, and keep promulgating it.
But this is quite off topic and in no way justifies your personal attack against my character and integrity.
You (and the other guy) keep writing that. It is these kinds of things that drag a potentially provocative discussion down. All I wrote is that one statement in one post in one thread is sophistry (and sophomoric). I never wrote that your whole post is sophomoric, nor any of your threads. I certainly never called
you sophomoric. Why can you not distinguish and take some (constructive) criticism from me? I never attacked you. It is the one statement you wrote that I commented on. Geez.
Fundamentalist Muslims are those who read and believe the Qur'an in the literal sense and attempt to apply its mandate lierally and universally. Governments, like the Taliban government of Afghanistan, the Fatah and Hamas parties in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the regime in Saudi Arabia are fundamentalist Islamic regimes. They are not radical, but rather enjoy widespread popularity among large elements of their population. Al Quaeda is a fundamentalist Islamic group that is held in high regard in the mid-eastern world. Rather than being extremist, they represent the mind-set of a large population of fundamentalists in the middle east as well. Do you not remember the massive celebrations throughout the middle east on 9/11?
Yes. And though I find them repulsive, hateful and offensive, I do not have the right to not be offended. Right?
Isn't this what you've been arguing all along? They have a right to protest, even if you or I find it distatseful.
I do distinguish ordinary Muslims from the fundamentalists, but it is the fundamentalists that wish to impose the Islamic code throughout the world and actively support and fund terrorism, killing U.S. troops and civilians in the process.
Thank you, but you do not go far enough. Not all fundamentalist Muslims are evil. That is a common misconception, and I thought you already conceded that point...apparently not.
Should you choose to throw your support behind such fundamentalists as Al Quaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Fatah or Hezbollah, you are free to do so.
Where do you come off? More sophistry.
Further to the issue of your personal insult to me, my intolerance. Be it known right now, that I defend religious freedom as ardently as I defend free speech (which you are against, per this thread).
Boy, that sure sounds good on paper, but your attack on Catholicism and the Muslim religion (post #11) is hardly what I call the Defender of Religions. Quite the Crusader you are.
So what have you done or sacrificed, John, in your personal or public life to support your high-flung ideals of tolerance? What gives you the right to pass judgment on me? What gives you the right to fling such baseless and unsubstantiated insults my way?
I am no so simple as to fall into that trap. You and the other guy accuse me of being ego-driven. You have no idea. My right is free speech. My opinion matters. And I have
not "insulted" and "passed judgment" on you. For the fourth time, I commented on one of your statements...that's all. If I can impune your character and integrity with such unintentional ease, then I am sorry that you are so easily offended. I never meant to impune or injure you.
