Comments:'Stop being so damn respectful' say free speech supporters in London
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Retard||1||07:50, 12 October 2012|
|Comments from feedback form - "It is entertaining"||0||19:49, 17 February 2012|
|What is happening to good old England!||3||07:19, 17 February 2012|
|Comments from feedback form - "Good report. Very clear accoun..."||1||23:54, 14 February 2012|
|what jesus and mo comic?||4||23:04, 14 February 2012|
|...||3||14:06, 13 February 2012|
|Comments from feedback form - "I seriously doubt that Profess..."||1||21:20, 12 February 2012|
|free speech||0||17:09, 12 February 2012|
|"unlike Islamic scholars, a true 'scholar' studies more than one book"||1||16:19, 12 February 2012|
Will this respect elimination include faggots and retards and niggers and jews? Or, just religious people?
What is happening in England, in many other English nations, and in some similar nations is not isolated happenings. The quietude of the nations are being spoiled by a very dangerous communication systems that prevail in Asian and African nations. The factor of feudalism, and respect/insult, pejorative/ennobling etc.
The issue at hand is not easy to understand from English, for what is there in the Asian/African languages are not there in English. Communication moves through certain routes of respect and subordination. Even if people think, believe and stress that they are free and independent in thoughts and action, the truth is that they all act, behave and collectively move as per the hidden codes in the language codes.
In the near future, the posterity, I mean the children of the actual natives of these nations will face a draconian social system. The political leadership is totally in ignorance of what is happening or about what is going to happen.
The issue is basically not connected to Islam as such. For, even such feudal communication can be totally haraam to Islam. Which in short may even mean that the Asian Muslims are not truly Islam as per Islamic tenets. But just members of Asian feudal social systems that function in absolute feudal form.
I deleted your userpage adverts, Ved.
Self-published, I assume from the above.
I did not know that what I was doing was a violation here. In all Blog posting that I do online, links are given to my writings. They are not advertisements per se, but more or less part of my profile. The content matter would more or less always be in tune with the ideas mentioned in the postings. I have no objections to the deletion here. Each place has it own rules and possibly idiosyncrasies.
Good report. Very clear account of the opinions expressed at the rally.
I'm not aware of the background behind this, and a description of and/or link to said comic might be helpful, since it's mentioned twice and I have no idea what this is about.
The stupid thing is that it actually isn't a Jesus and Mo cartoon, just the cover image from the Jesus and Mo book. It's posted in this blog post on the New Humanist website. (As Jesus and Mo is some form of CC NonCommercial license, I didn't post it because blergh, copyright.)
There is no pit too low for Atheists to sink to. I suppose racism on their part was only inevitable.
You seem to be under some some sort of deep misapprehension about the nature of atheism. The fact that you incorrectly capitalize the word atheist is symptomatic, as is your apparent perception of racism in advocacy of free speech.
I seriously doubt that Professor Dawkins would limit his "stop being so damn respectful" remark just to Islam. I'm pretty sure he'd include Christianity -- hell, ALL superstitions -- in that suggestion.
This joke by Dawkins somewhat annoyed me. Quick search in Google or Wikipedia would disprove this and make it a silly joke, so why make it in the first place? Don't Atheists, secularists and supporters of free speech know this bit about Islam? Perhaps the whole point is to 'offend' those who we disagree with? Anyone with answers?
Some jokes seek to contrast literal truth with a deeper obvious falseness, while others seek to contrast obvious literal falseness with a deeper truth. That joke is intended, I think, to be of the second kind: obvious literal falseness contrasting with a deeper truth.
That said, from what I know of Dawkins, he tends to be quite abrasive. He sometimes manages to get even atheists mad at him.