I'll address your comments here when I have the time, as you seem to have a taken an interest in my work and I certainly welcome dissenting opinion. Meanwhile, I'm flattered by your interest in myself and my blog - though somewhat confused by:
- My link to my personal blog being removed due to it being a link to a personal blog, but your link to my blog not being removed.
- That discussion of me isn't considered off-topic.
Be careful though, all this attention might feed into my NPD. :)
Regarding such, I say:
Be yourself, even if you're a sociopath.Best wishes,
Turns out the if-statement wasn't the "potentially libelous" one. Though if I recall correctly it was hypothetical and phrased as a rhetorical question. It was a reply to Steve Zara's post:
Your position is wrong. For goodness sake, this is a few students advertising for a pub evening using a cartoon that probably amused them.and went something like:
Then why when I imagine a group of these college lads leaving said pub with a healthy buzz and stumbling across a lone Muslim girl am I concerned for her safety?
The day I see atheists threatening violence or inciting hatred or indulging in any other kind of threatening behaviour, I will not hesitate to condemn them for it.
You are struggling with this I can tell. Bullies ridicule as part of the bullying tactics, but not all ridicule is bullying. It's a concept you really need to grasp.
"We want to win arguments by cogency. I think ridicule is a weapon, but it must be witty ridicule and not just abuse,” he says." Richard Dawkins, The Sunday Times, 22 Jan., 2012Since the post was representative of an atheist group, it is speaking for the group, and that should be considered when deciding what to post (less hub-bub for an individual posting what he pleases. When it's representative of a group you're moving from freedom of expression into something more convoluted). Paula Kirby should not accuse those promoting tolerance of infringing upon the right to freedom of expression when they oppose an intolerant message, they're just promoting tolerance.
Why can’t what I’m saying be what I’m saying? Why do you insist on reading what I write, then accusing me of saying things I haven’t?
Because it's a problem when you use emotive language like, bullying, persecution, harassment, provocation, bat-shit crazy.Well, I tried calling it "calling someone's mother fat," but you and my other friends at RDF would have none of that.