Everyone: The Ottoman Empire decriminalized homosexuality long before places like the UK and US.

Bandit: However, putting the Ottoman Empire aside, and the greater point about one century's progressives becoming the next century's regressives, would you please fret about the current state of the Middle East for my enjoyment?

I have no problem with her tweet. But it doesn't fall into the "careful" criticism of Israel Paul D claimed.

Everyone: Members of the gay community face more barbaric and harsher/widespread treatment in areas of the middle east than other parts of the world.

Oruku$aki: ZOMG but the ottoman empire decriminalised it 150 years ago! Stop your criticism immediately!

Nah man, go off. I mean, it is the reason we're itt. Try to be more subtle with the straw men though.

You didnt read what I said.

1) you did not bring up the catholics until it was mentioned by somebody else even though their rape case and the failure of authorities to prosecute FAAAAARRRRRRRRRRR outnumbers anything that happened in the case you mentioned.

2)we know exactly why you brought up one instead of the other. *cough*itsbecauseyourearacist*cough*

3) what exactly is wrong with muslim immigration into the UK? Coward

I have two family members that were sexually abused my members of the catholic church, one committed suicide.

The reason for the posts about Islam is the topic was about hypocrisy of the left, this doesn't happen with the catholic church where most of the left is united in condemning them (thankfully)

Please show an example from "the left" where a terrorist act committed by Muslims was not condemned.

So in a better world your step 1 consists of the left uniting in condemning Muslims. What's step 2?

He's also confused in that he is asking for people to condemn Muslim people instead of the Islamic church. No one blames Catholics for the abusive priests or ensuing coverup.

Side note, can you name names and give us some examples of who you think are the real McCoy racists?

When did I make this claim?

Islam like many religions is the antithesis of modern/progressive values/beliefs. But yet it is given a special status amoung many on the left and I find this hypocritical/objectionable. I notice a thread on this forum lambasting the catholic church (which as an athiest I'm all for) but I've yet to see one on Islam. Colour me shocked.

I wonder how many posters in the catholic church thread have been accused of racism, I'd wager not too many.

I'm not confused, I've said a hundred times I'm criticising ideas and their consequences.

I don't blame every catholic for the abuse or cover up, but I'm also not going to sit by while millions of people continue to tacitly support the church/abusive priests and say nothing.

Who here didnt condemn the child abuse in your example in the UK? Did any of us defend it? If not, how exactly are they different?

So, like, when do when do we get to the point where it is demonstrated that someone's right to free speech has been violated?

Well the current summary of Bandit's take on free speech goes something like:

They're different because the UK police hadn't been informed by social workers about the abuse going on in catholic churches and then choose not to act out of fears of being called racist.

When a student is getting assaulted on their way to a lecture because someone doesn't like the speaker, it's not an expression of free speech.

Smashing up a building/rioting also isn't. The Universities are forced to cancel events due to the very real threat of violence.

He isn't upset about free speech violations per se, and he's already conceded as much. He's upset with liberals disagreeing with bigots in a manner he finds unacceptable, mainly because he doesn't think the bigots are bigoted and that it's really important to say mean things about Muslims. He's also upset because he's sure that thinking gay people have the right to marry and also that Muslims have the right to worship Allah makes you a hypocrite.

If only society had some sort of organization that dealt with violent people.

Condemning the Catholic Church is different than condemning Islam.

Oh, yeah, I did enjoy the lesson on how if you say mean things about gay people, then even if you have a complete change of heart and apologize and walk back everything you said, you should not have a platform as a historian, but if you say mean things about Muslims, then you should still be guaranteed a platform as an evolutionary biologist.

Were those cops liberals? Is there any chance at all in your mind that those cops did a really **** job and then came up with a bull**** reasom they did a **** job?

Gotta take them at their words. When the **** have cops ever lied to cover their ass?

I think you need a qualification to be considered an historian. What's Medhi's?

Why do you think the police would be afraid of being called racists?

They didn't "cover their asses" multiple officers are being investigated for a failure to protect children

I got some simple enough Qs here...

1. IYO, why is it 'good' to be intolerant of "REAL racists"/etc?
2. IYO, why is it 'bad' to to "dilute the meaning"/etc?
   
   
3. If your answers to #1 & #2 is along the lines of "because, in say a USA context, less Donkeys will get elected", then... Can you give any non-anecdotal evidence of this being true in the real world?
   
   
4. Would you agree that obviously, among those peeps/orgs who have effective and significant influence on these kinda things, and which you identify as "the left", that logically at least, there are these three general scenarios...
   1. They unanimously engage happily and in good faith with those they disagree with, including those they feel aren't themselves engaging in good faith?
   2. They unanimously strongly call out what they consider simply wrong or in bad faith in these same situations?
   3. Some do (a) while some do (b)?
   
   
5. Can you give any non-anecdotal evidence that strategy (a) is always, or even sometimes, a superior strategy than strategy (c)?
6. IYO, are strategies (a) or (b) even practically possible here in the real world?
   
   
7. If your answer to #6 is a "yes", how do you propose this strategy to be pursued? How would everyone who matters that you call "the left" be effectively all forced to follow something like a "party line"?
8. If your answer to #6 is a "no", then why are you carrying on about something that IYO is not even practically possible here in the real world?

Yes because the comments by Dawkins are comparable to Medhi calling homosexuals animals. Great job.

Because people hate looking in the mirror sometimes?

They are exactly covering their asses. Why the **** do you think they came up with this lousy excuse instesd of saying they did poor police work. Whether they sucked st their job or were afraid of being cslled racist they were going to be investigated, so why not go with the excuse that might make them some gofundme dollars down the line. "We were fired because we were afraid to be called racist, and then the librulllllllls fired us. Please give us money."

There is no reason at all to believe that these guys are sincere in their "fear of being called racist" defense.

What?

Is he lying about the Ottoman Empire?

The insane choose your own adventure stuff aside, because he's simple.