I have someone who says something bad and then later has a change of heart, apologizes repeatedly, and works to do better as much better than someone who says something bad and then sticks to his guns, yes.

So you think criticism of the ideas in Islam are the same as calling homosexuals animals. Interesting.

No I don't think he's lying. I do think he has zero qualifications as an historian.

Police being available to deal with violent protesters doesn't change the fact that they're preventing free speech.

No, you just like lying about my position, and lying about the extent of what Dawkins has said.

What you don't understand - and I'll try to explain, but while I seriously doubt you're intellectually capable of getting it, at least I can say I tried - is that this historical context actually matters a lot for the argument that Islamophobes like you and Dawkins make.

You guys don't say, "hey, Islam as practiced today is bad, it's become too extreme". You say "Islam is bad and has always been bad, just look at these hand-selected passages of the Koran, the religion is rotten from the inside".

If that were true, and Islam is just this uniquely awful scourge of world religions, how is it possible that the largest Muslim society in the world could also be the most progressive on gay rights at any point in history? The argument you all put forward is that such a thing should never be possible, because the badness of Islam is baked into it from the core, it's not separable from other factors that routinely change societies around the world. And you people never want to acknowledge that problems in Muslim societies today might have causes that aren't as simple as "Islam = bad", so you handwave such inconveniences away, every single time.

So, someone said something that didn't support your point, it was true, and yet you dismiss what he said because sometime in his past he said something he has since changed his mind about?

That's pretty much par for this course I think...

Yeah, it's also really easy to criticize particular ideas of Muslim people without being a bigot.

"Hey, it's really awful that Brunei is using the Quran to justify stoning gay people to death." Fine
"Hey, we should boycott everything that's associated with Brunei we can in protest of their brutal treatment of gay people." Fine
"Damn, those Saudis sure are spreading a hateful, patriarchal, and regressive brand of Islam all over the world. We should protest that." Fine
"Islam is the most fundamentally anti-gay of all religions because I read some passages, and we should restrict the immigration of all Muslims." Nope.

Almost had bingo.

Hilarious coming from you.

Where did I say it has always been bad?

I was pointing out the absurdity of using Medhi in a discussion about how Islam is progressive.

In another post I went into detail about how irrelevant his Ottoman story is in a modern context where the majority of countries in the middle east will kill you being homosexual. But of course you choose to ignore that.

Oh man this is just too good. 1 post after claiming I'm lying about your position you claim I have the opinion we should restrict the immigration of all muslims?

Please point out where I have said that. Otherwise we're done.

You can lie all you want, you're not the first troll we've seen in these parts and you won't be the last.

By the way, are conservatives infringing on Ilhan Omar's free speech?

Guys autocratic theocracies are bad therefore university students have to let milo pedopolis et al troll their campuses. It's pretty basic logic.

Gee youve responded to so many questions, you must havs missed this one. Ill just post it again.

You didn't go into detail, you missed the argument entirely. If you want to argue that it is something fundamental to Islam that explains why so many Muslim majority countries are anti-gay today, that is completely undermined by the fact that a large and prosperous Muslim-majority country was far more progressive on gay rights than was the west. Thus, it seems unlikely that Islam is the sole explainer for why so many Muslim-majority countries are currently anti-gay, and neither should we regard all Muslims as fundamentally anti-gay.

I'm sorry, did I attribute any of those quotes to you? You are welcome to spell out your opinion on Muslim immigration at any time.

It's pretty hilarious that bandit thinks three sentences written at a fourth grade level constitute "going into detail"

You are still implying that he had an opinion (that he has since apologized for repeatedly and by all appearances no longer holds) which made facts you agree are true meaningless.

How many people have actually been killed for being homosexual? Russia has become very unfriendly for the LGBQTI community, I don't remember you going to bat against them.

1) I think it's fairly obvious why we shouldn't tolerate REAL racists/bigots
2) By diluting the word you undermine it's effect when dealing with REAL racists. If someone like Dawkins get's called a racist for his criticism of religion then you'll end up calling tens of millions of people racists.
4) I think there's a small amount of people currently on the left and right who engage happily and in good faith with those they disagree with. I certainly wish there was more.

I'll give you a question, do you think the posters here have been dealing with me in good faith?

5) Are you talking about people or politicans in office here? When it comes to people you should try to engage in good faith because you can change hearts and minds more than you'd think, for politicians if you don't engage with the opposition then expect the same in return when they're inevitably in power.
6) Yes conversing in good faith is possible.
7) Obama was the best president of my lifetime and did an excellent job with that strategy. More should follow his lead.

It takes a solid foundation of cognitive dissonance to conclude that a controversial figure's right to a welcoming platform should overrride and nullify the free speech rights of others to complain about it.

I'm perfectly comfortably saying tens of millions of people are racist. It seems odd to be afraid of this but not afraid of calling a billion people anti-gay.

Not that you asked me, but to chime in: I think we ought to distinguish between arguing badly and arguing in bad faith. I think some people have been dealing with you in bad faith (though not all), and some have been making better arguments than others. That's pretty typical for internet forum discussions, I think. I also recognize it's difficult for you when it's 1 vs. 10 (or whatever).

But I also think you've been arguing badly (though not in bad faith) sometimes, e.g. your criticism of the reference to Medhi Hassan is entirely missing the point of the citation; it's a non-sequitur. The free speech angle was problematic also, as has been pointed out repeatedly.

I also think it might be useful to back up and try to restate your central point clearly, just because it seems like we're going in a lot of random directions. What is the most important point you want to make and what is the best way of making it? Is it just (2) from your response to Shame Trolley?

So no I never said it. Thanks. Try representing my views correctly in the future of you're just wasting everyone's time.

You quoted a GB post which said and and and GB fills a post up with quotes I never made and stances I don't have. You then do the same thing.

Who else are we supposed to believe you were aiming it at exactly?

The thread has been about hypocrisy of the left. They have no issues going after Russia at every turn which I applaud and agree with.

You did say earlier that you have read passages from the Quran about how violent it is, and you called Muslims who weren't violent "nominal," as if they were fakers. It is quite fair to take that to mean that you have read some select passages and concluded that Islam is fundamentally rotten. That all said, your thoughts on Muslim immigration are conspicuously absent from this thread, and everyone can see that.

Attacking students who want to attend that lecture or smashing a building up isn't "complaining".

I agree some of it has been going off in random directions but that's due to 1 v10 and a number of that 10 deliberately trying to misrepresent my views.

I got the point of the citation and spoke about it in another post but I wanted to highlight how bad it is to be using Medhi Hasan as an example of anything progressive.

My central point is I think attacking speakers/students/destroying buildings during a protest is anti free speech.

I also think there's a double standard on the when it comes to criticising various religions.