Quote:
Originally Posted by AGB
Yes, I know what you asked, and I answered.
...
|
I don't believe that you believe that, but I think you got the message nevertheless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGB
... Yes, and I answered quite fulfilling ...
|
Yes, you answered, but not my question, rather one of your own making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGB
... No, I believe that it is a "choice" dictated by a culture that is in essense a theocratic patriarchy ...
|
Dictating choice sounds illogical to me. Presumably you mean the choice that someone makes is dictated to them by a theocracy. You imply that is always the case. I don't agree, however I can imagine why you might believe that, given the present climate of
Islamophobia. I think there are women who choose freely to become Muslims, and choose freely to wear a piece of cloth on their heads, just as there are women who choose freely to become nuns. Perhaps you believe that all women who choose to become nuns are coerced by the Catholic Church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGB
... Oh, great. Converts ...
|
Welcome to the real world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGB
... Next you'll bring up Born-Again Christians that are just fine with some restrictive moralizing practices ...
|
Not my cup of tea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGB
... Yes, if it were like that, it would be illogical. But as usual strawman arguments just doesn't cut it.
You're arguing against letting people do what they want, and for nguirado's and like minded's rights to try and dictate what can or cannot be worn, behaviour etc.
It's only a matter of reading your recent responses ...
|
Do you make this stuff up as you go along, or are you using one of those early so-called artificial intelligence programs that used to generate gobbledegook like this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGB
... No, I'm making the point that religiously funded morals, such as Nguirado (who, btw, argues that there is "objective morality") are restrictive and dictatorial at the very core. No matter how many "converts" or "Born Again's" you can find that have no problems with it.
...
|
I can't speak for
nguirado, but once again, it's not my cup of tea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGB
... No, it's attributing fundamentalist morals dictated by scripture or interpretation of scripture to other fundamentalist morals dictated by scripture or interpretations of scripture ...
|
Okay, so you're an atheist and from what I understand, you object to someone else talking about their values, which you assume to be a moral code that is based on religious scripture. Have I got that right? I say assume, because I don't recall
nguirado having declared any particular faith. For all I know, he might be baiting you.
My view is that it is not about showing respect for someone's religion, or their religious beliefs, it is about respecting their right to express their views, without being insulted. I do not see why, if you don't agree with someone's views, that you should feel it necessary to insult them.
Sometimes people who are incapable of expressing themselves in words, resort to using violence instead. Similarly, when debating a topic, sometimes when people feel incapable of expressing themselves adequately, or if they feel they are losing an argument, they resort to hurling abuse at their opponent.
Your arguments are debased when you resort to insulting people and causing offence. You might gain more respect if you were more courteous and tolerant. There is nothing to be gained by alienating people. If you believe sincerely in what you are arguing, then you should be aiming to persuade and convince others that you are right.
I would be rather surprised if some of the people who responded to a thread like this, concerning paedophilia, and who expressed their views, didn't base them on a set of religious values. Equally, I would expect there to be comments from those who don't feel that religion is necessary, in order to hold a moral code. In my view, neither has the right to insult the other, during any discussion.