So, I've been posting on a gaming forum, a subforum of which is a general "off-topic" forum, of which one of the threads is devoted to political discussion.
I made the claim that no muslim can be trusted because they believe it's OK to lie in certain circumstances. The moderator asserted that it's unacceptable to call a whole group of people untrustworthy.
I promptly responded that I refuse to be censored and that, indeed, the things that I am saying are true and supported by the evidence. I further PMed him and objected to the sheer liberal censorship he was effecting against me.
He wrote me back, either right before or after banning me from the site for a day:
I just wrote an answer to him that I thought you guys would appreciate:
The moral of the story?
Liberals believe in freedom of speech.
Just so long as you agree with them. :nono:
I made the claim that no muslim can be trusted because they believe it's OK to lie in certain circumstances. The moderator asserted that it's unacceptable to call a whole group of people untrustworthy.
I promptly responded that I refuse to be censored and that, indeed, the things that I am saying are true and supported by the evidence. I further PMed him and objected to the sheer liberal censorship he was effecting against me.
He wrote me back, either right before or after banning me from the site for a day:
It's not censorship, this is a private forum which you agree to follow the moderators of when you sign up. If you had said something along the lines of "radical Islamists are untrustworthy because of taqiya" then that would have been left alone, it was inaccurate and impolite generalisation which led to an in thread warning to pull your head in. And that warning stands
I just wrote an answer to him that I thought you guys would appreciate:
Traditio said:1. It's not just radical Islamists. It's a doctrine generally and historically accepted by Muslims of all sorts.
But let's ignore whether you are right or I am right. It speaks volumes that you're not willing to allow the matter to be publically debated. You're willing to ban and censor me simply for asserting that such and such a doctrine is held in Islam, and that this doctrine renders those who believe in Islam untrustworthy.
You're not even willing to debate the matter on its own merits.
If you think that my opinion is impolite or incorrect, then you should be presenting evidence that I'm incorrect, or else, encouraging others to do so. Instead, you are attempting to silence/censor my opinion.
That's not acceptable.
2. This is exacerbated by the fact that, if you actually read the thread in which you "warned" me, I took very special precautions to avoid being impolite to my interlocutor. I believe I said something to the effect of: "Nothing I've said is personal or directed at you in particular, even if you are Muslim. Rather, I am making a general claim about Muslims in general. You may or may not be being truthful, but I have no reason to believe that you are, given that you have claimed to subscribe to a religion in which x view is held."
Syllogistically, we may express this as follows:
1. Whoever thinks it's OK to lie may not be trusted to tell the truth.
2. Muslims assert that it's OK to lie in certain circumstances.
3. Therefore, Muslims may not be trusted in those circumstances.
Do I think that a Muslim might consider it kosher to lie to a so called "islamophobe" in order to counteract "islamophobia"?
I'll let you answer that.
At any rate, I wish to hammer in this point:
I was not being impolite. I took great care to avoid insulting anyone in particular. Fact is, you are censoring me simply because of the views that I've held, and the way that you are conducting yourself is simply authoritarian. Rather than allowing the matter to be openly debated and settled based on the evidence, you are iron-fistedly silencing the discussion.
The simple fact that someone might find a given opinion offensive does not make the expression of that opinion, in and of itself, impolite.
Let me be clear, [moderator]:
I am a Ph.D. student in philosophy. Simply in terms of intellectual merits, you are my intellectual inferior. I refuse to be intimidated or censored by someone such as yourself.
And frankly, the fact that you are averse to allowing my opinions to be debated openly, and the fact that you would prefer to censor and silence me, bears great testimony to the utter bankruptcy, not only of your own intellectual capacities, but of the liberal ideology of which you are an adherent.
You should be ashamed.
The moral of the story?
Liberals believe in freedom of speech.
Just so long as you agree with them. :nono: