Quote kirkstaller="kirkstaller"We need more calm here.
It's never constructive to post when angry, which is what I suspect quite a few people on here do. I know that we often disagree on issues which are emotional, but I always find that it is better to walk away from the PC and make a cup of tea before posting a response. Once you've literally let off some steam, reason takes over and you can make a positive contribution to the debate.
My two cents.'"
Whilst I appreciate the sentiment, I also disagree with what you say (to an extent).
I disagree in that I think that, within this context, one of the major things that makes many people angry is attempting to debate rationally with others whose very basis for their intolerance is something for which there is not a shred of evidence.
And here we hit the impasse – and the wider problem of how we treat religion in a society that, by and large, does not actually appreciate fundamentalist religious adherence and most certainly not the proselytising of such.
That, of course, becomes in itself a problem for anyone who believes in the right of free speech. And generally I suspect that a lot of the more impolite language about it has been a response to that conundrum: no – we do not ban; we do not censor. But we do, therefore, expect to be able to voice strongly and in unequivocal terms our responses to nonsense arguments.
Some religious appear to want to have their cake and eat it: they want to have, for themselves, the right to say whatever they want about certain groups and issues. But when people respond, they whine about how badly they're treated.
It's rank hypocrisy.
