You just can't credibly invalidate fundamental bases of liberal democracy like not responding violently to speech by calling them 'fetishes'https://twitter.com/uberfeminist/status/873389598570815488 …
-
-
Atheists can be hypocrites too, you know.
-
They're not hypocrites. They don't claim to support free speech for all ideas. What's incredible is that they don't realise they should.
-
Just when it concerns them. Free speech matters when religion needs to be critisized. Or sometimes, certain religions.
-
But they don't make the argument that they shld be allowed to criticise it coz free speech. They say they should coz they're right
-
And seem oblivious to the fact that others think they're right too & use same argument to persecute atheists & that atheists are minority
-
Trying to generalize atheists is like trying to generalize all of religion. We have no Creed, no holy text, no authorities.
-
Yes. I have said this myself many times and am not doing this. The people arguing against Dan Arel et al are also mostly atheists.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Atheists are those without a common type of delusion. Not much more can be said about them as a group. All types will be found amongst them.
-
I'm not claiming they're a type. I'm saying they are particularly vulnerable to being silenced coz people find their views offensive.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I find it interesting how those people advocating violence look like they wouldn't last a minute in an MMA match.
-
(that observation was brought to us by
@peterboghossian)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.