: How exactly is going to a debate room especially made for discussing this very issue, sweeping it under the rug???? No one said don't discuss it, just discuss it where it might be more suitable. : --
: McSpotlight: Thanks, Karen.
I'm sorry if I insulted anyone, I thought I was playing the defender of freedom of speech etc. there.
I might add that I'm not a theological rangler here, I see religion in it's proper political context, it is part of public life and must be treated as such.
What I considered to be the sweeping, was that remarks where made about Jihads etc. when I was merely playing the role of defence and anti-defamation. Although I'm more than aware now that it wasnt either an attack on me personally or the debate but a case of trying to find a prompt moment.
--
McSpotlight: The trouble being that both sides are playing the role of defence and anti-defamation; a remark that is (perhaps unintentionally) offensive gets taken as reason to go on the offensive as a form of defence (being the best form, etc, etc).
Both of you obviously believe yourselves to be right and the other to be wrong; you're dealing with an issue of history where both sides have committed good and bad deeds and there is no actual way of telling who, if any, are right.
I guess it fits into the wider debate; we are dealing with a belief here; you either believe or you don't; if you don't, then that belief is not yours and people espousing that belief are opposing you when their belief opposes you.
The reason I don't think it's a proper "debate" as such; can either of you provide objective and debated proof that the other is wrong, given that we are dealing with intangibles? I'd be extremely surprised if either could.
