To begin with, a certainty attaching to your approach that you garnered from a wiki article.
Except, I didn't appeal to the wikipedia article until after the moderator reacted to my posting with an authoritarian "YOU CAN'T SAY THAT."
Furthermore, a "certainty attaching to my approach" is not rude or impolite. The appropriate answer to such a "certainty" is counter-evidence, not censorship.
If someone decided to tell you your philosophical business with a background that was comprised of a wiki article and then held forth on your veracity and the veracity of every philosopher who followed Aristotle because that article said Aristotle said that it was permissible to lie, well, I don't think you'd feel comfortable with it. I think you'd be offended. Most people would.
I wouldn't demand that the view be censored. I'd present counter-evidence. In the same thread, the claim was made that Aristotle was fine with sodomy. Had I not been censored, I would readily have provided textual evidence that he thought that sodomy was a crime against nature.
It's a bit like an anti-theist aiming rhetoric at Christians while evidencing no substantive familiarity with the Bible.
Again, the answer to this is counter-evidence and open debate, not censorship.
I understand that liberals find this a positively bizarre notion (thus the behavior of the liberal protestors at Trump rallies), but I assure you, it makes perfect sense.
A poor bet. Though not all Muslims agree, which is why as with Christendom there are schisms and differences on application of verse, that sort of thing.
Again, this is a legitimate point to make in the course of a public/open debate. It is not a legitimate excuse to censor someone.
I thought portraying every Muslim as untrustworthy because it may be permissible to lie under particular conditions is a bit under thought.
I presented an argument for this in the following posting for which I was banned:
Premise: X can be trusted if and only if can be expected to tell the truth in a given set of circumstances.
Premise: Muslims cannot be expected to tell the truth in certain circumstances.
Conclusion: Muslims cannot be trusted in those circumstances.
But again, I wish to point out that the problem is the censorship. I asked you what you found objectionable or impolite in the posting to which the moderator took exception, and you've ultimately come up with nothing at all. Because you can't. Nothing I said was impolite. I took great care to tell my interlocutor that I intended no personal insult.
Christians have the same freedom. Do you believe it is a moral good or fault to lie to protect the innocent from the evil, by way of example?
I think that it's always wrong to tell a lie. Regardless of the circumstances.
We can debate this, but ultimately, it's irrelevant to the thread.
I made a claim about a matter of fact, and the moderator chose, not to ask for evidence of the claim, for my reasoning, or encourage others to provide counter-evidence. No. He chose the censorship route.
It is in how you framed a point that could and arguably should have come as a question to the Muslim. Someone who unlike you has likely read the book in question. A simple, "I read that the Quaran permits Muslims to lie to those outside of the faith. If that is true and this (citation) speaks to it, then how can those of us outside of your faith feel comfortable that we aren't being deceived?"
I shouldn't have to present it in the form of a question. If I am in error, then others should be presenting counter-evidence, not calling for me to be censored. Period.
But the real reason you were tossed was how you confronted the mod, which was rude and pointlessly assumptive, right or wrong.
Read what he said. He basically said: "It is not acceptable to make certain claims about entire classes of people. [Never mind whether or not those claims are true. It's simply not acceptable! HATE SPEECH!]"
That's illegitimate censorship and that
merits confrontation and protest.
The proper response to someone saying saying that a given point of view may not be expressed, whether it's true or not, whether it's well supported or ill-supported...
...
Well. We're on TOL. I can't tell you what the proper response is. That would get me banned.
No, the mod chose to toss a yahoo who when told to take the volume down instead not only got into said mod's face, but insulted him and attempted to expand the insult to his entire contextual approach. It was you, not your message, that put you on the bench.
You are speaking as though the initial approach of the mod was legitimate, that he had legitimate cause to call me out over my posting. I disagree with this. You have yet to point out anything in the posting that should have merited moderator intervention beyond: 1. the presentation of counter-evidence, 2. a request for evidence or 3. the suggestion that others present counter-evidence.
He didn't. This is basically what went down:
Me: Such and such is the case.
Him: YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!
Me: If it's true, I'm saying it. As for you, if you think that you have some kind of claim to censor me, you can...[censored]
He had it coming. :idunno:
So what he actually said was, if anyone tries to broad brush any religion as liars they're coloring outside of the lines. He gave you an opportunity to change your method. I've already shown you how easy that would be.
Supra. The burden isn't on me to change my approach and soften my claims. The burden is on my opponent to present counter-evidence.
Edit:
Finally, I'd like to note that I presented the wikipedia article as evidence. This is much greater evidence than what the moderator and my interlocutor presented. They presented no evidence.
lain: Okay, let's see if you shook the hubris out with your last exercise.
