Politics Is controversial far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders thinking of an Australian visit?

[Sydney Bloods]

Not up to me, as I'd be too biased.

As I said, I think Aus has it pretty spot on.

What do you think should be changed, and why?

rollback protections politicians enjoy, apart from that not a great deal. other then lifting bans on political parties for ideological reasons. no one should be banned from participating based on what they say, but they must be held accountable.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

I'd agree with that, but how would you make them accountable? And what if the damage has already been done?
Do we also have a responsibility to try and limit the possibility of riots, or segregation?

without parliamentary protections slander and discrimination and liable laws would all apply, arrest those who break them.

trying to limit riots is extremely problematic some of the most horrible laws ever passed were made it "limit civil unrest" so no i don't think that should be focus.

segregation doesn't even enter into it, you ever heard the phrase my right to swing my arm ends where the other man's face begins. segregation is discrimination plain and simply. without parliamentary protections you couldn't even try to pass the policy.

 

[Monniehawk]

Actually, history says yes. If people cannot peacefully protest an idea, like through dialogue, then you end up with blowback.

Seriously, if you think that silencing an argument through dialogue is a bit much, you are quite the pacifist. I cannot believe someone thinks that silencing an argument through dialogue is the wrong way to go about it.



I ask again, When did Hitchens call for the banning of the bible? When did Dawkins call for religion to be banned??

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/330958-it-would-be-intolerant-if-i-advocated-the-banning-of
"
“It would be intolerant if I advocated the banning of religion, but of course I never have. I merely give robust expression to views about the cosmos and morality with which you happen to disagree. You interpret that as ‘intolerance’ because of the weirdly privileged status of religion, which expects to get a free ride and not have to defend itself."


You're running around pretending to be some sort of rational voice, but your whole opinion is based on ignorance. You haven't provided any evidence for your position because you haven't even bothered to look into anything relating to what you are saying.

Anti-theism means the opposition to theism, it is NOT the avocation for its prohibition. Sure, some nutbags might be pushing for this, but the two names you have smeared are NOT a part of this group. Neither is the wider so-called 'new atheist' movement.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, and your opinion is rubbish.

You have made a couple of assumptions: The first assumption is that I disapprove of using rational argument to neuter other ideas. Not the case. What I had (admittedly, rather poorly) tried to say was that Dawkins is almost manic in his condemnation of religion and that this interferes with his reasoning. As a gifted writer, it is this single aspect that lets him down, imho. Otherwise, love his work!
Dawkins is anti-religious. No real argument with that. "Dawkins became a prominent critic of religion and has stated his opposition to religion is twofold: Religion is both a source of conflict and a justification for belief without evidence.[9]:282–286 He considers faith—belief that is not based on evidence—as "one of the world's great evils"'
That paints a broad brush, and frankly, is part of the hectoring science hype that is scornful of other disciplines! More on that later!
Too much of New Atheism is actually anti-theist in its nature. It implies that science and religion cannot co-exist. Clearly nonsense! Frequently (and Dawkins and Hitchins can be quite strident here!) NA deteriorates into rants about the negatives of religion but lacks the rigour of true historical and theological research. Dawkins is a brilliant ethologist and author but rather ordinary theologian. Theology, like other humanities, differs from the empirical academic disciplines of science, etc., as the humanities employs critical, speculative and historical reasoning. That may well be crux of the dichotomy!
Prominent atheist and academic, Tim O'Neill has some insightful comments about NA, Dawkins and Hitchins. He questions and disproves many of the myths plied by NA's (http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/)
I might agree with much of what is assumed by NA, but I do find it a bit embarrassing when e.g. some claim that Christ did not exist. They counter the historical evidence by postulating that he was a creation of religious zealots. On the surface, the arguments are credible and appealing, but there is far too much inconvenient historical evidence from many sources that support Christ's existence. The man clearly did exist, albeit not in exactly the form as portrayed by xians.

 

[blackcat]

What authority has the West to impose democracy on every other nation?

#C21
#Zeno'sparadox

 

[blackcat]

#Thereisnospoon

are they like the st kilda spoon in the 90s that were shyte for having soup with cos they had holes drilled in them?

 

[CM86]

are they like the st kilda spoon in the 90s that were shyte for having soup with cos they had holes drilled in them?

Great for measuring pasta servings.

#thereisnoZeno

 

[blackcat]

Great for measuring pasta servings.

#thereisnoZeno

I meant

one imposes democracy undemocratically to achieve democratic ends hence mr zeno