Another of my occasional series. This one, however, is better than average. The arguments presented are a masterclass in sophistry, so sit back and enjoy.
The Free Speech Union is discussing the Salman Rushdie incident.
I’ve seen the public order act being used to silence dissent before. It doesn’t wash. Criticism, insult and mockery are not public order issues. The public order issues arise from those who have taken offence and seek to extract retribution, yet, in this man’s head, the victim of the violence is to blame. So, we should all shut up and not criticise the religion of peace in case we get peacefully killed. Notice that Mr Woolford is careful ‘not to defend’ such violence. Hover, this is a façade as he does precisely that later on.
All I’m doing here is reiterating the free speech principle – I’m ignoring any hate speech laws because they are in breach of that principle.
So, we are being told that we are defaming Islam if we ridicule, mock or criticise. Yet Islamic blasphemy laws are not a part of English law and never should be, so no defamation has taken place. I’m aware of protected characteristics. People should, indeed, be free to practice their religion free from persecution. However, mockery and criticism is not persecution. I don’t care what Muslims think or what their holy book says. They are bound by those rules, the rest of us are not and should not be. We are now seeing common decency used as an excuse to cover this attempt at censorship from emotion.
The point about defaming family being comparable to criticising religion is a classic non sequitur and this one gets more attention as the discussion goes on.
Okay, so I went into full fisking mode. I was wasting my time.
The free speech principle does mean you get to say what you like (defamation and incitement notwithstanding). Of course, there may be consequences as you get shunned by those around you or told never to darken their doors again. So be it. It is not a justification for violence and murder.
However, for someone who decided to accuse me later of putting words into his mouth, you may notice what he did there. Okay, so I said I wasn’t going to bite… But…
Merely a reiteration of what I’d said before. Blasphemy laws are an anathema to civilised society and should be resisted. And as I don’t follow any religion, their laws simply do not apply to me. Of course, we do have the nonsensical hate speech laws, although more likely it will result in a non crime hate incident, whatever one of those is supposed to be. You will have noticed that he has tried repeatedly to make those who dare to criticise as the bad guys here, not those who advocate violence because they feel insulted. Bear in mind that it doesn’t take much to cause offence and insult to these people.
Oh, I am well aware of the definitions I was using. It’s just that the comparison he is trying to make simply does not work. I like the deliberate and unnecessary offence bit. I don’t believe that Rushdie deliberately set out to cause offence. Certainly I’ve seen no evidence of it. Also, any criticism is taken as an insult, so the only solution is to say nothing and submit. That’s not common decency, that’s craven cowardice in the face of a violent and extreme invader.
I’ll let these exchanges speak for themselves. What we see is someone who doesn’t get how the free speech principle works and blames those who dare to speak out for any ‘karma’ that comes their way. Sure, there will always be consequences as I’ve mentioned above, but that isn’t what is being discussed here, is it? As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, this is an argument for censorship dressed up as decency.
So someone else pops into the discussion to mention Batley – a valid issue here.
Maybe Mr Woolford is starting to get it in part at least. In part being the best we can expect, I suppose. He seems to miss that consequences don’t involve the violent response that the slightest affront these people feel engenders.
I’ll leave it there, I think.
Update: Since I wrote the above, there have been a couple more exchanges. Mr Woolford goes on at length repeating his earlier points, having completely missed mine. And, yes, his analogy is flawed. A set of ideas is not comparable to a person, but he persists.
I thought a simple signoff, reiterating how the principle actually works to put the discussion to an end would make sense. One hopes.
And that’s the crux – offence is taken, not given. Those who rush to demonstrate because a book they haven’t read says something that someone else says is insulting to their prophet are, indeed, emotionally immature.
One final point here – I take Stoney’s comment that Mr Woolford is better than the average that I show here and is arguing from good faith because he genuinely believes what he is arguing. However, that is perhaps worse. He is defending the indefensible and using sophistry to disguise it.
Not as bad as some that you have covered here. The guy is wrong but seems to be arguing in good faith. I think that the non sequiteurs and category errors are just that, errors, rather than someone who deliberately uses flawed reasoning to try to win the argument.
The flawed reasoning comes in the form of conflating religious belief and people who practise it. Also, his use of karma while on the one hand trying to say that he does not condone violence, but if it happens well you asked for it. I’d be more forgiving if it wasn’t for that.
Interesting that Mr. Woolford phrases his points regarding respectable free speech as those pertaining to theological, high brow discussions. Whereas, in fact, all speech, theological, academic or otherwise is rightly subject to ridicule and piss taking. That is how an open society balances the effect of those who believe only their measured opinions are valid enough. His argument has a whiff of ‘respectable intellectuals’ can comment, but not thicko common folk approaching the subject more bluntly. Like you say, this is all dressed up nicely, but that is how it read to me.
Yup, I got the pseudointellectualism as well.
Anybody calling themselves ‘Christian’ ie. A follower of Christ, would do well to study His attitude and comments to the Pharisees, Scribes , Gnostics and other Jewish sects. Might raise an eyebrow. The apostle Paul wasn’t too keen either. Such a person should also refrain from calling Mohammed a ‘prophet’ as he clearly fails all biblical tests for such.
Elijah on Mount Carmel, openly mocking the ‘prophets’ of Baal is another example.
BTW, it most certainly was not a metaphor, it was, at best, a simile.
You gotta stop with this teaching pigs to sing thing ?
Well, yeah, but I can’t help myself. I am weak in the face of temptation.
Addendum, I find appeals to karma a very strange attitude from a professed Christian.
I also think God is more than capable of dealing with morons, of which I am one, should He so wish, without the assistance of random knife-men.
Yes, karma is a predominantly Buddhist concept and an anathema to Christianity. Not least, because Christianity does not accept the idea of reincarnation and karma being visited through multiple lives.
I wonder if he is familiar with Romans 12:19?
Revelation 3 v 16 seems apt.
Christian only so far as there is no clash with his middle class sensibilities.
He lost me in the first sentence. The right to free speech is absolute, and the law infringes upon it. That is, a distinction must be made between natural rights and “legal rights”. There may be good reason for the law restricting your God-given liberty, but don’t try to pretend that’s not what it’s doing.
Yes, he missed this one repeatedly, not just in discussion with me, but with others who tried to point it out. It’s a classic ‘I believe in free speech but…’ where the ‘but’ negates everything that went before. There are plenty of them about.
He lost me with “…it is forbidden for Muslims to criticise the Quran or their prophet.”
“Therefore defamatory language used by non-Muslims against these sacred tenets of their religion…” should have been followed by something like “…are quite all right, because they are non-Muslims who are not forbidden.” Not “…fall under the discrimination act and are illegal…”
Presumably if I find what Mr Woolford says offensive, and threaten to kill him if he repeats it, his own principle demands he stop saying it then?
Or that he is guilty of a public order offence if you do. His fault, after all.
Personally, if a member of my family had sex with a 9 year old, I would be happy for people to insult them.
I have made this point on-line before, it’s not original to me but it’s worth repeating:
If the ideas of Islam were put forward by middle-aged white men instead of predominantly brown-skinned people it would be banned.
Islam is oppressive, openly denies equal civil rights to non-adherents and is violent.It is most certainly not a Religion of Peace.
I’ve often said much the same thing, though I’ve usually said that if the tenets of Islam were propounded by any western political party it would be closed down and stamped on hard. You are probably right however, its the colour of the adherents that makes it untouchable, more than it being a religion. You can see that in how the usual Leftist suspects deal with Christianity and homosexuality – they berate the white parts of the church, but ignore entirely the non-white parts, who are usually far less tolerant of gays than the western (ie mostly white) parts are.
This man AW is an idiot. An erudite and articulate one, but still an idiot. Facts – Islam has no application to a Nation called The United Kingdom; criticism and doubt also qualify for elimination in Islam as well as mockery and insult, so according to his lights, the fact that any British citizen in Britain, can be eliminated for
questioning Islam is entirely understandable. Moron!
In some respects people like that are worse because you have to spend time picking apart their sophistry. As you say, they come across as educated and reasonable.
Well that’s my problem with many of the middle class left wingers that I know, their sophistry.
https://nypost.com/2022/08/16/salman-rushdies-the-satanic-verses-tops-bestsellers-lists/
Actual lol.
Hahahaha. Brilliant fuck you to the RoP.
That has made my day!