Gabriella,
My line about emulating was in reference to not getting angry and showing kindness and tolerance in the face of insults - having garbage thrown at you.
And you seem to think that not burning down a dying woman’s house for doing that was some kind of indicator of that kindness and tolerance. It isn’t. It just means that you’re not a sociopath.
My quote was not of the traditional story. My quote was of the article - hence I linked to the article to show that my bit in italics is from an article. If you opened the link it would have immediately become clear that the author was talking about Benghazi. The author's use of the story was to add on the line about not burning down the house in reference to the attack on the Benghazi consulate.
Again, read what you actually said about your husband, the mosque, what you’d “heard” about Mohammed and the story about that that you quoted. Either the story in the final paragraph had relevance to all that or it didn't. You choose.
You also posted a link to an article in which the same story was quoted – that too may or not have merit in its own right but it’s a different use of the same story.
In any case, if you’re now saying that someone not burning down a dying woman’s house in response to her throwing rubbish at him isn’t a good indicator of his showing “mercy, humility” after all then I’d stick with that position if I were you.
If someone tells you to read an article for clarification it's probably best just to read the article if you actually care about understanding someone else's perspective. On the other hand, if you're just on here to deliver one-liners for your own amusement, carry on.
Hence I said read the link when you queried the line about burning down the house. The link was talking about the attack on Benghazi. I assumed that people would remember that the attackers set fire to the consulate.
Wrong again – see above.
As I said it's the school's policy, not mine. I have no idea why they suspend first and investigate later but it seems to be the process these days.
Why do you think there was a “policy” involved rather than just concern at the potentially violent responses of some people who felt “offended”?
You seem to have an odd fixation with my use of the word "woke".
Evasion noted.
I think in the real world it depends on the situation and potential consequences. Tact, diplomacy, protecting bigger interests will influence the decision on a case by case basis I imagine. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour as the saying goes.
I couldn’t disagree more. Freedom of speech is fundamentally, vitally important to a free society. Tact, diplomacy etc are tactical considerations but the moment you limit freedom of speech for fear that others could be offended by its exercise is the moment you start to lose that freedom. Censorship has always been the handmaiden of despots and dictators and fascists who rely on it to extinguish opposition.
And you know which freedom of speech cases should be defended the most? Yep, the hard ones. Take David Irving’s holocaust denial for example – some countries ban that (Austria I think does) but it was when his arguments were heard in open court and found to be untrue that he was shown to be wrong. And you know who should be among the most vociferous defendants of the right of a teacher to use the cartoons in the classroom? Yep, the same muslims who are waving banners outside the school demanding “justice”.
You can join the dots to the answer why for yourself but if Muslims want to live in a society in which they are free to express their views, then the last thing they should be advocating I’d have thought is limits placed on freedom of speech because one day exactly the same grounds could be used against them. “You want to preach sermons about Mohammed? Sorry, but that offends me so it’s banned...”.
Short version: be very, very careful about what you wish for.
