I still think your response in post #16 about a foreign poster's use of language comes across as patronising racism to me, especially since it was you that misunderstood the meaning of Sriram's post.
Once again you have got it wrong.
Your rather unsubtle inference being that I somehow think that because Sriram is from India that he can't write English properly. I've never said this and I don't think it. I have no issue whatsoever with Sriram's written English, - there are a number of posters on this MB who regularly produce posts with written English that comes across as poorly written and incomprehensible. Sriram isn't one of those - his posts, and indeed his blog pieces are always well written.
The issue isn't how he says something but what he says.
Secondly - sometimes a post (from whoever) can post something which is confusing or unclear (we all do it). My approach with others (including yourself) and with Sriram, is often to ask them to clarify, and then if I'm still not clear to pose a straightforward question that gets to the heart of the matter. I've done this with you, I've done this with Vlad, I've done this with AO, I've done this with Jeremy P, I've done this with NS. And I did it with Sriram - so exactly the same approach - why is this somehow racist when used with Sriram, yet not when I use exactly the same approach with you, NS, Jeremy, OA, Vlad etc etc.
Third - sometimes people make comments which may not be intended to cause offence, but actually do. That isn't anything about the written English, nor does it relate to whether someone has English as a first language (I've no idea whether Sriram has, but his written English doesn't suggest he doesn't). It relates to the differing perspectives, values and experiences of the writer of the piece and the reader of a piece. It is perfectly acceptable to point out to someone who may have made a point that could cause offence that they might want to think about their choice of words, particularly where as I made plain, I didn't feel that Sriram intended to be insulting.
But the broadest point here is as follows:
Atheists regularly come across arguments that effective run as follows:
'you atheists are doomed, bad, lacking in virtue (delete as appropriate), but you can be saved, good, virtuous (delete as appropriate) provided you follow the rules of my religion'I perceived Sriram's posts, including following his clarification as another articulation of this trope, which, not unreasonably, I have a problem with. But I don't just have a problem when Sriram posts in this manner - I also have a problem (and make my point) when Vlad makes a similar argument, when AB makes a similar argument, when AO makes a similar argument etc. So why is it racist when I raise the same point with Sriram that I have with others who happen to be based in the UK, ex-UK but Finnish etc etc.
And, of course, it wasn't just me who took issue with Sriram's moral certainty about his religion/spirituality, which is casually dismissive of other philosophical positions that may also consider devotion, selflessness and wisdom as important. Note that Bramble, Enki, Udayana and Jeremy P did so too.
