[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by New Era

And you need to understand that when Harris makes ignorant comments about an entire religion he is being every bit as bad as Aslan

Harris has never done so. However, even if he had, this is not as bad as what Aslan and company do. They're not comparable. Let's assume Harris is saying ignorant things. The proper response is to explain why they are ignorant, not to lie about what he has said. These are different moral acts.

even though I do not see Aslan saying anything that is not true of what Harris has said.

Then you haven't been paying attention. As one of about fifty examples, after attempting to explain his position on profiling, Harris stated that we shouldn't bother searching Jerry Seinfeld, because Jerry Seinfeld is a famous comedian who is obviously not going to try to blow up the plane, and we should all be comfortable betting our lives on it. Aslan's response was to circulate a tweet suggesting that Harris meant that brown skinned people could be profiled, but not people who look like Jerry Seinfeld - i.e., jews. This sort of smearing happens constantly. It's intentional. He's even said that it's "fun" to rile Harris up by doing these things.

If Harris treated Christianity the same way he treats Islam, Harris would be a pariah, period.

He has! Repeatedly! He wrote a damned book about it! Seriously, try finding anything he's said about Islam that's more withering than the first two paragraphs of this article on Catholocism: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-ha..._b_571088.html

Good lord. Your view of reality is basically a funhouse mirror on this topic. I'm not sure we can possibly even carry on a conversation when you seem to be insisting that 1+1=3. Maybe we should just forget it, it seems destined to simply cause frustration.

I must say that it is priceless that you'll defend a complete piece of crap like Yiannopoulos, who defames everyone he talks meets or talks about

Well, first, Yiannopoulos is a self-professed troll. It's a different baseline, he doesn't really hold himself out as rational or unbiased or, frankly, sane, so I'm not sure it's an apt comparison. It's kind of like accusing the Daily Show of being a poor source of news - it's a comedy show.

But in any case, I didn't defend Yiannopoulos, I explained what his rationale was for the way he conducted himself on his speaking tour, which was what was asked for. I then said I thought that rationale was probably wrong. If you can't differentiate between that and an endorsement, you're simply not trying hard enough to think clearly.