The vocabulary someone uses in an attack on an argument shouldn't be limited by the degree to which the language might offend someone. Or should it?
To be explicit: I am not calling him stupid! Only someone intelligent could write an article like this, that's obvious, and I agree with the rest of it.
And yes, that's a superior phrasing of my argument. I should have been more descriptive in the original post, that's my fault. Do you agree with it?
I never said that, nor implied it. You're completely misinterpreting what I said.
Consider the difference between these two scenarios:
a) There's a family of 10 people, who I normatively have decided do not deserve to live. I, over the course of the next 40 years, kill them person by person, using an instant and physically painless method, one by one, one ever 4 years.
b) There's a family of 10 people who I normatively have decided do not deserve to live. I wait 40 years, and kill them all at once, using an instant and physically painless method.
Answer me this: are they the same thing?
The same end result, yes, but not the same process, and the amount of suffering in process a) is far greater, would you agree?
To say religion is not a choice would be to imply someone is being forced into it against their will. If it is against their will, surely their offence over blasphemy is insincere?
By the same line of argument that we shouldn't slander one particular long-dead paedophile warlord because he has a legion of sycophants at his metaphorical feet, we shouldn't slander a large number of other people who have a similar following and will take the same offence. So when someone says something not-so-nice about Nick Griffin, or draws a funny cartoon of him, is it not just as bad?