Wait so what is the thread about?
1) People will pull the Opinion Card to end debates
2) How the "right to speech" is cancerous
3) Religion
Which is it? I got bored of reading the OP.
Ah ah. Begging the question.
I'm too stupid to be intimidated the first time around by forum thuggery. Though now that you've pointed it out I'm suitably impressed, really.
The first one to illustrate the second one with the third one as a supporting example.
You have the right to remain silent.
It's my opinion = arguing against the majority
It's a fact = arguing when the majority is on your side
Both make me cringe in an argument, because it's just an easy way out.
I skimmed over the OP and your topic is only about #1. Nothing to do with the 2nd one at least.
You spent too many words trying to say it(everything concerning "rights" and religion in that post is hardly helpful to the topic.) It is simple really. 1st grade lied. There is no great rivalry between fact and opinion. They intermingle(ultimately becoming one thing.) We know from the beginning we are speaking our "beliefs" which have basis in facts(not necessarily "true facts" as we might discover in the debate.) Stating this is the case changes nothing and so the questions of the debate will remain unanswered.
This seems very obvious, though oddly enough you will encounter this almost anywhere. (And yes it does apply to matters of "personal taste." Actually, everything could be called a matter of taste anyway. "Taste of ideas.")
I go out of town for a weekend and come back to this bullshit?
Shut up and get out.
Considering the fact that Islam at its roots considers Allah and Yahweh/Jehovah as one in the same, and that the origins of the Arabs and some of the tenants of Islam are rooted in the lost tribes of Israel and Judaism, I would argue that it belongs to both Jews and Arabs and by extension Christians.
But given the history of the entire Middle East since the first World War and collapse of the Ottoman Empire, that is unfortunately not going to fly. Personally I'm of the opinion that the borders should be set according to the 1967 accord, with ALL of Jerusalem becoming an internationally-managed city-state (Israel, Palestine, the Vatican and the UN would initially fund a new, sovereign government there), and with the Palestinian Authority given governmental authority over all Jewish settlements in the West Bank (let them keep their settlements, but they become citizens of Palestine). Tall order, yes. Doable, yes if you can pull the stick out of Bibi Netenyahu's ass.
Oh yea and on-topic.. Everyone has their own opinion and their right to it. But they also need to be held accountable to it.
When do I get my right to free dip'n dots?