What irks me about this particular post, is this nugget of wisdom:
Give the guy credit! At least he stakes his claim, offers his opinion and is willing to stick his neck out. He admits he is an atheist!I agree with the last sentence at least. In fact, I'd say that is exactly what I've been trying to do. I'm not sure why Pat Condell should get credit for staking his claim. I mean. Tony Blair staked his claim on a 'dodgy dossier'. He was wrong, but should we give him credit for it? I'm not sure how he is sticking his neck out either. Is the implication that he is in danger for making his claims? And so what if he admits he is an Atheist? I understand he is an Atheist. That does not make his views more or less valid than anyone elses'. Does it?
Hey! It’s a free world. Let’s keep it that way! We need dialogue not dis-respect.
I'm all for respectful dialogue. Condell, though, doesn't want dialogue. In fact, he is actively avoiding it. Apart from his first video, none of his rants has actually been a reply or a comment on anything else going on in the YouTube community. He never responds to the replies to his videos, and I've never seen a text comment that he has posted. And, adding insult to injury, I never see him on StickAm! No. His is a monologue. We must listen to his imparted 'freethinking' pearls of wisdom, who questions him will be set upon by the freethinking police. 'You must agree with pat because he is right and all Muslims are wrong' is the typical chain of reasoning.
Ironic? I think so!