"I also agree we should try to avoid giving offence to others. The problem is that a lot of the time one cannot know what will offend someone else"
That's the whole point, in return for empathy, society is entitled to expect that people justify their opinions with evidence and/or rational reason, otherwise anyone can arbitrarily shut anyone up simply by being offended.
"It's a minefield trying to figure out who you may innocently offend."
Actually, a lot of the time it's not that difficult at all, the people who are generally most likely to get tetchy are the ones who can't justify their beliefs with a reasoned argument.
"It's quite common these days for someone to lose their job, be ostracised, hounded and disgraced because of something they said."
And the topics to which that applies should be subject to rational debate.
"Mockery of others, or downright rudeness, just for the sake of it, under the banner of freedom of speech, liberalism or modernity, is never acceptable in my book."
The problem with that is that most humour is at the expense of someone.
"I don't respect Zeus or Mercury except as fictional figures. Same applies to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost."
As Richard Dawkins said, when it comes to most of the Gods there have ever been, everybody is an atheist, I just take it one God further.
" I'm astonished that you and others refuse to admit the need to be careful of other's feelings in this one area"
'One area' is just the point. The difference between religion and other matters such as racism for example, is that people can't produce a rational reason why they should be hurt in the first place, not that they aren't entitled to have their hurt feelings respected.
"The concepts of tolerance and open-mindedness seem to have gone by the board on this thread."
Everyone agrees with tolerating that which should be tolerated, and not tolerating that which shouldn't. This debate is about what should be tolerated, and therefore appeals for tolerance are simply begging the question.
Bad Thoughts is short manual on how to debate rationally by Cambridge philosopher Jamie Whyte, here's an apt quote:
"Another test for the absence of evidence is what might be called moral positioning. Does the opinion's defender seem a little precious on the topic? Perhaps it hasn't yet come to a fatwa, but he may in more subtle ways suggest that those who wish to keep friends in polite society ought to back off. Hurt feelings are on the cards if the matter is pushed too far.
Such sentiments are rarely roused in someone who can defend his position with sound argument and evidence. Tell someone that his feet don't look like a size nine and he will gladly prove you wrong by displaying an old shoe box or setting his feet against someone's whose you accept are a nine. It is only when someone cannot defend his opinion, and is not interested in believing the truth, that he will attempt to stifle discussion with good manners. Those who take religion, politics and sex seriously do not adhere to the general prohibition on discussing these topics. And they won't take offence when they are shown to be wrong.
If you start to feel during a discussion that you are not so much incorrect as insensitive the you are probably dealing with a 'respectable bigot'
Only a thug would expose him"
The Parisians have just found out what happens when you humour people who think that being offended is the way to get what they want.
