So you posted a quote from the UDHR that you agree has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.
I agreed to nothing, Mr. Chairman. I think the articles have some relevance to the topic. While it doesn't address or qualify a religious belief, it nonetheless supports the right to any belief and explicitly, the freedom to express opinions without interference. It says nothing of proof or criticism or what interference really means but clearly the charter encompasses critical thought under freedom of opinion and expression. So in essence, the charter does support your assertions though the question may be where the line is between one's freedom and anothers especially with regard to the topic.
But if you felt the post was irrelevant, you could've just said so in the beginning, yes?
You did
Then you proceeded to "address the person".
I didn't address the initial post to anybody in particular and posted no opinion on it. Rather than speaking to what the articles say and support, you questioned me on what I think they say and support or rather, what they don't. This does not mean you failed to address the issue, only that you did so by making it personal instead of objective. Such a distinction should be apparent
Like I said, you could've addressed the ideas directly. "While I agree with the articles, I think criticism is/is not...etc" That you chose to make it personal instead is a matter of record. It could've been a different and better conversation IMO
But while we're on the personal note, I suspect this post of the charter ruffles your feathers a bit, yes? I mean, why would you rather question me and my alleged misunderstanding of the charter's intent? Do you have a problem with me posting such ideas or the ideas themselves?