Plan to Build Mosque Near Ground Zero Riles Families of 9/11 Victims

So then, how about we focus more on eliminating radicals and less on the local YMCAs that pop up in our communities? If we want to urge Muslim leaders to preach peace to followers, wouldn't a mosque be a great place to do so?
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']So then, how about we focus more on eliminating radicals and less on the local YMCAs that pop up in our communities? If we want to urge Muslim leaders to preach peace to followers, wouldn't a mosque be a great place to do so?[/QUOTE]

It sure would. I think it is an excellent idea. That doesn't negate the fact that this particular one is insensitive, and some people are unhappy about it though. It is a silly thing to be arguing about, the people upset about it have said their piece, the builder has heard them and made his decision, now noone's voice is squelched, the mosque still will be built, the only thing now is for particular people to get over it, on both sides.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']Two short paragraphs that I hope you actually read. You are trying so hard to attack me, and yet you come up with your own version of what I said, with a few additions.

1. It is retarded to say that islamic extremism is completely separate from the true muslim believers. It is not black and white, column a, column b, as you so easily suggest. Daily, muslim believers are persauded NOT to take the extremist path, or to FOLLOW through with the extremist path. The world is simply asking muslim leaders to urge muslims to not take the path of extremism. If that makes a bigot out of people, then so be it.[/quote]

It's the double standard you embrace, as I'll show in just a moment. You make demands of Muslim leaders, yet...

2. I did not say to let catholics off the hook, I said that people ask catholic leaders to do the same thing other people ask muslim leaders to do. Where is your outrage then for catholics?
Click to expand...

you said no such thing:

[quote name='Knoell']Although it isn't a bad idea for christians to denounce such bombings, as I am sure christian leaders do when they preach. (how many even denounced burning the koran, and read from it in their service?).[/QUOTE]

"as I am sure christian leaders do"

You're saying that, in the absence of any genuine knowledge about what religious leaders are saying or doing:
1) You are sure Christian leaders denounce extremism
2) You aren't sure Muslim leaders denounce extremism

You give Christianity a pass, and make demands of Islam. That further shows your bigotry. The more you post, the more transparent it becomes.

I agree that if catholic leaders have any knowledge of wrongdoing they should put it forward, and also teach their believers that that is not a path they should follow. They should be outspoken about such things, and not go on like they do not exist.
Click to expand...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/15/eveningnews/main6400632.shtml

oops.

On one hand you are flipping out about people asking muslim leaders to do something, and on the other hand you were incorrectly flipping out that I thought catholic leaders should be let off the hook. So which is it? All,
nothing, or one of each?
Click to expand...

You are unable to remember what your prior posts argue. Find me one thing you've said, prior to your post this morning, that shows you are willing to hold Catholics or other Christians to account. Your hypothetical discussion from the other night doesn't count, as that's hypothetical pablum.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's the double standard you embrace, as I'll show in just a moment. You make demands of Muslim leaders, yet...



you said no such thing:



"as I am sure christian leaders do"

You're saying that, in the absence of any genuine knowledge about what religious leaders are saying or doing:
1) You are sure Christian leaders denounce extremism
2) You aren't sure Muslim leaders denounce extremism

You give Christianity a pass, and make demands of Islam. That further shows your bigotry. The more you post, the more transparent it becomes.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/15/eveningnews/main6400632.shtml

oops.



You are unable to remember what your prior posts argue. Find me one thing you've said, prior to your post this morning, that shows you are willing to hold Catholics or other Christians to account. Your hypothetical discussion from the other night doesn't count, as that's hypothetical pablum.[/QUOTE]

Why don't you find one post this morning that says I excuse catholics or christians from being held accountable? We are talking about muslims and you decide to transfer the situation over to christians assuming I would not want the same thing to be applied to catholics/christians. This is where you are wrong.

If you agree that the catholic church should come forward and deal with the issues of a minority of its members, then how can you disagree that muslim leaders should come forward and deal with the issues of a minority of its members.

This is where the situation is not comparable however. The situation of the church protecting pedophile priests would be comparable to particular muslim leaders sheltering terrorists. As abortion clinic bombings would then be comparable to the activities of terrorists.

So what would you say if I said that catholic and christian leaders should not only turn in those they are sheltering, but they should consistently preach that violence should not, and will not be the answer to their qualms with society?

Would you like that to happen?

It is what I believe should happen, stop telling me that since I agree with something, I probably don't agree with a different shade of the same thing.

I will be waiting for you to quote my post of giving catholics/christians a pass.
 
"Although it isn't a bad idea for christians to denounce such bombings, as I am sure christian leaders do when they preach."

Who said that? Who is so *sure* that this happens on Sunday mornings all across America? Who gives religious leaders of one type the benefit of the doubt they won't give another?

Oh, you? Oh, my!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']"Although it isn't a bad idea for christians to denounce such bombings, as I am sure christian leaders do when they preach."

Who said that? Who is so *sure* that this happens on Sunday mornings all across America? Who gives religious leaders of one type the benefit of the doubt they won't give another?

Oh, you? Oh, my![/QUOTE]

That gives christians a free pass?

Lol I am also sure people like the guy building the mosque in NYC denounce violence when they preach.

That was not an all or nothing statement, it was a I am sure priests and pastors do. Can they do it more? Absolutely (see the above post)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Now you're backpedaling.[/QUOTE]

lol, now you are grasping on to the tiny part of a thought that wasn't fleshed out, and ignoring EVERYTHING else I just stated.

You know what mykevermin? you hate christians! because when you posted that link about pedophile priests, you didn't clarify that not all priests are pedophiles.

You bigot! Yeah I can stoop to your level too.

Edit: Also from what I understand, the argument is not to determine whether or not muslim leaders preach against extremists, but to determine whether or not people can urge them to. You are arguing that noone should urge them to, because they already do? I am arguing that it does not hurt for the world to put pressure on them to confront terrorism, just as the world is pressuring the catholic church to deal with the pedophile situation.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Aw. That probably deserved it's own thread. I saw that yesterday. Wow. You would NEVER hear an American President speak like that. Funny though, how Germany bans violent video and board games but doesn't mind saying multiculturalism doesn't work.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Europe isn't the liberal bastion that some people think it is.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Haha, I am a bigot? Care to explain how you came to this conclusion?
You wont.
I would fucking love to know how any of those views are fucking bigoted, my fucking god you are ridiculous.
How is muslims teaching extremists that their religion is not meant to be understood that way, a bad thing?

You guys are the real bigots.
Also there is pressure on the catholic church to do the same thing the world is asking muslim leaders to do. Why aren't you criticizing this?[/QUOTE]
Because the Catholic church has a figure head, no different than a corporation has a CEO. When the company does something stupid the CEO has to explain and apologize for it. There is no Muslim figurehead, they aren't lead by any single person or organization. When Pat Robertson said that 9/11 was our fault, I wasn't on here complaining that every Christian leader in the world wasn't condemning it. That's because Pat Robertson's stupid ass doesn't represent every Christian in the world, and as much as I don't like any religion, I do understand that fact.
 
Thrust wrote:
Speak up. Say something. Denounce it. How about have more Imams in the world denounce jihadism it in their mosques than soft-support it? That would be nice, at least.

-Why the f*** should they. Like I posted earlier, which other groups do we expect to continously apologize for a fringe group within their party? I don't meet Catholics and want them to immediately state they hate pedophilia. I don't meet a Jew and think, where the hell are you on speaking out against Israeli war crimes? You apply that standard (apparently) to Muslims only. Why?

As I mentioned earlier, and Clak did now too, there is not central body of Islam, so there isn't a Papal figure who is the "voice of Islam".

Then to make matters worse, you start throwing around jihad as a buzzword? :| I thought most people who have read a book or watched 15 minutes of news over the last 10 years grasped that Jihad as an act of war is a subset of the term Jihad.

It's really spooky how opinionated some folks can be, without any knowledge of the subject. THAT is my biggest problem with many of the mosque protestors. They have these strong opinions that oftentimes are in direct opposition to facts. This has turned into a Stephen Colbert wet dream.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Two short paragraphs that I hope you actually read. You are trying so hard to attack me, and yet you come up with your own version of what I said, with a few additions.

1. It is retarded to say that islamic extremism is completely separate from the true muslim believers. It is not black and white, column a, column b, as you so easily suggest. Daily, muslim believers are persauded NOT to take the extremist path, or to FOLLOW through with the extremist path. The world is simply asking muslim leaders to urge muslims to not take the path of extremism. If that makes a bigot out of people, then so be it.

2. I did not say to let catholics off the hook, I said that people ask catholic leaders to do the same thing other people ask muslim leaders to do. Where is your outrage then for catholics?

I agree that if catholic leaders have any knowledge of wrongdoing they should put it forward, and also teach their believers that that is not a path they should follow. They should be outspoken about such things, and not go on like they do not exist.

On one hand you are flipping out about people asking muslim leaders to do something, and on the other hand you were incorrectly flipping out that I thought catholic leaders should be let off the hook. So which is it? All,
nothing, or one of each?[/QUOTE]Leaders of the Muslim community have spoken out against radicalism, I don't know how much more you want. An hour long special on prime time television? I don't think they have any problem with speaking out against it, but you have to make it clear that they had nothing to do with it. They can speak about it, but to ask them to basically apologize for it is ridiculous. they aren't part of the organization which planned and carried out the attacks. On the other hand, with your Catholic example, those priests were part of the Catholic church and as such the Pope is their leader. Asking him to speak out against child molestation and apologize for it is perfectly fine, he's the head of the organization. The people wanting to build this place in NY are not part of Al-Qaeda, which was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
 
[quote name='Clak']Leaders of the Muslim community have spoken out against radicalism, I don't know how much more you want. An hour long special on prime time television? I don't think they have any problem with speaking out against it, but you have to make it clear that they had nothing to do with it. They can speak about it, but to ask them to basically apologize for it is ridiculous. they aren't part of the organization which planned and carried out the attacks. On the other hand, with your Catholic example, those priests were part of the Catholic church and as such the Pope is their leader. Asking him to speak out against child molestation and apologize for it is perfectly fine, he's the head of the organization. The people wanting to build this place in NY are not part of Al-Qaeda, which was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.[/QUOTE]

This is why they are not comparable, which is what I said earlier.

The catholic church sheltering pedophiles is comparable to muslim leaders sheltering terrorists. (there may be no official leader, but there are certainly ranks or titles)
christians blowing up abortion clinics is comparable to muslims terrorist activities.

The christian leaders have no control over renegade christians blowing up abortion clinics, does this mean they should not preach against it, telling their followers that this is not the path to take?
 
[quote name='Knoell']This is why they are not comparable, which is what I said earlier.

The catholic church sheltering pedophiles is comparable to muslim leaders sheltering terrorists.
christians blowing up abortion clinics is comparable to muslims terrorist activities.

The christian leaders have no control over renegade christians blowing up abortion clinics, does this mean they should not preach against it, telling their followers that this is not the path to take?[/QUOTE]
They can do whatever they want, it's their choice. But in the case of Catholics, they're part of an organization. So if a Catholic blows up an abortion clinic, then I think it's absolutely right to ask the Pope to say something about it at least. They'd be comparable if there was a worldwide Muslim organization sheltering these people, but there isn't, there is no figurehead to complain to. Groups like Al-Qaeda act independently.
 
Knoell wrote: Two short paragraphs that I hope you actually read. You are trying so hard to attack me, and yet you come up with your own version of what I said, with a few additions.

1. It is retarded to say that islamic extremism is completely separate from the true muslim believers. It is not black and white, column a, column b, as you so easily suggest. Daily, muslim believers are persauded NOT to take the extremist path, or to FOLLOW through with the extremist path. The world is simply asking muslim leaders to urge muslims to not take the path of extremism. If that makes a bigot out of people, then so be it.
Click to expand...

--No we aren't f***wit, and it is black and white. You're a sick, twisted terrorist, or you aren't. I haven't gotten up thinking, I should get my five prayers in today and kill an infidel...no, nevermind, I'll just do the five prayers today and maim one. I've never sat in my mosque and heard someone get up on the pulpit and say, "hey guys, today from 10-2 we're having extremist appreciation day, then from 2:30-4 we plan on having anti-extremist training". Nobody feels compelled to. We can all read religious sources and texts. If you're sick in the head and want to use something you read to inspire violence, you can do that with a Dr. Seuss book.

This constant attempt to sell your opinion as fact, and as things that really go on is dazzling. I challenge you. Go to a local mosque for a Friday sermon and report back (unless it inspires you to strap dynamite to your chest and bomb the Jews).

To use your same batsh** crazy reasoning, you said there are hundreds of mosques in the US, so "mosques in the US"="America loves muslims". If they're dangerous, inspire terrorists, or the mosques are allowing or teaching extremism, list how many terorist attacks have taken place in the US since 9/11.

2. I did not say to let catholics off the hook, I said that people ask catholic leaders to do the same thing other people ask muslim leaders to do. Where is your outrage then for catholics?
Click to expand...

--I've never expected random Catholics off the street, hell, even church leaders in my small, local community, to speak out on molestation. I've never expected Jewish friends to apologize to me for Israeli crimes.

On one hand you are flipping out about people asking muslim leaders to do something, and on the other hand you were incorrectly flipping out that I thought catholic leaders should be let off the hook. So which is it? All,
nothing, or one of each?
Click to expand...

--So which is it? It's clearly not the path of expecting everyone in a group of millions to denounce the actions of a miniscule minority. As a principle, I think that's what a vast majority of the world believes. But once that group is Muslims, all of the sudden that rational principle needs an addendum apparently. That rings of bigotry to me.
 
[quote name='Knoell']This is why they are not comparable, which is what I said earlier.

The catholic church sheltering pedophiles is comparable to muslim leaders sheltering terrorists. (there may be no official leader, but there are certainly ranks or titles)

[/QUOTE]

Dude, once again, dazzlingly stupid. I can speak from the Sunni perspective because that's the only one I feel qualified to address. There is no rank. The person who leads the prayer is the person who knows the most Qur'an. They aren't worth more than someone else, they just get to lead since part of the prayer consists of reciting the Qur'an. There are two titles that I've ever heard. Imam (which is now another buzzword)-it's essentially a pastor, and some mosques don't even have one, and there is Emir. The Emir tends to be the one that handles day to day operations. The fact that there are two titles, in no way shape or form implies that there is a structured hierarchy or organizational leadership for a mosque and it's followers. Again, trying to pass off incorrect opinions as facts is shady.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Thrust wrote:
Speak up. Say something. Denounce it. How about have more Imams in the world denounce jihadism it in their mosques than soft-support it? That would be nice, at least.

-Why the f*** should they. Like I posted earlier, which other groups do we expect to continously apologize for a fringe group within their party? I don't meet Catholics and want them to immediately state they hate pedophilia. I don't meet a Jew and think, where the hell are you on speaking out against Israeli war crimes? You apply that standard (apparently) to Muslims only. Why?

As I mentioned earlier, and Clak did now too, there is not central body of Islam, so there isn't a Papal figure who is the "voice of Islam". [/quote]

What are Imam's? How many Imam's actively talk TO THEIR OWN PEOPLE about how wrong "holy violence against infidels" is?

It does happen, mind you. It doesn't happen very often. Which is why the FBI loves to have under-covers hanging out in Mosques.

Then to make matters worse, you start throwing around jihad as a buzzword? :| I thought most people who have read a book or watched 15 minutes of news over the last 10 years grasped that Jihad as an act of war is a subset of the term Jihad.
Click to expand...
I didn't make Jihad a buzzword. Nearly every video of Islamic Terrorists taking responsibility for murderous acts made it a buzzword. And the majority of Imam's love it too.



Oh, and I'm not a mosque protester. I could care less where a mosque is built. I do think it's foolish to continue building this mosque in question, though, as they will just be asking for negative publicity and ongoing (eternal?) persecution about it.

It's also a bad idea to set up a table selling communist flags in front of the whitehouse, but I'd sure let someone try.

No sweat off my back if they do it, other than I have to see it in the evening cable news much longer as I eat my chips and salsa.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Dude, once again, dazzlingly stupid. I can speak from the Sunni perspective because that's the only one I feel qualified to address. There is no rank. The person who leads the prayer is the person who knows the most Qur'an. They aren't worth more than someone else, they just get to lead since part of the prayer consists of reciting the Qur'an. There are two titles that I've ever heard. Imam (which is now another buzzword)-it's essentially a pastor, and some mosques don't even have one, and there is Emir. The Emir tends to be the one that handles day to day operations. The fact that there are two titles, in no way shape or form implies that there is a structured hierarchy or organizational leadership for a mosque and it's followers. Again, trying to pass off incorrect opinions as facts is shady.[/QUOTE]


You are the idiot, you know as well as I do there are prominent muslim leaders. Quit playing stupid.
 
[quote name='berzirk']--No we aren't f***wit, and it is black and white. You're a sick, twisted terrorist, or you aren't. I haven't gotten up thinking, I should get my five prayers in today and kill an infidel...no, nevermind, I'll just do the five prayers today and maim one. I've never sat in my mosque and heard someone get up on the pulpit and say, "hey guys, today from 10-2 we're having extremist appreciation day, then from 2:30-4 we plan on having anti-extremist training". Nobody feels compelled to. We can all read religious sources and texts. If you're sick in the head and want to use something you read to inspire violence, you can do that with a Dr. Seuss book.

This constant attempt to sell your opinion as fact, and as things that really go on is dazzling. I challenge you. Go to a local mosque for a Friday sermon and report back (unless it inspires you to strap dynamite to your chest and bomb the Jews).

[/QUOTE]

Are you kidding me? Are you trying to tell me radical muslims sit in one corner and peaceful muslims sit in another, and they stay separate? Again stop playing fucking dumb.

Why don't you let our troops know this, they would love to know how easy it is to pick out extremists from peaceful muslims. fucking ignorant.

There is a consistant propaganda effort by groups like alqueda to indoctrinate recruits into their organization, the world simply wants peaceful muslims to compete for those recruits attention. (which doesnt mean that they arent already competing for their attention)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']They can do whatever they want, it's their choice. But in the case of Catholics, they're part of an organization. So if a Catholic blows up an abortion clinic, then I think it's absolutely right to ask the Pope to say something about it at least. They'd be comparable if there was a worldwide Muslim organization sheltering these people, but there isn't, there is no figurehead to complain to. Groups like Al-Qaeda act independently.[/QUOTE]

The pope is not the head of ALL christian churches. Im sure there is a mis led church in the US that is sheltering an abortion clinic bomber, just as I am sure there are misled mosques across the world that are sheltering extremists.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You are the idiot, you know as well as I do there are prominent muslim leaders. Quit playing stupid.[/QUOTE]

Name one. This Imam Rauf guy means nothing to me, and none of us knew him before this mosque thing. I don't even know what sect he considers himself, nor do I care. You horse's ass. You're trying to lecture a muslim on what happens inside mosques and what Islam teaches?

I won't call you a bigot, I will call you a damn moron.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Are you kidding me? Are you trying to tell me radical muslims sit in one corner and peaceful muslims sit in another, and they stay separate? Again stop playing fucking dumb.

Why don't you let our troops know this, they would love to know how easy it is to pick out extremists from peaceful muslims. fucking ignorant.

There is a consistant propaganda effort by groups like alqueda to indoctrinate recruits into their organization, the world simply wants peaceful muslims to compete for those recruits attention. (which doesnt mean that they arent already competing for their attention)[/QUOTE]

Oh wait, I forgot, you know mosques inside and out. I was being sarcastic about "extremists and mainstreamers" separating. The mainstream crowds would so greatly outnumber the whackjobs, I doubt the extremists would even go to a mosque in the US on a frequent basis. It's not my fault that you don't know sh** about the topic, it's your fault. It's not my job to correct you everytime you're wrong, there aren't enough hours in the day. Be a man, go to a mosque, see what goes on there. You don't have to pray 5 times a day and call yourself a muslim to see what happens in one. You won't though, because you might find out that your opinions and views are not only irrelevant, but just plain f****g dumb.

This is what I get for responding to one of your posts. I knew better. Chalk that up to a stupid decision on my part. I'll let you get back to finger painting with feces, with your pants on your head. Nitey nite.
 
[quote name='Knoell']The pope is not the head of ALL christian churches. Im sure there is a mis led church in the US that is sheltering an abortion clinic bomber, just as I am sure there are misled mosques across the world that are sheltering extremists.[/QUOTE]
....that's why I said Catholic.
 
Quote:
Let's say a church is about to be built near Al Snyder's house. They have the legal right to do it, but it is insensitive and douchy to do it, because it will remind him of the Fred Phelps protestors. It will be a sand kick in the stab in the eye to Al Snyder. They should consider moving it further away in consideration of Al Snyder's feelings. Anyone agree with the above?
Click to expand...

Reposted because some people didn't respond.
 
It would be their decision to move just like it's the decision of these folks where to build the center. But assuming that church isn't owned by Phelps and they aren't using it to harass Snyder, I see no problem with it. Not every Christian is a Fred Phelps following asshole.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Oh so because I didn't answer fast enough I must have something to hide. Because I didn't straight up say 'not all mosque opposers are bigots' I must believe that all mosque opponents are bigots. /badlogic

explain why you believe this is true, in GREAT detail, please.[/QUOTE]

It wasn't answering fast enough, it was you ignoring the question and only answering after being asked a second time. You made two posts after being asked the first time, then he asked you a 2nd time since you weren't going to answer it. This must be flawed logic.

There's no need to explain in GREAT detail. And I'm not going to continue to write up lengthy explanations for you time and time again only to have you ignore them and have you demand me to explain one part of my posts in GREAT detail. You reply to my detailed points with a single sentence of your own demanding me to explain things you cannot understand to begin with. There is no discussion happening with you because you don't want to discuss things. You want to antagonize me and make me waste time making lengthy posts that you choose to not contemplate, grab one thing from, and demand more explanation that you won't try to understand.

I already explained it in a way that you should understand. You conditioned opposers in this thread to think your view was that any opposers must associate Islam with terrorism in the same way the wrong opposers do. If that is not true you should realize that families being conditioned to fear reminders of the attack are not associating Islam itself with terrorism. You pick or stay within your contradiction, if you did not hold that view then you cannot say the families hold the view you think they do. If you're aware people oppose things for different reasons you shouldn't talk to them and treat them in the same way you treat people opposing for a different reason. You shouldn't use the same arguments against them.

[quote name='Msut77']I'll ask J7 the same thing I asked of Knoell since they apparently co-chair the sensitivity board.

What is an acceptable amount of blocks for the center to be away from Ground Zero?[/QUOTE]

I already answered this, but here I looked it up for you.

[quote name='J7.']Well for distance I'd say as close as any mosque that was already there. I agree it is slippery slope territory for delaying building closer. I don't know that building it there right now is any better though. Maybe someone can come up with a better solution that addresses both sides.
[/QUOTE]
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7656006&postcount=781

[quote name='J7.']
If the mosque was there first there is no problem. It's the intentional building of a mosque closer to ground zero, not the idea of a mosque being there. Let it be built as close as any existing mosque, then after time for the families, let it be built anywhere near ground zero.[/QUOTE]
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7654083&postcount=775

Funny how you're trying to group me so closely with Knoell. People already give him a hard time, for whatever reasons justified or not, so you hope you can discredit me because I happen to oppose something he does. Knoell and i don't have the same views.

[quote name='IRHari']Anyone agree with the above?[/QUOTE]

We've already had this discussion... we discussed churches being built next to people who were wronged by separate members of that same religion and we discussed issues involving the WBC. Do you not recall those discussions?

Anyways 93% of people believe "the church was cruel and went beyond the bounds of free speech". If you remember I had said this type of speech should be allowed but not within a certain distance of funerals. So my position regarding that is even more fair than 93% of the public. I'm not saying they are not entitled to free speech, I am saying a person needs some breathing room.

Regarding the church, here is what I said last time. "The church should show it values his plight and offer to help him in some way, whether it be moving the site, helping him move far away, help him pay for therapy, etc? Would this or would ignoring him and doing what they want be more indicative of Catholicism and spreading peace?"

[quote name='51jack']What if the attack was caused by christian, and they wanted to build a church? would we be having this same argument? NO.[/QUOTE]

There was a discussion about this before. There is a double standard, but there shouldn't be. One should also consider if it what is happening here happened in an Islamic country with a church.
 
[quote name='J7.']There was a discussion about this before. There is a double standard, but there shouldn't be. One should also consider if it what is happening here happened in an Islamic country with a church.[/QUOTE]

Come on man. This is hardly USA's shining moment. But it's not like the vast majority of Islamic countries are even half as tolerant as America. At best they have morality police, and let's not get into the countries where they are stoning people. As in "bury the person in the ground and throw stones at their head until they are dead" stoning.
 
families being conditioned to fear reminders of the attack are not associating Islam itself with terrorism.
Click to expand...
You argue that in this case, the reminder is the mosque. The attack is terrorism. The mosque presumably represents Islam. So you think they are being 'conditioned' (whatever that means) to fear the mosque which reminds them of terrorism.

Roight.

I'm not saying they are not entitled to free speech, I am saying a person needs some breathing room.
Click to expand...
You think ^that isn't contradicted by what you write below?
If you remember I had said this type of speech should be allowed but not within a certain distance of funerals.
Click to expand...
To hold a consistent position there would be no 'but' in your quote above.

My view has consistently been, if they have the right to build it, the debate ends there. The right to build is the right to build, no matter what it is. If we allow any other building there without protest we should allow a mosque.
 
[quote name='camoor']Come on man. This is hardly USA's shining moment. But it's not like the vast majority of Islamic countries are even half as tolerant as America. At best they have morality police, and let's not get into the countries where they are stoning people. As in "bury the person in the ground and throw stones at their head until they are dead" stoning.[/QUOTE]
It's sad too, since many of those countries were so tolerant at one point in their histories. This is what conservatism is such a dangerous thing, people become conservative to protect what they have, it makes them afraid of everything that's different. Eventually nothing can be tolerated that doesn't fit into the way they think things should be. It's why many of the places in the world differ so much from the way they used to be.

Once countries get to a certain point they become afraid of losing everything and they become conservative and withdraw, which ultimately hurts them in the end. They become obsessed with conserving what they have rather than continuing to make progress.

It would be like making a lot of money on the stock market and becoming afraid of losing what you have so you withdraw from the market. You save what you have, but then that will never grow past that point either.
 
[quote name='camoor']Come on man. This is hardly USA's shining moment. But it's not like the vast majority of Islamic countries are even half as tolerant as America. At best they have morality police, and let's not get into the countries where they are stoning people. As in "bury the person in the ground and throw stones at their head until they are dead" stoning.[/QUOTE]

I said there is a double standard in our country. It's wrong. But it's not like it is in other countries. That's all. For all the crap people want to talk about Americans, there is much worse out there.

[quote name='IRHari']You argue that in this case, the reminder is the mosque. The attack is terrorism. The mosque presumably represents Islam. So you think they are being 'conditioned' (whatever that means) to fear the mosque which reminds them of terrorism.

Roight.

You think ^that isn't contradicted by what you write below?
To hold a consistent position there would be no 'but' in your quote above.

My view has consistently been, if they have the right to build it, the debate ends there. The right to build is the right to build, no matter what it is. If we allow any other building there without protest we should allow a mosque.[/QUOTE]

I was paraphrasing myself from my previous post since I need to explain everything to you multiple times. I had said [quote name='J7.']is not the same as families being conditioned by the terrorists to fear reminders of the attack. [/QUOTE]

The reminder is the terrorists and what made up their views. The problem here, I see now, is that you don't know what conditioning is. If you don't know what conditioning is you will have no idea what I'm saying and therefore you should not debate such points. The families were conditioned by the terrorists to fear them and anything that reminds the families of them. The terrorists want all Americans to feel unsafe. It's all part of their goal. If you want to understand this even a little bit, then read about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning

No freedom of speech would mean not being allowed to say something at all. If you restrict where people can say it, they still have the right to say it. You're basically saying freedom of speech doesn't exist already because censorship already exists and there are already laws in place against letting people use that type of speech within a certain distance of funerals.

I know that's your view but you also have pushed a particular view against people who oppose the mosque's location. I have not said the government should stop them from building there...
 
[quote name='Clak']....that's why I said Catholic.[/QUOTE]

that is why you said bombing abortion clinics. Not just catholics are against abortion.
 
Well for distance I'd say as close as any mosque that was already there. I agree it is slippery slope territory for delaying building closer. I don't know that building it there right now is any better though. Maybe someone can come up with a better solution that addresses both sides.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call admitting that you have nothing but a logical fallacy "answering" my question.

If you are going to come out and say that 4 blocks is ok but 2 blocks isn't then don't cry when you get compared to knoell.
 
[quote name='Knoell']that is why you said bombing abortion clinics. Not just catholics are against abortion.[/QUOTE]
Those are not Catholics, they are A- lapsed Catholics or B- religious posers (which really are the worst kind of posers).
 
[quote name='Knoell']that is why you said bombing abortion clinics. Not just catholics are against abortion.[/QUOTE]

I said that because it's the example you usedin your original post.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I wouldn't call admitting that you have nothing but a logical fallacy "answering" my question.

If you are going to come out and say that 4 blocks is ok but 2 blocks isn't then don't cry when you get compared to knoell.[/QUOTE]
Your question was answered by me before Knoell answered your question. And guess what, the answer was completely different than Knoell's, especially the reasoning for my answer... :roll:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7726180&postcount=916

This is crying? "Funny how you're trying to group me so closely with Knoell. People already give him a hard time, for whatever reasons justified or not, so you hope you can discredit me because I happen to oppose something he does. Knoell and i don't have the same views."

Logical fallacy, on your part.

I try to be civil. At least I've responded on the same level you did and not worse.
 
[quote name='J7.']Your question was answered by me before Knoell answered your question.[/quote]

Answered means something a bit more than just making a response.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
I'll ask J7 the same thing I asked of Knoell since they apparently co-chair the sensitivity board.

What is an acceptable amount of blocks for the center to be away from Ground Zero?
[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by J7.
Well for distance I'd say as close as any mosque that was already there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by J7.
Let it be built as close as any existing mosque, then after time for the families, let it be built anywhere near ground zero.

How is that not answering the question? Do I have to do more research for you to find the exact amount of blocks as the closest mosque? What am I your secretary?
 
[quote name='J7.'] Do I have to do more research for you to find the exact amount of blocks as the closest mosque?[/QUOTE]

I am fairly certain I already mentioned it, either way it would be the least you could do.

How is that not answering the question?
Click to expand...

Because it is arbitrary and you more or less admit how stupid it is.

As for how your responses can be different from "answers" as they are generally defined:

then after time for the families, let it be built anywhere near ground zero.
Click to expand...

How much time?

50 years? Until after the last relative draws breathe?

Do you just make this up as you go along?
 
So I am supposed to research my own quotes for you AND I am supposed to research your quotes for you?

So you claim 4 blocks. Looking back it looks like others said the closest other already existing mosque is 4 blocks. I never said the words 4 blocks. I said what I showed you, my quotes are there. Keep equating that if someone holds a similar view as someone else but for completely different reasons it actually means they hold the same motivation for their views and also the same views.

The distance is not arbitrary, especially if it is only temporary.

I already stated how much time and clarified that after I conceded on my own accord that 50 years or until the parents passed on was impractical for the sake of the builders. But since I already researched 2 of my own past quotes and 1 of your own since you couldn't even bother to repost the quote you already knew of, you can find my last position on that yourself.
 
[quote name='J7.']So I am supposed to research my own quotes for you AND I am supposed to research your quotes for you?[/quote]

If you want anyone to value your opinion you should be aware of at least a few facts of the matter.

The distance is not arbitrary, especially if it is only temporary.
Click to expand...

It being "temporary" or not doesn't mean anything, it is arbitrary which is to be expected from something totally irrational. You aren't even pretending to have an actual argument, you are "arguing" feelings and in this case even hypothetical feelings.

I already stated how much time and clarified that after I conceded on my own accord that 50 years or until the parents passed on was impractical for the sake of the builders.
Click to expand...

Once again it must be stated your level of magnanimity is startling.
 
I agree with Msut on this one, I don't believe anyone should tell them they CANT build it there. However anyone CAN tell them they would rather them not build it there.
 
Does anyone think they don't ahve the right to protest this or anything else they want? It's the reasons behind the protests we're interested in, and it's the reasons we're calling BS on.
 
[quote name='Clak']Does anyone think they don't ahve the right to protest this or anything else they want? It's the reasons behind the protests we're interested in, and it's the reasons we're calling BS on.[/QUOTE]

Ok point out the reasons and debate them to dust, I don't care, just don't change their reasoning to hate because you don't think their stated reasoning is true.

Any time any hateful protests at other mosques have arisen or the planned burning of the koran, more Americans have showed up to protest those protests. I simply do not want you all to condemn my country to intolerance/bigotry because of one emotional issue. If those other protests were similiar to this issue, I would say you have a point with intolerance, but those protests failed miserably. America is a strong beacon of religious tolerance.
 
Just because we don't all have star spangled eyes doesn't mean we think every in the U.S is some intolerant bigot, but we're going to call it as we see it too.

And it's our country too. We wouldn't point out things like intolerance and bigotry if we didn't give a damn about it.
 
[quote name='Msut77']If you want anyone to value your opinion you should be aware of at least a few facts of the matter.



It being "temporary" or not doesn't mean anything, it is arbitrary which is to be expected from something totally irrational. You aren't even pretending to have an actual argument, you are "arguing" feelings and in this case even hypothetical feelings.



Once again it must be stated your level of magnanimity is startling.[/QUOTE]

I researched my quotes for you. You won't give me the same respect even though you knew where to find your quote much more easily than what I had to do to find my much older quotes. If I provide you with a point I made in the past that you overlooked you need to do the same. Why should I value your opinion if you won't try to be aware of a few facts of the matter?

More and more appears to be arbitrary to you now. The distance, temporary vs permanent, ... If I were to say an even farther distance or that a mosque should never be allowed near GZ people would jump down my throat even more and then it wouldn't be so arbitrary anymore... Giving the families 10 more years to grieve is not arbitrary. The arbitrariness comes from strictly focusing on the builder's side, but from the families side it is not arbitrary. But it is not fair to the builders either, so the decision is left to them, not forced.

I made my argument clear a long time ago. The problem is you cannot fully understand my argument because you don't empathize enough with the families of the victims. Your opinion on the motivation/beliefs of those who oppose it is also based on hypothetical beliefs about them.

If you want to bring up very old stuff from this thread, let's bring up something less old, Name me an issue where there are not those who support/oppose for right/wrong reasons.

I don't know whether you're sincere about that or not. I can't comment on how magnanimous I am, I'm not the judge of that. If you're not sincere, then I don't know what to say. That would be a cruel to thing for you to say. Although, you do give me motivation to become magnanimous whether you're sincere about it or not.

If you mean it, I think if you extended more empathy to the families you wouldn't see me as so magnanimous because I am probably not as magnanimous as you may think.

[quote name='Knoell']I agree with Msut on this one, I don't believe anyone should tell them they CANT build it there. However anyone CAN tell them they would rather them not build it there.[/QUOTE]

From my 1st post http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7575567&postcount=554 I've always said the builders should make the decision and that we can only tell them how we feel. You acknowledged and agreed with this position i put across earlier when I originally put it across.
 
[quote name='J7.']I researched my quotes for you.[/quote]

When I said research I didn't mean anything you or I said.

You were not aware there is already a mosque four blocks from Ground Zero.

Giving the families 10 more years to grieve is not arbitrary.
Click to expand...

I assure you it is.
 
Giving the families 10 more years to grieve is not arbitrary.
Click to expand...

That's about as arbitrary as it gets. Why is 10 years, or 50 years magical? Is there research that shows that 20 years after an event, you don't care anymore? Not that I'm aware of. So why pick 10 or 20, or 50, or 250 years worth of grieving? It's utterly arbitrary.

define Arbitrary: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.

If you want to bring up very old stuff from this thread, let's bring up something less old, Name me an issue where there are not those who support/oppose for right/wrong reasons.
Click to expand...

Juan William's situation. People think it's an inappropriate, stupid thing to say. His employer (assuming they are in an at-will employment state) has every right to fire him, so people could support that decision based on facts. I'm personally opposed to his firing though, because I think it's a kneejerk reaction to a stupid statement, but not severe enough to lose a job over. Two sides, solid reasons for each belief.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']When I said research I didn't mean anything you or I said.

You were not aware there is already a mosque four blocks from Ground Zero.



I assure you it is.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you didn't but that wasn't clear. And I was referring to that stuff as research and you never stepped in to say that's not what I'm talking about back then.

It doesn't matter how close the other mosque is, I said allow this mosque to currently be close as any other mosque already there, whether that means it's next door to GZ or 10 blocks away. I did know the next closest mosque was not excessively far away.

I assure you it isn't. The arbitrariness comes from strictly focusing on the builder's side, but from the families side it is not arbitrary.

[quote name='berzirk']That's about as arbitrary as it gets. Why is 10 years, or 50 years magical? Is there research that shows that 20 years after an event, you don't care anymore? Not that I'm aware of. So why pick 10 or 20, or 50, or 250 years worth of grieving? It's utterly arbitrary.

define Arbitrary: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.



Juan William's situation. People think it's an inappropriate, stupid thing to say. His employer (assuming they are in an at-will employment state) has every right to fire him, so people could support that decision based on facts. I'm personally opposed to his firing though, because I think it's a kneejerk reaction to a stupid statement, but not severe enough to lose a job over. Two sides, solid reasons for each belief.[/QUOTE]
It takes a long time to grieve for some, especially when the grief is complicated. And grief can lead to depression and drug abuse.

ar·bi·trar·y Adjective /ˈärbiˌtrerē/
Synonyms:
adjective: high-handed
Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system

(of power or a ruling body) Unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority
arbitrary rule by King and bishops has been made impossible

high-hand·ed Adjective
Synonyms:
adjective: arbitrary, imperious, overbearing
Using power or authority without considering the feelings of others

So people can oppose the employer or Juan for the right reasons and wrong reasons and support the employer or Juan for the right reasons and wrong reasons. Name me an issue where there are not those who support/oppose for right/wrong reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top