Page 15 of 19 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 183

Thread: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

  1. #141
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I don't know if all that should actually be "legal". Societal or political intimidation should be watched because it can go too far. If someone wants to build a mosque and has purchased everything legally and passed inspection or whatever, then that's that. Sure you can try to do something about it, but as soon as you do you've infringed upon the rights of others and that action is justly punished by the use of government force. We shouldn't excuse or allow these intimidation techniques to infringe upon the exercise of our rights; as our rights are what is ultimately the most important. There's no right against being offended, in fact it's going to happen. Grow a pair, grow up, and get over it. But there are rights to religion and property, those need to be enforced.
    And there are social values that need to be enforced. Grow a pair, grow up, and get over it. The mosque in that location is inflammatory and a provocation to our sense of national pride. Sorry your spine doesn't congeal enough to lead you to take exception to the insult.

    And there's nothing illegal about using the court system to delay said insult.

  2. #142
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    So the people building the community center/mosque are douchebags because they don't consider the sensitivities of people who equate Islam with terrorism?

    To me, that's what it looks like here. Sure people have a right to protest, but I think they are "slaying dragons". Yes, the terrorists were all Muslim. That doesn't mean mean that all Muslims are terrorists.

    Pearl Harbor was attacked by a nation, not a fringe minority of a religion. The only way to be upset about this is to link this mosque to terrorism.
    it's a gut feeling. i can't apologize for that. and of course i don't think for one second that all muslims are terrorists.

  3. #143
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    You know I remember alot of Conservatives saying on this website "Don't make arguments based on Emotionality" but yet that's exactly whats happening with some of you.

    Even conservapedia claims that one point of "Liberal Style" Is:



    But I'm seeing a lot of conservatives doing that in here.

    If America begins to deny people their rights because of emotion, or innocent assocations or blood lines. Then you will become the very thing you were fighting against.
    While you are correct there is an emotional argument being made I would also say there are factual conscerns as well.

    The comments about 9.11 made by the imam who would run this Mosque and the lack of clarity on who is funding this project.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  4. #144
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    And there are social values that need to be enforced. Grow a pair, grow up, and get over it. The mosque in that location is inflammatory and a provocation to our sense of national pride. Sorry your spine doesn't congeal enough to lead you to take exception to the insult.

    And there's nothing illegal about using the court system to delay said insult.
    Except that you have no right against being insulted and society and its values have no rights. Only individuals possess rights. As such, it is nothing more than unjustified actions against the free exercise of rights. They could have picked a better spot, true; but they don't have to. And no one has the right to infringe on someone's right to religious belief/expression/practice or property if said person has not infringed upon the rights of others. It's time to grow up and quit acting like a bunch of spoiled babies whining and crying about everything. It's like to say that Chicago's gun ban was fine because there they didn't want guns. But of course it wasn't because the ban infringed upon the rights of others. And sure, they could and did tie things up in courts as much as possible, but those were not just actions since they innately moved against the rights of others whom had not acted out against anybody else's rights.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #145
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    So the people building the community center/mosque are douchebags because they don't consider the sensitivities of people who equate Islam with terrorism?
    No, people building a muslim community center/mosque in extremely close vicinity of a place that was destroyed by muslim extremists in an attack backed by a muslim extremist in which people come to visit are, in my opinion, tactless douchebags.

    As I've explained in another thread. Its not JUST people who equate Islam with Terrorism Its about emotional responses, many of which are natural.

    When I say "Fireman" I don't have a giant swelling of pride and admiration, I just think of the guys that put out fires. When I say "Fireman and WTC" I immediately have an uplifting feeling and have the notion of heroism in my head as those two triggers bring me back to the day of 9/11. If I saw a giant fire truck monument with a statue of a fireman walking out of rubble 2 blocks from Ground Zero those two triggers (Being near Ground Zero and seeing the fireman monument) would summon forth that similar emotion.

    Likewise when I say "Islam" or "Muslim" I don't suddenly have anger or hatred or think "TERRORISTS!". When I say "Islam and the WTC" then yes, I do have sudden feelings of anger and sadness as those two words act as triggers against each other to cause me to recall emotions from that specific day. If I see a giant building dedicated to Islam while heading or leaving hte WTC then again, those two triggers (being near ground Zero and seeing a big islamic center) would summon forth that similar emotion.

    While I agree the notion of thinking all muslims are terrorist is ridiculous, I find it also absolutely ridiculous to suggest that somehow its impossible or unreasonable to have negative emotions or negative views or negative thoughts when you combine both the notion of Islam with the time/place of Ground Zero. I find it COMPLETELY absurd that people are acting like its unreasonable to even ATTACH Islam to 9/11, as if it had nothing to do with it.

    To me, that's what it looks like here. Sure people have a right to protest, but I think they are "slaying dragons". Yes, the terrorists were all Muslim. That doesn't mean mean that all Muslims are terrorists.
    Show me the people in this thread saying all Muslims are Terrorists?

    All Japanese people didn't believe that Pearl Harbor needed to happen, I wouldn't want a Japanese Culture Center opening up right outside the Arizona 10 years after Pearl Harbor either.

    Pearl Harbor was attacked by a nation, not a fringe minority of a religion. The only way to be upset about this is to link this mosque to terrorism.
    They were attacked by a nation who was not ruled by a democratically elected head of state and whose people were from a culture of simply doing what their leaders told them. One could equate that to the rather extremely tacit response by the Muslim world in regards to terrorist attacks, such as disagreeing with the attacks on civilians but turning around and stating they support the goals and endeavors of the groups that conduct said attacks. Joe Random Japanese guy had no more hand or affect in regards to the attacking of Pearl Harbor then these people building the Mosque did, but it wouldn't make it any less douchey.

    As I've said, my stance is one of four things:

    1. Douchebags that know its going to piss people off and don't care, and who are throwing the "out reach" comments out as an abject lie and bull****ting. Mind you, no one says its illegal to be a douche bag.
    2. Complete idiots that realize this is going to piss people off, specifically those that are anywhere from relatively neutral to full out negative on Islam, but still build it while telling us that its to "Build bridges" and be "out reach". Meaning they're attempting to "Reach out" to people by doing something right off the bat that's going to piss them off and start them on a worse footing
    3. Absolute dullards who are more oblivious than Mr. Magoo and somehow had absolutely zero clue what so ever that this response would happen, and then IS happening, and are continuing on with the project thinking that no one is bothered or upset about it and it will work wonders in "out reach" and "building bridges".

    So, please, excuse me and let me restate my comment earlier. They're not douche bags. They may be douche bags, idiots, or dullards...which of those three, I'm sure. What I do know however without a doubt is they severely lack tact.

  6. #146
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    You know I remember alot of Conservatives saying on this website "Don't make arguments based on Emotionality" but yet that's exactly whats happening with some of you.

    Even conservapedia claims that one point of "Liberal Style" Is:



    But I'm seeing a lot of conservatives doing that in here.

    If America begins to deny people their rights because of emotion, or innocent assocations or blood lines. Then you will become the very thing you were fighting against.
    Did you seriously try to just quote a site that's as abysmally credible as Conservapedia and whose entries have been acknowledged to have had many of them edited or created in full by liberals attempting to do parody or insult?

    Also, in regards to the emotional argument thing in general. No where in conservative philosophy does it say that one must ignore the fact that emotions exist, they do.

    My argument for example is not "OMG Muslims being near ground zero make me angry and mad and they should go".

    My argument is that that location, regardless of peoples opinions about nationalism and other such stuff, is essentially a national landmark at this point much like the Arizona has been since Pearl Harbor. It is, forever from this point forward in America's history, going to be a place people go to remember the history that happened there that day and for those that lived and experienced it to grieve and remember the loss and the feelings that went over us that day. While it is in New York I feel that, much like the Arizona or the D-Day memorial here in Virginia or even happier things like the Washington Monument or Lincoln Monument, are things that the entire country in some way shape or form can lay claim to as it is of historical importance to all Americans and is intertwined with our society and culture now.

    As such, one must be mindful of that fact and the fact humans ARE emotional beings. They just are. Nothing in conservatism says you have to ignore that. There is no good reason, at all, for the mosque to HAVE to be there rather than somewhere a few blocks farther away. It can't be out reach, its location makes out reach harder. It can't be difficulty to travel to it, there's no many people who live in that area that would be simply walking to it anyways and they could easily move it within a metro stop or so away so it'd still be easy to get to. There's just no reasonable, good reason to have it there when compared to the potential emotional whirlwind it can potentially cause in a large amount of people visiting this site.

    This is an argument with a reason (Wanting to allow people to be able to visit what is essentially a national "monument" of sorts in peace without obvious and large external stimuli that will invoke unwanted additional emotions or feelings) that takes into account that people do have feelings. I am also not suggesting any laws be made against it or any rights be revoked from people. If I was confronted with some kind of factual evidence to counter all I have (which is currently anecdotal) that somehow a majority of people do not have negative emotions occur when the triggers of "Islam" and "9/11" are placed together I'd happily rescind my stance unless I had further hard evidence.

    This is different than what conservatives talk about when saying "Debating emotions rather than issues". A situation like that would be stating "We need to ban violent video games because its bad for children!" and continuing to do so even after studies showing that violent video games does not have a significant effect on making kids violent. In that particular instance ONLY the appeal to emotion "Its bad for Children" is at play in attempting to make a LAW that would restrict civil liberties (Free speech) despite the lack of hard evidence to support it.
    Last edited by Zyphlin; 07-20-10 at 06:19 PM.

  7. #147
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Well if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...chances are, it's a duck. If you don't want to be labeled a fascist don't support or put forward fascist notions such as societal or political intimidation to force your way over the free exercise of rights when legally there is nothing legitimate or just you can do about it. But if you're done with these little outbursts now, perhaps we can move forward.
    Okay, getting tired of this.

    You keep throwing it out, but you've not defined it, so lets have it.

    Give us what you think "Political and societal intimidation" or "force" is, and provide us some examples.

    Because there's obviously a disconnect in what you're saying and suggesting with those words and what others are saying.

  8. #148
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,191

    Re: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    it's a gut feeling. i can't apologize for that. and of course i don't think for one second that all muslims are terrorists.
    That "gut feeling" is emotion, not reason. It happens. We are emotional beings.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  9. #149
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

    It's easy. You don't want certain folk in some place. Certain folk buy a piece of land and do something that is well within their rights to do. You either make it completely hostile so that they cannot practice their rights, or you use backdoor methods to prevent their exercise of their rights. There's always going to be some amount of bitching or protest, fine. But there's nothing one can legitimately do until the original person does something which infringes upon the rights of others. Thus saying that society has values and if someone doesn't hold those values it's fine to do whatever it takes to ensure said person doesn't do anything against those values even if what that person wanted to do was completely within their rights to do.

    A good example of such is the initial use of the marriage license, which was created to prevent interracial marriage. Society had "values", these other folk wanted to marry but society didn't want them to marry. So they created instead, and enforced through government force, a system which would actively prevent the act; in this case interracial marriage. It was an unjust act and one of tyranny against the individual as it, without warrant or charge or proof acted against the free exercise of someone's rights.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #150
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's easy. You don't want certain folk in some place. Certain folk buy a piece of land and do something that is well within their rights to do. You either make it completely hostile so that they cannot practice their rights, or you use backdoor methods to prevent their exercise of their rights. There's always going to be some amount of bitching or protest, fine. But there's nothing one can legitimately do until the original person does something which infringes upon the rights of others. Thus saying that society has values and if someone doesn't hold those values it's fine to do whatever it takes to ensure said person doesn't do anything against those values even if what that person wanted to do was completely within their rights to do.

    A good example of such is the initial use of the marriage license, which was created to prevent interracial marriage. Society had "values", these other folk wanted to marry but society didn't want them to marry. So they created instead, and enforced through government force, a system which would actively prevent the act; in this case interracial marriage. It was an unjust act and one of tyranny against the individual as it, without warrant or charge or proof acted against the free exercise of someone's rights.
    Are you honestly pretending this is equivalent to run of the mill prejudice? Did you miss 9.11 or the war we are in and the obvious scars it created?
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

Page 15 of 19 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •